90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks

With Jane Clayson in for Tom Ashbrook

Nearly ten years on, 9/11 conspiracy theories–about the Twin Towers– just won’t go away. We’ll look at the facts, and the conspiracy theorists.

An aerial view of the World Trade Center is shown this undated photo. (AP)

An aerial view of the World Trade Center is shown this undated photo. (AP)

The September 11th attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania — and shook our country to its core. And even now, ten years later, thousands of Americans still say they don’t believe the accepted narrative of what happened on that day.

They call themselves “truthers” or “skeptics.” To many other Americans, they are simply conspiracy theorists –- confused, deluded, or worse. But how have these ideas stuck around for so long in the face of all the facts? And what do they say about our country?

This hour On Point: the persistence of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

-Jane Clayson

Guests

James Meigs, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics magazine. Wrote the forward and afterward for Popular Mechanics’ book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.

Jonathan Kay, author of Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground.

Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.  Board director at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

From The Reading List

The New York Times ““Among the Truthers” is a remarkable book, not least because its author, Jonathan Kay, appears to have emerged with his sanity intact after immersing himself for several years in the wilder precincts of conspiracy theories about everything from President Obama’s birthplace to 9/11 to vaccines. Like a modern-day Gulliver, he has traveled widely and conducted numerous interviews to map what seems like every nook and cranny of the conspiracist universe. Yet Kay, an editor and columnist at the conservative Canadian newspaper The National Post, has not written a Swiftian satire on the foibles of humanity. Rather, he sounds alarms about what he depicts as a mounting paranoia inspired by an invisible and nefarious oligarchy.”

The Journal of 9-11 Studies “One of the most intriguing aspects of NIST’s diversionary posture has been their total lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators (Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.”

More

9-11 Conspiracy Theory — Debunking the Myths

Loose Change Final Cut

http://youtu.be/28QukKjwLtI

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Pingback: STJ911 Blog » Blog Archive » “The only 9/11 skeptic on a 2-hour show about 9/11 skeptics”

  • Ellen Dibble

    7 hours ago – “The world needs to be aware that there are some very dark and sinister forces at play,” he told COTO Report (review here). ..See COTO2 at wordpress dot com — If you search COTO report (standing for C– On The Opposite, I believe), you find first:  David Icke is one of the most visible outspoken and controversial speakers and writers about the Illuminati and the New World Order control agenda, will need practically no introduction to most readers of this blog.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPSeH_Iy3As – that last is a YouTube link to a 3-hour interview for the British edition of COTO.  I have been receiving many daily e-mails from this group (along with an alternative health frequent e-mailing of similar On The Opposite tilt), and I find it important, a kind of tonic to the mainstream dialogue that sometimes seems stuck between gears, in a painful kind of “neutral.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Edward-Kendrick/1012462908 John Edward Kendrick

    In science, a ‘hypothesis that won’t go away’ becomes a theory–because it has validity.  

    In politics, a “theory that won’t go away” is an opposing point of view that undermines control of the dominant group.

    Will the show be primarily science?  One can imagine the flat earthers stomping their feet and controlling the writings of the times (James Meigs) and the scientists advocating the earth is round being marginalized.

    Same players–different era.

    Kill the scientists and the theory can go away.  Otherwise, expect the 9/11 truth movement efforts will never cease.

    • media_critic

      You said “In science, a ‘hypothesis that won’t go away’ becomes a theory–because it has validity.”

      I don’t know where you came up with this, but it’s totally wrong. Bizarre, in fact.
       

      • at

        I am just guessing but I would say he probably meant that the theory can’t be dismissed because it keeps predicting the results of experiments designed to test it. So it hangs around, instead of being disproved and thus discarded.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

        Hey Media_critic,  I’ve read your other posts and I truly believe you are far from being a critic of the Media.  Quite the opposite.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WMPKB2SBRQNIL44FIQWPERPBLI Hal Renfield

    http://torontohearings.org/panelists/

    Check out the resumes of these crazy whackadoodle conspiracy nuts !
    Only nutty kooky crazy whacky nutty nutbars question the official account ! So, obviously these individuals are crackpot tinfoil-hat nutcases !
    It can’t happen heeeeeeeeeeere…

    • Hidan

      Hey give these guys a shot, should be fair after listening to crazy whackadoodle conspiracy nut Stephen Moore and how the Reagan Times were the most prosperous or the nutty kooky crazy whacky nutty nutbars who believe cutting taxes will increase revenues or Saddam had WMD or Saddam was linked to AlQ.

      Don’t worry, enough callers will be saying the same.

    • Bluebonnet

      Gosh if you think of even more negative adjectives, ya think all the verifiable evidence the scientists, not getting any money from the government, you think all of that huge body of evidence will go away? Confirmation of the government version being BS just keeps growing.

  • Hidan

    Wow no way,

    I guess the truthers deserve it since on-point had multiple shows on the birthers, might as well give the truthers  a shot.

    • Bluebonnet

      Common tactic, used by propagandists, try to lump factual, verifiable facts into those that have no credence. NOT working.

  • Hidan

    Because of all those Crazy Islamic Jihadies we went to war with iraq.

    We all know those radical came from Saudi Arabia who practice wahhabism so therefore attack Iraq that does not is great reasoning.

  • Ellen Dibble

    I suppose Karl Rove personally financed that movie about the double, the guy who was forced to go around as Uday Hussein.  It becomes obvious that the media can put-over on us pretty much anything, and we become numb.  We listen to the ones who seem to be in our camp, so to speak, with our most selfish interests at heart — because how can we take a broader view when not even personal survival interests are not exactly clear — are not clear at all.  That’s the danger nowadays, that we go with our gut because not even science can clarify more than a tiny angle of this or that. 
       The moderators will have their work cut out for them.  After I posted the first post on this subject, there was very shortly a second post, which was deleted before I could read it.  I’m wondering what useful directions this discussion could take.  It depends.  Maybe they’ll take out all references to … I’m not going to tell, but I have my suspicions.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QNSJMKHOE5KIKREGRX3L6HFMZE Alexander Thompson

    Regarding the plane which went down in Pa. I’m sorry it went down. Yes I think there’s a good chance it was taken down by the USAF, being that it was the plane believed to be targeting the White House. Weighing the impact THAT tragedy would have had on the American people at the time I can say with hindsight that what resulted was the lesser of two possible evils. I am of course sorry any of that ever happened.
    Other tripe and nonsense about the Twin Towers being rigged to blow by agents of the Bush administration I discard off handedly as paranoia: The Bush administration wasn’t that well organized in the best moments, and we watched the whole event LIVE.
    To these I say go re-read the Da Vinci Code and leave us alone.

    • Anonymous

      Instead of blindly “discarding off handedly as paranoia” why not actually argue your views with actual facts? For example; explain why the Twin Towers fell at near freefall acceleration? Explain what caused molten metal to be found under all three collapsed buildings (WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7)? What caused all of the squibs of debris being laterally ejected out of the three buildings as they fell? Explain why scientists who tested various samples of dust from 9/11 GroundZero found the “unignited nanothermite and chemical signatures of explosives”? Explain why over 200 WTC eyewitnesses heard or saw signs of explosions going off? Explain why WTC building seven fell AT FREEFALL SPEED for over 2.25 seconds and how it totally collapsed even though it wasn’t even struck by an aircraft?

      When you can logically explain those question then we’ll listen to your opinion. But not until then.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

      Hey Alex,  certainly the credit goes to other more competent and ruthless groups associated with the Bush administration..

  • Anonymous

    In the above video James Meigs (Popular Mechanics states that “all engineers are unanimous that the World Trade Towers fell due to the plane impacts and enduing fires”. Mr. Meigs accuses all other who disagree with him that they have their facts wrong. Apparently Mr. Meigs hasn’t heard of Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, Patriots Question 9/11, Scholars For 9/11 Truth and Justice, Pilots For 9/11 Truth, Firefighters For 9/11 Truth, Scientists For 9/11 Truth or Military Officers For 9/11 Truth.

    For anyone who doubts that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 did not come down because of controlled demolition should watch a video assembled by Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth called “9/11:Blueprint For Truth (2008 Edition)”. And Mr. Meigs definitely should watch a video entitled ” “911 Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out”. This video includes interview after interview of structural engineers, chemical engineers, physicists and many other scientific professionals who do not believe that the WTC buildings came down due to jet impact and fires.

    Just Google a video of WTC 7 building falling and you will have many, many questions.

    • Rage_Against_Machine

      mydogsays, indeed… and, perhaps Jim Meigs of Popular Mechanics would like to address how David Ray Griffin completely ripped Popular Mechanics views (and that of Jim Meigs himself) completely apart.
      Debunking 9/11 Debunking – Let’s Get Empirical – Pt.1 of 9 —
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbY5_qtz83M
      ~~~ Rage_Against_Machine
      Paltalk room admin “The 911 Truth Movement”

  • Anonymous

    This should be an interesting show, I’m sure the aluminum hat brigade will be out in force.

    On the subject of conspiracy theories I suggest a show on the New Apostolic Reformation and their connection with Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. These folks are really scary.

    In the mean time some good reading on the subject.

    http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god

    • nj

      You heard Fresh Air today, too, eh?

      Man, these people are beyond crazy.

  • nj

    Forget “conspiracy theories” for a moment.

    How about some rational answers to some reasonable questions?

    For example…

    1) Why did Bush, Rice, Fleischer, et. al. repeatedly lie about the possibility of the use of planes as missiles (essentially: “We couldn’t have possibly even imagined such a thing) when there was extensive experience and warning to the contrary?

    http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html

    2) If Flight 93 crashed as according to the official story (with the plane intact until it struck the ground) how did debris end up eight miles away from the crash site?

    http://www.flight93crash.com/

    3) Why did Bush initially oppose any sort of investigation, then appoint someone as inappropriate as Kissinger to chair the commission, then appoint a commission with a raft of conflicts of interest, then resist fully funding it, then give the commission too little time to do a full investigation, then deny the commission essential information, then try to interfere with the commission, then refuse to allow key administration personnel to testify at commission hearings, then demand that Bush and Cheney testify together, then withhold documents?

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b44775.html

    4) How did WTC 7 fall essentially straight down without having been directly struck by anything at all?

    Let’s start with those.

  • Ellen Dibble

    Isn’t gravity an accelerating force?  No, it is force that is an accelerating thing.  Velocity is constant from the moment “it” begins, so a building floats, right?  Does the pull of gravity create freefall or not?  
    Does a building fall straight down if nothing strikes it?  Would it not more likely fall as if pushed by a tree? at an angle?  :>O
    I hope Jane Clayson starts by laying out Newton’s Laws because I used to know them but after reading a few posts, I’m back in the Dark Ages and believing I have to drop some apples to see what happens.

  • Brett

    Explosions in #7: there were propane tanks throughout the building (a generator back-up system); they exploded. 

    The building was structurally weird in its design; the bottom four floors were one big atrium minimally supported by trusses. It couldn’t take the stress it was under.  

    Steel doesn’t need to melt to weaken structurally; the temps from the fires, etc., were enough to weaken the steel structurally. 

    The video of #7 falling, cited as irrefutable evidence of “controlled demolition” by the Truthers, starts from the time the building begins to fall, it doesn’t show the movement of the building before it started falling, which changes the timeline (and negates the “controlled demolition” theory). 

    …On and on…I lived in a high rise on 9-11 about 1,000 yards from the Pentagon. My neighbor saw the plane come right by her window along the I-395 corridor; she saw the passengers’ looks of terror from the plane’s windows. I’m glad I was at work (my office was next door to the Arlington County Fire Department, who were the first responders at the Pentagon), if I had been at home, I would have probably had similar observations as my neighbor, and the event has been enough of a traumatic memory. …Not sure what is going on with the Truthers, but 9-11 was such a terrible tragedy to get one’s mind around–and we live in an age where we rightly are cynical about government and business–that developing a conspiracy about what transpired helps some people make sense of something that seems senseless. (And I think I’m being as kind as I can  be, here!)  How many thousands of people, politicians, fire fighters, building owners, police officers, etc., would have had to have been “in” on the conspiracy for it to have been executed properly???? Seems like, especially sense we live in an age where people want celebrity and to cash in on their involvement with a particular event, that someone would have come forward to claim actual knowledge of a conspiracy; instead we have what amounts to support groups for theorists’ “theories.” Many of these folks have attained some level of celebrity based purely on wanting to continue speculation, irrespective of facts or lack of real evidence to support their “theories,” and so on…   

    • http://profiles.google.com/budt0ker420247 Nathan Doe

      “How many thousands of people, politicians, fire fighters, building
      owners, police officers, etc., would have had to have been “in” on the
      conspiracy for it to have been executed properly????”

      Nice straw-man. Epic fail. You lose.

      • Brett

        A conspiracy is planned by more than one person, that’s the definition of a conspiracy…so, how many? Ten? One Hundred? And how is asking that question a straw man? I guess you feel you’ve articulated a reasonable refutation in your curt response?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

        Hey Nathan,  You obviously  know little of conspiracies.  Only a handful of people are required to stage coup or a 9/11..  

        Building owner… yes…”Pull it” Silverstein was in on it and profited beyond belief.    Police, Firemen, poliiticians, etc. ??????  They need only to react as expected.  

    • Rage_Against_Machine

      @184013e3128f4cb0fd552b81b390aa89:disqus Did you actually say this? “Steel doesn’t need to melt to weaken structurally; the temps from the
      fires, etc., were enough to weaken the steel structurally.”…. excuse me, but you’re not addressing the fact that “molten steel” was found below all three collapsed buildings, and that requires temperatures of 2750 degrees F….. so, you tell everyone here, what “normal organic office fire” can cause those temperatures, while nanothermite certainly could. And, please don’t tell me that “there was no molten steel”, you’ll have to ask the career NWFD first responders why they saw it, and why NIST ignores them completely.
      ~~~Rage_Against_Machine
      Paltalk room admin “The 911 Truth Movement”

      • Rage_Against_Macine

        typo… NYFD, not NWFD… sorry

    • Bluebonnet

      You obviously have not looked honestly at both sides, or are a tool.

    • Bluebonnet

      You obviously have not looked honestly at both sides, or are a tool.

  • Brett

    I am usually forgiving toward fill-in hosts (hosting a radio show is a tough task), but after enduring Clayson’s shows a couple of weeks ago, I am wishing Tom were here for this topic…AND, after seeing periodic comments over time on this forum from Truthers beseeching On Point to do a show on this, I can guess that they won’t be satisfied (actually, they’ll never be satisfied with any conclusion that doesn’t support their beliefs). 

    • Peetie

      You are right. Tom should be hosting this show, and it would not surprise me if he bowed out deliberately because to ask insightful questions would mark him as a “truther sympathizer.”

  • http://bookofzo.blogspot.com Joshua Hendrickson

    This should be interesting. I am no “truther” but I am sympathetic to those who think the whole 9/11 incident smells fishy. Why did both towers (and WTC 7) collapse as if by controlled demolition? Why to this day have I never seen evidence of plane wreckage at the Pentagon? Why were Saudi royals allowed to fly out of the US when all other flights were still grounded? Why was the Patriot Act, so huge and complex, introduced with unseemly swiftness? There are more than enough questions left unanswered to make the subject one worthy of serious investigation. I do not expect any serious investigation to be forthcoming from any conceivable administration, however, so those questions will remain unanswered, probably forever. And, as I have no real interest in conspiracy theories of any kind, I will at best pay tangential attention to the truther movement and its detractors. I do believe this, though: the idea that elements in our own government COULD HAVE played a deliberate role in this is not in any way shocking to me. Power seeks power, always, and always for the sake of power. Just because we’re Americans doesn’t curtail our human tendency to ruthlessness. Quite the opposite, I should think, given our frequently savage history.

  • Zeno

    The world is more than we know, and less than we imagine. 

    With a basis in religious training and a lack of understanding in physical sciences, then any belief becomes “unprovable fact”.  Those who cleave to unprovable beliefs like the loch Ness monster cannot be persuaded out of the need to believe by geological facts like the loch is a glacial lake formed in the last glacial period and cannot contain prehistoric anything.
    Even when the authors of the faked monster “photos” come forward and state they faked all of them, they are shouted down and the belief has become greater than the truth and in essence another God is born.

    If building 7 was taken down with explosives, it is not proof of a government conspiracy, but good practical fire control management in a large city. In the WW-2 bombing of London the British deliberately destroyed many buildings to save sections of the city from fire storms.

    To paraphrase Julius Caesar: “Men willingly believe what they wish”  

    Why people believe weird things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY6c3Wv0bkE

  • Paul, Boston, MA

    What a twisted, paranoid world these conspiracy folks live in. (In their heads.)

    It’s hard to understand how they function in the real world. 

    • at

      Not really, the paranoid personality many times has an almost supernatual talent to incorporate events into their delusions. Way beyond the degree of complexity necessary to simply live. Some of our most successful and complex persons were such types. There are many degrees to paranoia, eveyone exhibits such symptoms on a regular basis to a certain degree, but one that is evidently high enough for them to be detained given the decisions of some MDs under other similar circumstances. What is nutty, to put it politely, is if the focus of ones’s delusions is out of sycn with the consensus delusions that people unconsciously agree with in order for society and civilization itself to survive. Actually this forum is at times a place where a mastery of weaving everything back into a central delusion is often evidenced. And this is best when it is effecatious in the uncovering of one’s own mechanism of delusions.

      • at

        That sounds like I am calling somebody delusional. I am not and really have not finalized any opinion I may eventually form on the subject. I think that if I became convinced of a conspiracy behind 9/11 further public inaction would be intolerable, so I can understand why people, who for some reason have been convinced, are passionate about their conviction. I certainly would be.

        • Daniel LaLiberte

          I’m glad you realize this, and that you are open enough in your opinions.  In fact, once you start understanding the truth of the lies of the official conspiracy story, which we base not on opinion, but hard evidence, you’ll experience a rather profound loss of faith in almost everything.  This does border on a kind of paranoia – I experienced it myself.  But gradually, I grew to accept that most people don’t know what is going on, and don’t want to question much of anything.  It is mostly about blindness.

      • Bluebonnet

        Yes, paranoia of the Truth Movement, creates instant concocttions to marginalize us.  We are scary because we are the only ones making sense. Yes it is scary. Time to do something on behalf of the truth and our country. Get on board.

      • Bluebonnet

        Yes, paranoia of the Truth Movement, creates instant concocttions to marginalize us.  We are scary because we are the only ones making sense. Yes it is scary. Time to do something on behalf of the truth and our country. Get on board.

    • Bluebonnet

      You obviously have not looked at both sides honestly, or you are a paid shill. The evidence is entirely on the side of the Truth Movement.

    • Bluebonnet

      You obviously have not looked at both sides honestly, or you are a paid shill. The evidence is entirely on the side of the Truth Movement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/a7mill T. Winter Gibson

    I find it curious that programs such as these simply rehash this issue without any real results. I suspect that I will be just as, if not more cynical about the role the media plays in calling those who are suspicious of a govt who has lied to us over and over and over again. Remember, we are in Libya because a guy called his people “rats.” Meanwhile, in Syria, it can be witnessed that actual extermination is taking place. So save your condescension and deal with the facts/questions laid out by many on this page. Most glaringly is why on earth was there no conclusive investigation into the ALERT – “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US.” Oh never mind, he and Condi got that memo while on vacation. Its not like they were unseating dictators or anything.

  • SteveV

    Let me get this straight. It’s alleged the government, the same one responsible
    for the financial disaster, the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, the response to Hurricane Katrina, etc,
    was competent enough to put together a plan to cause 9/11? A plan that would
    have involved tremendous skill, planning and hundreds (if not thousands) of
    people? A plan in which no-one leaked a hint of what was to come? A plan that
    no-one (involved) has talked about in 10 years? Even Tom Clancy would not have
    written such a piece of science fiction. And why are we still talking about this nonsense?

    • at

      If no one leaked a hint of it, then why did all those Jewish workers not show up for work in the towers on 9/11. Or was that some sort of disinformation about Jewish absence from work that fateful day?

      • Anonymous

        You’re joking right? My friend works for Morgan Stanley and they had several floors at the WTC and there were Jews on staff showed up that day. Well there goes that theory.

        They all got out because the man in charge of security remembered that last WTC attack and immediately got everyone out.
        They also had the luck to be below the point of impact. 

        • at

          Hey I am ok with the facts. Are you saying that, no there weren’t a bunch of Jewish workers that didn’t show up? Because I don’t know if this much is actually true or not, but it would be interesting to find out.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I’m saying this was a load of nonsense. 
            Think about it for a second. How absurd this idea is.
            Anyway the estimate from the NY Times is that about 400 people who were Jewish who died that day. Along with Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, Catholics, Buddhist, and Christians. There was no mention of atheist or agnostics, but I’m sure there were some in this tragic list of the people who died.

          • Anonymous

            No, they were out drinking the blood of Christian babies that day and planning world domination. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

            I beg your pardon Jeffe,  but the fact is there were less than 400 Jewish names among the 3000 deaths. Thats close to 10%.  I do not like to be racist as I have many jewish friends, but  it has been said that as many as one in five new yorkers are jewish…that’s 20%.   And given that WTC was known as ground zero for world finance,  I would expect that Jewish casualties would have been closer to 30% or more of the casualites, as opposed to 10%.

          • Brett

            So, the implication here is that Jews who worked in the building knew something was gonna go down that day and stayed home from work? AND, out of all those Jews who stayed home, ALL have vowed an allegiance to each other and have kept silent? Is that about right? Or are you just quibbling over potential percentages of Jews who may have worked in the building/may have stayed home from work that day? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

            You would have to admit the glaring inconsistency of Jewish casualtes being lower than their % population in NYC.   This is quite curious.  I am Italian and our casualties on 9/11 surpassed our proportion of the pop. in NYC.

            I did not say that all jews are in a conspiracy.  I do not believe this.
            Perhaps the management of certain companies had more to do with this.  I have read of companies getting warned, or getting days off, or moving out weeks before.   Look at Larry Silverstein  and his kids lame excuses for not being there. 

          • at

            I don’t think that abstract thinking about something like this is the way that I should go about forming an opinion.There easily could have been a leak of info to a relative from a concerned intelligence operative. This in turn could have turned into a flurry of telephone calls from one friend to another. On the other hand, even if each one of them swore the persons they called to secrecy, they still probably wouldn’t be able keep the fact that a number of people received a call a  secret, unless they were all involved in intelligence work themselves in one form or another. So just by reason I would say that the chances were slim. However having lived on earth for sixty odd years, I cannot really call that conclusion definitive, just most probable. Having witnessed our governments record in accurately informing the public: the pueblo, the USS Liberty, the Gulf of Tonkin, The invasion of Panama, the Iran/Contra, WMD in Iraq, etc.– It wouldn’t shatter my world view to find out matters were not really what the official story was. And some of the remarks made to disparage anyone who takes these questions into consideration really makes you guys seem prejudice against any questioning of what happened.

    • Anonymous

       My feelings exactly. The idea that the government was behind this is so absurd and as you said a good yarn or maybe and episode for 24.

      • MattTom

        But 19 guys with box cutters could get way with the crime of the century. Which scenario is more 24?

      • Bluebonnet

        You are good at namecalling, score zero on refuting the plethora of verifiable evidence the scientists of the Truth Movement have painstakingly, with proper scientific methodology compiled.

      • Bluebonnet

        You are good at namecalling, score zero on refuting the plethora of verifiable evidence the scientists of the Truth Movement have painstakingly, with proper scientific methodology compiled.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      The “government” as a whole did not have to do more than it usual level of incompetence and predictable follow-through.  Only a few small elements of the government needed to be in-the-know, with everyone else just following along, and who seriously doubts that is possible? 

      But set aside your incredulity about the numbers of people you imagine must have been involved, and focus on the facts of the necessity of controlled demolitions, however they may have been set up, in order to bring down 3 steel structure towers in one day.  Focus on building 7 which fell symmetrically at free fall for 2.5 seconds, which could not have happened without removing ALL resistance over 10 floors. Even NIST admits free fall, but could not explain it. 

      Start with those facts, and that should be enough to prompt more investigation about the rest of what might have happened.

    • Bluebonnet

      You need to look at both sides.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      You think it’s not part of the same plan?  You think ALL these ‘coincidences’ just spontaneously happened?  The odds would have a scientific notation exponent of hundreds, or thousands!   
           Haven’t people convienently ‘died’?  Could they be those that have evidence?   A concience?  Some Patriotism?

  • media_critic

    Wouldn’t it be appropriate to have as a guest someone who is an expert on thinking and human behavior, e.g. a cognitive or behavioral scientist?  

    • MattTom

      Yes, it would. Someone who could examine why people are so resistant to examining basic science in a world governed human laws that are so constantly broken. Curious how people so suspicious of their government would be so willing to find science so threatening. In the US, science was once considered the neutral arbiter of human progress.

  • at

    Good morning, looking forward to this show.  What ever happened to the supposed evidence of technologically sophisticated nano-explosives, that a Danish scientist claimed he uncovered in the ashes?

  • Brett

    Of those who are members of ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ (especially the ones who claim “controlled demolition”),  how many are demolition experts? How many inspected the site just after the incident? Of the architects, why have they never mentioned anything about the atrium, or the trusses, regarding #7? Why don’t they mention the propane tanks that were part of the generator back-up system in #7? …So many questions like these about the Truthers…

    While there may very well be holes in the official account, there are many more holes in the Truther narrative.  

    • Peetie

      It’s enough of a flaw that the official account remains unconvincing, without needing to compare it to alternative “truther” narratives.

    • MattTom

      Brett – What is your theory about propane tanks? I ask because my review of Truth reports is that they very straightforwardly address this matter and every other matter like this that has been raised. Engineers are extensively trained in physical science. You might review the work of Kevin Ryan for that matter. No one could inspect the site right away because it was sealed off by federal authorities. But dust samples were collected, and scores of eyewitness testimonies were recorded. Eyewitness testimony is usually weak, except when many reports corroborate observations as with rocking explosions reported before and after the planes hit. There are many other reports that warrant examination, not hype and gainsaying.

    • Steve T

      If there are holes in the official account who put them there? and why?

    • Bluebonnet

      OMG, Brett, are you really that ignorant?

  • Ed

    There wasn’t a conspiracy, but it could have been a lot worse: the towers didn’t topple over, and they stood long enough for everyone below where the planes hit to get out. Then they collapsed on themselves. That only 3,000 people were killed total, when 50,000 worked there and it was during working hours is incredible.

    • nj

      Yes, God must have held the towers up for a while.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Think God was protecting the Roman Child-Molesting and Child-Abusing Priests?

  • Gregg

    People rightfully say the birthers are crazy but this is beyond nuts.

    • Anonymous

      You bet. Check out the New Apostolic Reformation. They are off the charts in this area. They think demons caused 9/11.
      They are also endorcing Rick Perry.  

      • Gregg

        Well Jeffe, we finally agree. Even so, I detect a slight dig. I’ll address it this way: I put as much relevance in the “New Apostle Reformation” endorsing Perry as I do in Gaddafi endorsing Obama and referring to him as “My Muslim brother”. None. 

        • nj

          They didn’t endorse Perry, but they organized his prayer meeting/rally whatever the hell it was.

          I don’t think Gaddafi sponsored any Obama events.

    • Steve T

      Not if you understand simple science.

    • Bluebonnet

      Yes, the official version of the day is beyond nuts. The real nuts, as confirmed by mental health professioanls are the ones believing the government’s cartoon version.

  • Diogenesthecynic2002

    There is a wide range of beliefs about the events of 9/11/01 from those who believe that the attacks were planned by the government to win support for neo-con interventionist and militarist policies to those who think the government let the attacks happen for the same reasons. What is unquestionable is that the Commission report was full of inaccuracies and that a further and deeper investigation is required to settle the many open questions regarding events of that day.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JXBQOSDARSNNKG52SKI3IBHIVY Anon

    The official story is physically impossible, as in…it literally defies known and accepted laws of physics. Therefore there must be another explanation. That is the beginning of reasonable thought on this subject.  The money trail should be enough to prove the official story is not a full explanation.
    The fact that the so-called pilots couldn’t even fly Cessnas should be enough to promote questions.
    The fact that this happened on the day that had more air drills than any other day in the history of our country (drawing our military away from the area) should promote questions.
    The fact that dozens of New Yorkers reported hearing bombs in the towers (which are also recorded on video and audio) should promote questions.

    Anyone who just accepts the official story or the already debunked Popular Mechanics’ explanations is either not thinking or is dishonest with him/herself.

    • Anonymous

       If you’re going to post this kind of stuff you need to provide evidence. More air drills? What are you talking about?
      Dozens of New Yorkers reported hearing bombs? How is this possible? How would they know it was bombs and not propane blowing up?  Promote what questions?

      The Bush administration did not need to blow up the WTC to go to war with Iraq. As they already had plans to do so in the works.
      You use the word reasonable when I doubt you are on this subject.

      • anon

         There was a contract to remove the asbestos in the WTC and it was easier to destroy the buildings, kill innocent people and then have the rationale to go to war with the wrong country.

        • Anonymous

          What? 

        • Anonymous

          The alleged health effects from asbestos are made up by the firefighter cabal that wants it removed so there will be more fires so they can have greater job security.  What do you expect from socialist unions?  Teach the asbestos controversy!  Don’t call it asbestosis call it breathing change.

          • SlimJimmy2

            That’s pretty funny, heh heh heh

        • BHA in Vermont

          OMG, what the heck did you smoke this morning? The LAST thing anyone would want is to blow the asbestos all over NYC.

      • nj

        A number of air defense exercises and drills were plannned for 9/11/01. I would assume that’s what Anon is referring to.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001

        • nj

          Ha! Irony of the day…

          The little code-word for this post that Discus sometimes makes us unregistered folks type in before the post will go through: “FAA mitiesn”

        • http://twitter.com/trevzb Trevor Bauknight

          A number of drills, matching exactly what happened, also occurred coincident with the London subway bombings, on the same day, at the same time.

          It’s almost uncanny.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

        Jeffe,  Why dont YOU come up with some proof????  Start with Bin Laden’s body. 

        I often read your posts at ONPOINT, and it is obvious you have this propagandistic antagonism to the facts.  You are a cookie cutout neocon right down the line,  which I admit is an insult, because Neocons are well aware of their own duplicity.  The job of these Straussian elitists is not to prove their own position (they know its a lie), but to get the rest of the dumbed down population to buy onto their cover stories and send poor and middle class american children and tax money to war.

        • Brett

          What? jeffe is a “cookie cutout neocon”? This shows how off your perceptions are of reality, for sure! 

        • Anonymous

          I don’t see you presenting me with facts. I know people who were near the buildings and who had friends who escaped this tragic event. Not one of them heard any explosions other than the planes hitting and the noise when the buildings came down. My manager at the company I was working at then had a sister who lived about 6 blocks from the WTC. The debris stopped only a block or so from her apartment. 

          What you are proposing is that the US government decided to kill 3000 people or more to go to war with Iraq. That this was done without anyone knowing about it. That they secretly trained these Arab men to do this. That they planted explosives in a huge building to make sure it went down. All of this was done without anyone knowing it. If it were true it would be one of the worst crimes perpetrated by government officials in the history of our nation.
          How is that not one person who was privy to this huge conspiracy has not come forward? How do you people explain this?

          Bin Laden sleeps with the fishes.   

          • BHA in Vermont

            I presume you mean “go to war with Afghanistan” not Iraq.

            Iraq was invaded ‘because’ Saddam Hussein refused to give up the WMDs he didn’t have. Unfortunately, he also didn’t have the smarts to figure out that being coy about whether or not he had WMDs would result in an invasion and his eventual downfall and hanging.

          • Anonymous

            That was only one of the lies the Bush administration told to invade Iraq.  They linked 9/11 to Saddam constantly.  Most Fox News viewers believed it.

          • BHA in Vermont

            Yes, GWB also tried to link Saddam Hussein to Al Queada and by to extension to 9/11. But it is a REALLY far stretch (like most of this!) to suspect he decided in 2001 to blow up the WTC so he could try to pin it on Hussein and invade Iraq 2 years later.

            Face it, GWB never thought that far ahead about anything.

          • Anonymous

            I agree.  I was just pointing out their lies on Iraq and not trying to support the tinfoil hat crowd.

          • Bluebonnet

            Tin foil hats are made in the USA, and now by NPR. The Truth Movement have their thinking caps on.

          • Bluebonnet

            Tin foil hats are made in the USA, and now by NPR. The Truth Movement have their thinking caps on.

          • Steve T

            Why does everybody think Bush was stupid? He got away with stealing TWO elections?
            A fool can’t act as a wise man but a wise man can act a fool!

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Why?

          • Modavations

            What was the name of Clintons CIA boss that leanded over and whispered,”it’s a slam dunk Mr.President”?

          • Anonymous

            Bush could have replaced him.

          • Modavations

            He feared that if Iran knew there were no WMD,he’d be greased.An unfortuneate oversight was that the allies would not except another Un Resolution.I think there were 15,or 16

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

            Hey Jeffe,  the USA has sacrificed thousands of its own people to fight profitable but losing wars.  Look at Vietnam, 55,000 killed, hundreds thousands maimed. Millions of civilians killed in Vietnam.   You think they really care about a few thousand people ???

          • Steve T

            If it were true it would be one of the worst crimes perpetrated by government officials in the history of our nation.
            How is that not one person who was privy to this huge conspiracy has not come forward? How do you people explain this?

            It is true you just don’t want to believe it, Explanation  MONEY!!!! and POWER!!!!

          • Bluebonnet

            LOL, you said no one heard explosions?  Wow, you have a lot of catching up to do. Your oblivion is showing.

      • Anonymous

        WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 100 feet of its symmetrical collapse. Iron microspheres were found througout the dust. Unreacted nano-thermite was found by a team of scientists in WTC dust samples. Speaking of evidence, much of the steel was shipped off to China to be melted, which itself is a crime that should be investigated.

      • HufferdCruzeiro

        To the contrary, the Neocons themselves not long before, in a widely-available document, noted that “a new Pearl Harbor” would be needed to mobilize the public and Congress in order to launch their agenda of agressive war.

        • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

          “the process of transformation.. is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”  — PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Sept. 2000)

    • mary elizabeth

      Could not the explosives, if any, been planted by terrorists over time?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

        Yes Mary,  they certainly could, if in fact the “terrorists” were government affiliated and allowed in the building by Mr. Silverstein.

  • Anonymous

    Oh this is rich. Here’s a Fact: At the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001, CNN and BBC reported that Italian authorities took the threat of terrorist attack from the air so seriously that they deployed surface-to-air missiles at Genoa’s Christopher Columbus airport.
    http://articles.cnn.com/2001-07-17/world/genoa.security_1_summit-security-forces-bomb-attack?_s=PM:WORLD
    The threat was so high that Bush slept on the aircraft carrier Enterprise.
    Bush and crew clearly knew well before 911, that the threat of terrorists using aircraft as missiles was serious and it was in the forefront of their minds. For the administration representatives to swear that no one imagined using airplanes as missiles was a lie.
    911 could have been prevented by simply changing the standing order for commercial aircrews in high-jacking situations from “surrender the cockpit” to “do not surrender the cockpit under any circumstances”. This did not take months to figure out. This did not take a team of rocket scientists to develop.  This would have bought a lot of time and saved many, many lives.
    911 was sadly, yet another tragic example of failure to govern, followed by a preponderance of lies to avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever.

    • Anonymous

      What was that quote the other day?… Republicans claim that government doesn’t work, and every time they take power, they prove themselves right. No conspiracy here except in playing the blame game.

  • media_critic

    Here is an observation  I found in “In Gods we Trust” by Scott Atran, a highly-respected psychologist and anthropologist:

    “If faith is, in part, willingness to suspend  ordinary pragmatic constraints of relevance, then beliefs eld in faith become not only immune to falsification and contradiction, but become even more strongly held in the face of apparent falsification or contradiction.”

    Belief in a 9/11 conspiracy has a lot in common with religious belief, it seems to me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

      You have it completely reversed.   The facts and logic support the socalled conspiracies.    To correct your statement:

      THE BELIEF IN THE LAME OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT EXPLANATIONS REQUIRES A FERVENT RELIGIOUS AND PATRIOTIC FAITH.  

      ie. Yellow cake and WMDs in Iraq… supposed death of Bin Laden (no proof),  FBI sting operations of teenage terrorists,  it goes on an on.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      Belief in the official 9/11 conspiracy story has much more to do with religious belief.  It is immune to falsification because very few people want to seriously look into the facts.  Do you?   It is full of contradictions but you would not know it unless you look into the facts. 

      You are talking about the backfire effect, but you should know it goes both ways.  By assuming you know what is really true, and rationalizing things that don’t fit into that truth, even believing it is merely the backfire effect, you have fallen for the same weakness you assume others are more prone to.

      False falsification doesn’t count, of course – you have to look closely at attempts to falsify to make sure they are not yet another lie covering up previous lies.  How do you know for sure?  You learn how real science works.  Listen to Kevin Ryan to find out.

      Very few truthers really want to have this burden.  The truth about 9/11 entails the destruction of everything we did want to have faith in.  But I still have faith that people will eventually figure this out, that they can only really have faith in objective science.

    • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

      “The great masses of the people . . .will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

      “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” — J. Edgar Hoover, former FBI director

      “Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.” — Marshall McLuhan

    • Steve T

      Is religion based on scientific fact? No faith, but all faiths believe in the truth. Get the Idea? I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! And you have to prove it with real science.

  • Anonymous

    The real conspiracy is that Condoleezza Rice wasn’t fired Sept 12th.  

    • nj

      Lots of people should have been fired.

      “It’s hard to envision a plot so devious as the one that they pulled off on 9/11. Never did we realize that the enemy was so well organized.…al Qaeda struck in a way that was unimaginable.”
      —G.W. Bush, in a January 2002 interview with Tom Brokaw, referring to the 9/11 attacks

      “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked plane as a missile. All this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.”

      —Condoleeza Rice, My 16, 2002, referring to the 9/11 attacks 

      “There was…an awareness by the government, including the president, of Osama bin Laden and the threat he posed in the United States and around the world. That included long-standing speculation about hijacking in the traditional sense, but not involving suicide bombers using ariplanes as missiles.”

      —White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, May, 2002

  • John

    The widespread belief in the so-called conspiracy theories signals that the people do not believe the government about 9/11 or many other things.  That is the main point here.  And who can surprised with all the lies that we were fed about Iraq and now Libya.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

    Just today on NPR,  in an interview on the planned implosion of a brand new hotel in Las Vegas City Center, for lack of business, the demolition expert stated that “it would take LARGE QUANTITIES OF EXPLOSIVES to make the structure drop freely into its own footprint”.  You know…like the Twin Towers and Building 7 (Solomon Building).  Lots of thermite placed throughout those buildings.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439572620 Joe Lee

    Humans have a natural tendency towards selective retention, that is, we all are more likely to see, seek out and remember those things that we are predisposed to agree with, and will disregard evidence that doesn’t match his or her beliefs.

    Humans are also very good at finding patterns even when there is no existing pattern.

    The combination of these two psychological tendencies shows that people will tend to see patterns for conspiracy, even if there are none, if they choose to look for them because they suspect a conspiracy. 

    Once a person has subjectively made up his or her mind that there is a likely conspiracy, it is nearly impossible to change that person’s views because of selective retention. 

    • Jimhogue

      Patterns, yes, statistics, no. That is to say that people can see patterns where patterns are meaningless/random in themselves, but they fail to see the significance in other patterns. The patterns of the “official” lies about 9/11 are significant in numbers, direction and motive. To be specific: the pattern, or path, leads to a denial of the already proved fact that explosives were used in the events of 9/11. Some humans understand that and some don’t.
      Jim Hogue

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439572620 Joe Lee

        “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.”

        Statistical analysis is a tool to try and find complex patterns that may be hidden, but statistical analysis done by someone with a predisposed bias can be skewed to show a pattern that may not be there. That’s why research papers are peer reviewed so that others can verify if the analysis was biased or incorrect.

        There has been plenty of peer review by professionals around the 9/11 events and an overwhelming agreement upon the official account. 

        To ignore the sheer numbers of analyses that agree with the official account and just focusing on the statistically minor number of those that do not is a prime example of selective retention.

        I’m not absolutely against the idea that there may be a conspiracy around 9/11, but when looking at the mountain of highly plausible explanations to the handful of anomalies cited by those that argue for a conspiracy, a conspiracy seems unlikely.

        • Vic

          >>There has been plenty of peer review by professionals around the 9/11
          events and an overwhelming agreement upon the official account.

          Aside from NIST, there are very few if any analyses of the collapse of Building 7.

          There are also rebuttals.

          Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [PDF]
          Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.
          Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.
          Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
          The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol 2, pp.7-31

          Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
          Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
          The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008 Vol 2, pp.35-40

          Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
          Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
          The Environmentalist, August, 2008

          Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions”

          by Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure
          Author: James R. Gourley
          The Journal of Engineering Mechanics, October, 2008

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439572620 Joe Lee

            Of course there are rebuttals, but they should not be taken on their own. 

            In scientific review, when results do not match, they do not automatically invalidate the original hypothesis. The result is then analysed to see if any condition was inadvertently changed so as to cause the different result. 

            As a whole, there is not enough corroborating evidence in attempts at replication and peer review of the results to suggest that they were more than just statistical outliers. 

            Selective retention is when you only focus on the studies that support a particular view while ignoring a larger volume of data that do not support that view.

          • Steve T

            So you have selective retention.

        • Steve T

          OK forget about statistics, lets look at the building and it’s placement
          were any other building around it compromised? Why did it catch fire? Big question, Who was in the building? and where is the money?

    • HufferdCruzeiro

      But, Joe, does that indicate that any evidence-based critique of whatever assertion is automatically off-base and wrong? Are the official narrative’s assertions thereby somehow unassailable? Those assertions themselves are erroneously based. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439572620 Joe Lee

        I’m not saying that they are unassailable, just that any challenge has to specifically compensate for selective retention.

        When academic studies are done, they are designed to try and eliminate the impact of psychological variables. Then there is the process of peer review so that people can reproduce the experiment and analysis for themselves to see if their results match those in the original study.

        The main thing that I find lacking in conspiracy theories around 9/11 is the verification of evidence found through peer review of professionals. There have been plenty of academics and professionals who have designed experiments around evidence cited in the conspiracies, and they have not been able to conclusively verify the results.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      These psychological tendencies are real enough, but you’ve got it backwards about who seeing patterns and ignoring facts.   It is far easier to continue to believe the official conspiracy theory than to question whether the media you would like to trust are perpetuating lies, intentional or not.   You are part of that if you are not seriously questioning your assumptions about what is really true.

      People who have cracked open some of the truth about 9/11 do so with great psychological resistance.  None of us would like to believe what we have to admit is the truth.  It requires a great deal of strength and courage to expose ourselves to what the objective facts are revealing, that the official story is a pack of lies.  

      Once a person has subjectively (and unconsciously) made up his or her mind that the official conspiracy theory seems believable enough and reinforces their assumptions about who they can trust, it is nearly impossible to change that person’s views because of selective retention.

      How do we break out of this bind?  What should we base our facts on? Real science.  Watch out for pseudo science and pseudo skepticism.  Question everything.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439572620 Joe Lee

        I agree that there are many disbelievers that also suffer from selective retention, but there are ways to eliminate selective retention from results.

        The scientific method does this, so does the use of peer review like is used for academic publications.

        Both of these tools have not been able to verify the evidence for a conspiracy that have been cited.

        Personally, I’m not completely closed to the possibility of a conspiracy around 9/11. It’s just that in evaluating the entirety of the evidence around 9/11 so far, a conspiracy is unlikely. 

        • Daniel LaLiberte

          Again, it is a “conspiracy” regardless.  You know that a conspiracy is when more than one person acts together to achieve their goal, usually something illegal and in secret.  So if you are really honest about possibilities other than the official conspiracy theory, you can start by changing your terminology.

          Yes, the scientific method is the instrument of choice for determining objective truth.   Peer reviewed publications are rather more problematic when most people are still afraid to investigate the truth.   Nothing very scientific has been done to substantiate the official story, however.  The NIST study about building 7 is very unscientific, for example.

          The scientific method has been used to show that the official conspiracy story is exceedingly unlikely to be true, and therefore we need a real scientific investigation to find out more of what really did happen.  See ae911truth.org if you are intent on finding the truth.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439572620 Joe Lee

            I strongly question your statements that “most people are still afraid to investigate the truth,” and that “nothing very scientific has been done to substantiate the official story.”

            There have been plenty of people, both amateur and academic who have investigated the events at the towers. Let’s take that NIST study on WTC 7 that you’ve listed. Have you actually read it? http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

            I’ll let people make their own decisions from reading it, but IMO, it is a pretty thorough technical structural analysis of the likely sequence of events leading up to the collapse as well as explorations on possible scenarios where explosives might have been used. Included are multiple simulation runs on fire propagation and structural failures. To me this seems like a sizable amount of scientific effort to substantiate the official story.

            it is possible that some of the things in the NIST report are wrong, but they do lay out a lot of evidence to back up their claims. People are welcome to challenge it and I would love to see a thorough rebuttal composed of independently run simulations and tests. 

  • Daniel LaLiberte

    The intro says “But how have these ideas stuck around for so long in the face of all the facts?”   It is BECAUSE of the *real* facts that the truthers continue to peel away the lies and illusions of the official conspiracy theory.  The symmetrical freefall of building 7 could only happen if ALL resistance was removed across several floors simultaneously.  Even NIST admits this, but could not explain it.  This never happens in any fire or partial damage, but almost always happens in controlled demolitions.

    Referring to “conspiracy theories” disguises the fact that the official story is also about a conspiracy, and it is one of the most preposterous of all theories, if you look into the facts.  No doubt about it.   Question everything, as a true scientist does.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you, well said! Add to that, molten steel in all three sub basements of the buildings (1, 2 & 7) and fires that burned for weeks after 9/11, despite a constant stream of water that was being poured to quench the fires. How do you get temperatures that create molten steel from office fires? Why did that phenomenon only happen three times on one day: 9/11? http://www.ae911truth.org

      • Brett

        These are contradictions, of sorts: the falling of these towers had to have been controlled demolition, as steel would not have melted from “office fires” is the idea (interesting painting, btw, calling those “office fires”). Well, those fires were fueled by rocket fuel essentially, not to mention steel becomes friable (structurally compromised) at a much lower temperature than what it takes to render it molten; not to mention large propane tanks used to supply an emergency back-up generator system in the buildings caused further explosions…Of course, in view of these facts, Truthers go in the other direction and say there was molten steel found in the basement (which would have meant a much hotter fire, generating higher heat on its own, but let’s not muck up a good story!) Where is the link to the evidence that molten steel was found in the basement? Where is the link to the evidence that remnants of nano explosives were found by scientists? And, make up your mind; did the towers fall because of controlled demolition explosions or from the melted steel skeleton of the building?   

        • Daniel LaLiberte

          Confused by the facts, you are. 

          Yes, there was molten metal (most likely iron) found at the base of the towers.  This would be consistent with use of thermite to weaken the steel structure without being obviously explosive, in preparation for the demolition that followed.  Nanothermite could be explosive, and there was residue of nanothermite found in the dust whether or not it was used. (Other explosives are not excluded.)

          The official explanation that it was office fires that caused the towers to fall does not make sense if the fires could not melt steel, even though intensely hot fires can soften the steel enough to cause some *asymmetrical* failure.  So the question that was not answered by the official story is what was the cause of the molten metal?   The use of thermite does explain it.

          Evidence of molten metal and related discussions: http://911blogger.com/topics/molten-metal

      • Anonymous

        The lack of understanding of how these buildings were constructed seems to be a problem. All three buildings would not pass inspection by today’s standards. You forgot to mention that when a building is compromised by a massive event such as 9/11 that it can fall pretty fast. We see this in earthquakes all the time.  

        • Daniel LaLiberte

          I bet I have a much better understanding of the structure of the buildings than you do.  They were not flawed, and no one (official) is claiming they were flawed. 

          It was very difficult for NIST to come up with the pathetically weak excuse for how building 7 collapsed, and yet, it seemed to be well known that “the building is about to come down”.  Check out Dr. Graeme MacQueen’s presentation on
          all the foreknowledge of this very improbable event: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-07/foreknowledge-building-7s-collapse-dr-graeme-macqueen

        • Anonymous

          Bullshit.

        • Anonymous

          Nonsense.

        • Anonymous

          Wrong on all counts.

  • Anonymous

    These were controlled demolitions which take careful planning and execution. WTC 7 was one of the most secure buildings in the US and would be virtually impossible to penetrate without some ‘inside’ involvement.

  • nj

    Destruction of evidence:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004May6

    FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape
    Recording Contained Accounts of Communications With Hijacked Planes

  • JBauerHtfdCT

    Thanks for addressing the huge questions still surrounding 9/11 — I do hope this episode will address the facts, not “he said, she said” back & forth or theories about “conspiracy” theories –

    • nj

      One can only hope, but even the way the program is being framed—the focus on “conspiracy theories” rather than a sober examination of facts and inconsistencies—isn’t very encouraging. 

  • Anonymous

    When can we expect a show on how Bigfoot assassinated JFK?

    • Anonymous

      We can expect snide insinuations that people who have been informed by distinguished scientists, architects and engineers (ie. Kevin Ryan) about the physical realities of the WTC building collapses, and who consequently believe those experts, are people who ignorantly believe any conspiracy theory, no matter how absurd. Ironically, it is the Official Conspiracy Theory that is absurd.

      • Anonymous

        The term “official conspiracy” is absurd.

        • Daniel LaLiberte

          Do we really need to explain this?  You know what “official” means.  Perhaps you don’t really know what “conspiracy” means.  The official story is that 19 hijackers (plus supporters) conspired to do what they did, so that is a theory about a conspiracy.   No?   Conspiracies really do happen, right?   You believe in the 9/11 official conspiracy theory then, right?

  • oosik

    It’s likely that the focus of the show will NOT be the facts that baldly contradict the official Omission Report.  If you get Kaye and Meigs to focus on explaining how WTC 7 underwent free-fall, for ANY amount of its collapse (admitted by NIST: 2+ seconds), their arguments will fail just as quickly and completely.  There’s no way around this, and no double-talk about ‘progressive’ failure, or mechanical penthouses,  or claiming that it was only the ‘north wall’ or ‘outer shell’ that fell that way (what a joke) will change this.  Watch a good video compilation of the ‘collapse’.  Is it just the north wall? Use your head. 

  • Peetie

    Mind you, NIST did not look for evidence of explosives or incendiaries associated with the rapid and unprecedented collapse of Buiding 7, according to a NIST officials, so naturally they did not find any evidence.

    • MattTom

      Thanks for raising this matter, well documented and not contested by NIST. Meanwhile, I listened to Meigs and Kay during the radio show. Loud agreement between each other, refusal to take up the most basic questions like what you raise here. Meanwhile, NPR brings Kevin Ryan in for less than 5 minutes. Then back to Meig and Kay and circular reasoning and ad hominem, sexed up hype about conspiracy theory syndromes. This program has been a masterpiece of echo chamber pseudo journalism. Is either Meigs or Kay trained in physical sciences? What are their credentials? Why does NPR credit the official story as factual in the tag to this program? At least the Catholic Church was direct when it showed Galileo the torture instruments. This program was torture by proxy.

  • TheFacts

    According to Jim Meigs’ secretary, Jim was no longer going to debate 9/11. Google Pilots For 911 Truth forum and look in the latest news section. The recording is at the top of the page.

  • RealTruth

    I wonder if Popular Mechanics will address the Flight Data Recorder which doesn’t support the official narrative.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16902

  • Pat

    I am interested in how and why the buildings fell in the way that they did (especially WTC7) and there is proof that thermitic material was found in the dust from the towers. I doubt that this show will discuss possible answers to these questions, which might contradict the official NIST version of 911. I believe that the NIST report may be wrong. This does not necessarily imply an inside job. It does call for further investigation of 911. Unfortunately, this show is more likely to question the mental state of any person who asks these legitimate questions. 

    • JBauerHtfdCT

      Unfortunately Pat, it sounds that way so far…

    • Zeno

      The world trade center buildings were of unique design. They use a exoskeleton design with an internal columnar square support/utility center.  Each reenforced concrete floor was hung between the center shaft and the exterior skin. It created very strong buildings, and they needed to be because of their height.

      The collapse of the buildings is completely reasonable, because concrete will dis-aggregate quite quickly when exposed to heat. It’s primary binding component being quick lime which is formed by heating limestone at high temperature.

      As the first floor disaggregated and flowed unto the floor below, it doubled the carrying weight of that floor, then with the additional fuel of that floor it too again disaggregated and flowed onto the floor below, tripling the charring weight of that floor. Then the each floor gave way by impact force sequentially to ground level.

      Because each tower was essentially a very strong tube the collapse was logically vertical.

      • Steve T

        Sorry no dice, and if you are an architectural engineer I would like to know where you got your degree?

        • Zeno

          “architectural engineer” what does architecture have to do with structural engineering?  Yikes!

          • Steve T

            Definitions of an architectural engineer:Architectural engineering, also known as building engineering, is the application of engineering principles and technology to building design and construction. may refer to:

            An engineer in the structural, mechanical, electrical, construction or other engineering fields of building design and construction.A licensed engineering professional in parts of the United States.

            Learn anything?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Learned he is NOT one, finally!

  • RealTruth

    Popular Mechanics Refuse To Discuss Flight Data with verified aviation professionals, Aircraft Accident Investigators and Aeronautical Engineers.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16902

  • Steve

    A useful article that disputes/debunks the Truthers/Liars claim by claim. Many people are citing this, I’m sure, but it’s worth one more reference.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

    • RealTruth

      Steve,

      The above article does not address the Flight Data. Matter of fact, it is pre-dated before the Flight data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board.

      Read more here from aviation professionals:

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org

      Full member list:
      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

      photos here:
      http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

      When asked, Popular Mechanics refused to discuss the Flight Data. Click here for recording with PM.
      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16902

      • Steve

        Thanks, but I’ve been through all this stuff already. 

        • Steve T

          And yet you still won’t admit something is wrong? I guess Forest Gump was right.

    • Steve

      Oops. I guess my reference is more redundant than I anticipated. Still, there it is.

    • MattTom

      Truthers/Liars? Popular Mechanics is what tortured Galileo for raising inconvenient questions. In the case of 9/11, the inconvenient question is that structural steel can’t melt below around 2,000 F. Open flame fires–requiring oxygen for combustion–cannot come close to burning that hot. Meigs and Kay refuse to take up the science that is relevant. This isn’t conspiracy theorizing. IT’S A SIMPLE QUESTION THAT 8TH GRADERS KNOW HOW TO ASK. What’s the problem with adults asking that same question?

      • Anonymous

        What? Popular Mechanics tortured Galileo? That’s an interesting idea.

      • Steve

        Liars, yes.

  • BHA in Vermont

    It is easy:
      There are some people who will believe what they want regardless of facts and the opinions of large numbers of experts to the contrary.
    For instance:
    - GWB and Iraq’s ‘stockpile’ of WMDs.
    - Rick Perry and mankind’s affect on global climate change

    • Modavations

      Did you notice that the story of the Polar Bear guy,put on leave for suspicion of making things up,has been purged.Maybe I just couldn’t find it.Quien SabesI take it you missed the commission with Bob Kerry saying Sadaam had long range missiles ready for firing with not only WMD,but Nukes.Didn’t Hillary vote to invade.Sometimes what idealogues call lies, are misjudgements

  • Anonymous

    If the idiots in the Bush administration had been behind a conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center, the towers would still be standing today. 

    • John – Williamstown VT

      This is the response to everything from 9/11 to the evidence around Iraq.  The Bushies say ‘Hey we’ve shown we’re too incompetent to actually do this.’

  • MattTom

    The flag to this show claims to answer the questions that it purports to host this show for. Conspiracy theory is in the first place how 19 hijackers with box cutters got away with the crime of the century. That’s a conspiracy theory that has never been given full account. Let’s be more honest with terminology and more faithful to the skepticism that NPR should honor as “public” radio.

  • http://twitter.com/trevzb Trevor Bauknight

    Simple question for the debunkers: why and how did WTC7 fall?

    • Anonymous

      Structural compromise. It happens all the time when a building is subjected to an earthquake. The amount of force of both WTC buildings collapsing could have been more than enough to shale the ground and make an already compromised structure fall. 

      • Al2011

        jeffe68: you need to spend some Google time looking at buildings brought down by earthquakes.
        http://www.google.com/search?q=buildings+fall+over+from+earthquakes
        They fall OVER.  Even concrete ones, not steel ones.  They do not EXPLODE INTO DUST.

      • Steve T

        No that’s not real thinking constructive but not real, geologist would tell you that a compromised building that size would take a 6 on the Richter scale and would not fall, especially  in on itself.

    • Gery

      Gravity

      • http://twitter.com/trevzb Trevor Bauknight

        That’s cute. Leaves a lot of questions, however, particularly with respect to the continued presence of millions of other buildings.

  • MattTom

    George Orwell is quoted by Mr. Meigs. He claims that “intense heat” was produced by the fires in WTC, but says nothing about the undisputed science regarding the heat required to melt structural steel. Then he goes on to allege the very thing he does himself: highly parse the evidence. If this is popular science we’re in big trouble. 

  • Rsokol

    Is your guest nervous? He’s talking like he can’t allow a single doubt to seep into what he’s trying to explain away.

  • Modavations

    I forgot the name of America’s prominent architectural association,but it’s head was on Wash.Journal and he said the jets knocked the towers down.Quien sabes

  • Ellen Dibble

    I don’t think you have to be paranoid to hatch a rather complicated delusion, especially if others are “working on” the same one.  Some complicated delusions are the foundations of our social cohesion.  But why did the 9/11 truthers latch onto that, but not so much onto any number of other possibilities?  I think there is a deep-seated fear of seeing ourselves as vulnerable in the way we were exposed as being. “We must have done this to ourselves; we can’t be that helpless.”  So let’s figure out how we can avoid seeing ourselves as helpless.  “Bingo, there is this, that, and the other, and all these other people are seeing the same thing.”
         Okay, you can keep your delusions and I’ll keep mine.

  • RealTruth

    Kay claims that most “Conspiracy Theorists have one thing in common”  – “A small group of evil people trying to take over the world”.

    Isn’t that exactly what the official narrative is trying to shove down our throats?

  • Not a crack pot

    Why did Mohammed Atta go to Portland, Maine? What did he buy at Walmart while he was there? presents? Why did he go to 2 ATMs? Did he need cash? Why won’t the government release the photos from Boston Logan airport?

  • Bartcaruso

    First of all, by definition, the “official story” is a Conspiracy Theory. Ten years after  NPR is finally giving this attention ? I DID NOT jump to the conclusion it was an Inside Job, by 2007 I finally took a look. By then there was mountains of evidence of FACTS contradicting the official conspiracy Theory.One point , why did the 9/11 Commission not include even a Mention of Bldg 7? Which collapsed at 5:25 pm . Yesterday democracy Now! finally ran the t/v. clip of BBC NEWS reporting building 7 had collapsed – 25 minutes before it did 1 In fact, the building was clearly visible behind their reporter ! thins like this NEVER receive official investigation. There has been a Massive 9/11 COVER-UP , NOT an investigation. ps. Pop Mechanics has been thoroughly debunked , they are a tool of the government.

  • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

    It’s sad how shows like this talk exclusively about the emotional and sociological aspects of theories of conspiracy, but in regards to the 9/11 case they totally ignore any analysis of the facts and evidence.  Very few media personalities talk about the evidence.  Here’s where you can see what that evidence actually is:

    http://www.RememberBuilding7.org
    http://www.AE911Truth.org
    http://www.911Blogger.com

    Do your own research and seek evidence over opinion or cultural discussion of the crime.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

    Debunking 9/11 debunking.  Answer to popular mechanics.

    http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

  • RealTruth

    F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I., To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckagehttp://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11408

  • Spirit1776

    Bizarre that you begin with the premise that these are conspiracy theories instead of bringing in those who have written in detail about their concerns about various aspects of what happened on 9/11 and their research, including interviews with hundreds of engineers and architect who have similar concerns.

    Real conspiracies do happen all the time.  Isn’t is a bit irresponsible to assume that they do not and cannot and just buy whatever the official story happens to be?

    So far your coverage is thin on detail and heavy on generalities from Popular Mechanics.

    Odd.

  • JoshA

    Labeling people as “conspiracy theorists” from the title and start of the show is dismissive and manipulates your audience to react when the phrase is mentioned. 
    WBUR = State propaganda

  • Anonymous

    It might help ask how they figured out what is the most popular of the theories.  Popular Mechanics is a science magazine, so it makes sense that they would focus on the science of the 9/11 tragedy.

    Your guest went on the air stating that the most popular theories are about how the physics of collapse means that it was impossible for the buildings to go down or that it was a controlled demolition.

    These are the most popular theories?  That is news to me.  I thought the most popular theories were that 9/11 was real, the terrorists were real, that the government knew the attacks were likely and intentionally ignored the threat, which is a lot harder to prove and I might add, is probably the reason why *other* 9/11 conspiracies continue to persist.

    Because 9/11 physics may be the most written, doesn’t mean it’s the most popular.

  • Pat

    Science can also explain why bad things happen. If the science doesn’t match the official explanation, people are bound to question the official story.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

    This feels like a hit job.  I’m very disappointed NPR.  Using phrases like ‘In the face of all the facts’ and pulling in straw men to color the story.

  • Suzie in Newport, RI

    Please address how the Bush administration’s inane decision to go to war against Iraq so soon after 9/11 did nothing to reassure those who are suspicious that a faction in the US government had a role in allowing 9/11 to happen.  How can it not seem that 9/11 was USED by the Bush administration to perpetuate a war that had nothing to do with 9/11?  How are we supposed to believe such a government?

    • GMG

      Agreed.  We were all required to accept their story without evidence, just as they apparently did.  Pro-war opinion was manufactured in a way that would have been impossible without 9/11. 

  • Arnold Joseph White

    “There can really be no peace without justice. There
    can be no justice without truth. And there can be no truth, unless someone
    rises up to tell you the truth.”

    It is my ~”opinion”~
    what I have been ~”given”~
    has ~”the power”~ to ~”enlighten”~ and ~”reawaken”~ the world to ~ “Love” ~!

    What could/would it ~“do”~
    to ~“everyone’s”~ ~“attitude”~ about ~“everything”~ to see ~“evidence”~ of ~“proof”~ of ~“God”~ in the ~“structure”~ of the ~“text”~ of my ~“book”~ ~ “DIVINE 9/11 INTERVENTION” ~!

    ~“Feeling”~
    ~“led”~ almost ~“compelled”~ to ~“write”~ my ~“book”~ ~”DIVINE 9/11 INTERVENTION”~ (which you can read and download
    for free at http://www.LoveGodIsLove.org ) like
     ~“this”~
    I ~“discovered”~ a ~“77”~ ~“alignment”~ of ~“seven…”~’s
    (MY DOB IS 7/7/48!) ~“hidden”~ in the book of ~“Revelation”~! Do you think ~“this”~ ~“physical evidence”~ of ~“Spiritual Intelligence”~ (i.e.~“God”~) might cause more of ~“us”~ to sit up and take notice of what it ~“truly”~ means to ~“Love thy neighbour as thyself.”~!  ~“Coincidence
    is (MY DOB IS 7/7/48!) God’s way of remaining anonymous.”~ Albert Einstein.
    Also, at YouTube.com watch “The
    Curtain is Moving Again”. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/user/a77white?feature=mhum
     ~”Whoever”~
    or ~”Whatever”~ is ~”moving”~ my curtain. It ain’t me!

    • Terry Tree Tree

      ???

  • Jeff

    Did the guest just say ‘relatively light’ and ‘relatively delicate’ when referring to the WTC?  These were overengineered steel lattices designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet.  What happened to the core?

    For someone who is parsing out every word uttered by ‘conspiracy theorists’ he’s remarkably obtuse about building construction.

    It’s hard to face this. What’s going on is chilling. 

  • RobertME

    This show seems premised on the idea that there are no legitimate questions that remain regarding the “facts” surrounding 9/11.  I am no conspiracy theorist and I mostly accept the main stream story line regarding 9/11 because it is the storyline that is best supported by the largest number of collected facts about what happened.  However there are a lot of legitimate questions and oddities surrounding the events of 9/11, some technical and others regarding the government response that day.  In my mind the least satisfactorily discussed aspect of 9/11 is what happened at the Pentagon.  No one driving on the interstate that goes right past the Pentagon ever saw a massive passenger aiplane fly over, nor is there any footage of the plane hitting the pentagon, which is surrounded by cameras.  How is this possible? 

    Again I am not weaving some fictional storyline to serve my own view of what happened.  I simply believe it is worth asking questions about the possibility of other narratives regarding the events of that day. 

  • Daniel LaLiberte

    So far, after 25 minutes, this is a typical hit piece, showing the usual glossy surface that looks nice to the naive who are willing to believe what they are told, but is completely unfounded. 

    The PM guy gave a completely bogus argument about nanothermite.  Look it up.

    The first caller asking about the damage to the pentagon building is not helping, because it is one of the weakest cases for proving much of anything, other than that the plane was allowed near the pentagon in the first place. 

  • John – Williamstown, VT

    Jane – Stop talking to him & take calls from people questioning the conclusions of the article and book.  These two are also filled with assumptions rather than facts that disprove the doubters. 

    Ask him why the wings weren’t sheared from the plane that hit the Pentagon.  those wings should have been found on the ground outside but the “official” story is that they were sucked inside – bull….  Why was only a small sheet of metal produced while whole pieces were found inside the Trade Center wreckage.

    The Popular Mechanics book is NOT the final answer to the questions.  They also can’t answer the questions around the PA wreckage.  Yet they are trotted out as “experts” while the professors, et al who question the story are portrayed as nut jobs.

  • Ellen Dibble

    I think these theorists should revert to the battle of Satan and the Angel Gabriel, however the poet John Milton presented it, I believe, the battle between good and evil.  Satan is a lot easier to defend — the existence of Satan — than the idea someone planted explosive dust that brought down the WTC.  There is in fact a wrestling of good and evil between Islam and the West (loosely Christianity), as far as I can see, in that this branch of Muslim believers think their jihad is against the infidels.  (Thought, that is.)  And on our side, we think their jihad is satanic.  They think we are more or less the same thing. So those 19 represent a perspective which represents the clash that Paradise Lost represents.  (No, I did NOT read it; I don’t know what I’m talking about except by hearsay, but I know enough of medieval literature to think that makes sense:  there is a struggle between good and evil, and sometimes it gets expressed rather broadly; sometimes it gets expressed in one individual’s exorcism or conversion.)

    • http://bookofzo.blogspot.com Joshua Hendrickson

      Not to be too much of a Fact Nazi, Ellen, but PARADISE LOST isn’t medieval literature. It’s actually 17th century, post-Shakespeare. I have read it; yes, the clash between good and evil is certainly present there, but in some ways it can be read as a story of how Satan was duped by God into fulfilling the Divine Plan while thinking he was rebelling and ruining mankind. And that, I fear, is how I see 9/11: Muslim suckers attack the Great Infidel, but the attack only plays into the hands of the American Empire, fulfills their needs for an excuse to move into the oil-rich Middle East.

      All in all, I suspect the attacks themselves actually played out pretty close to the “official” story, but I harbor almost no doubt that elements in the Bush administration (and possibly the Clinton administration as well) suspected it or were even aware of its imminence, secretly welcomed it, and were ready on the instant to exploit it.

  • Kathy

    Why is a supposedly legitimate news source giving this insanity any sort of coverage?

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      Yes, the 9/11 official conspiracy story really is insane, isn’t it, and the liars they put on to try to fool the public and defend it don’t deserve the time of day.

      You’ll agree, then, that what we need is a legitimate scientific investigation of what really happened on 9/11.

  • AvidListner

    Hi. Can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE answer my question? I would like to know how the planes got near the Pentagon? Aren’t there security measures that immediately alert the authorities if anything enters the airfield?

  • GMG

    I find two things very disturbing about 9/11 that the conventional narrative has conveniently consigned to the dust-bin of conspiracy theory:  first, the fact that the Bush administration was repeatedly warned and did nothing; and, second, the fact that the events formed the basis of a war they wanted to pursue before 9/11, and that was not possible without it.   

    The 9/11 commission report documents their failure to act extensively.  An analogy:  is it not reasonable to be suspicious if the landlord gets the big insurance payment when his building burns down, after ignoring warnings about the faulty wiring?   

    • BHA in Vermont

      Where is the link to the evidence that anyone told the GWB administration that people were going to fly jets into the WTC, the Pentagon and try for the White House?

      A lot of security is reaction. Why do you have to take your shoes off in USA airports? It isn’t because some government security specialist said “Hey some guy might try to put a bomb in his shoe”.

      • tacitus

        The possibility of using a civilian jet as weapon was a well-known scenario. They could have just read a Tom Clancy’s best seller published a few months before. Blant incompetence or worse.
        About the shoe-bomber, he could consider himself a big success considering the hysteria and economic cost his attempt caused in the US.

      • GMG

        It’s also not just that scenario, it was the threat of an imminent terrorist attack in general.  I base that on the chapter in the 9/11 about it, which documents the many warnings passed on from Clinton administration officials to the incoming Bush administration, and described by Richard Clark in his book and many interviews.  Something similar happened prior to the thwarted LAX bombing – the Clinton administration didn’t know exactly what the threat was, but responded to the general warnings and alerted the relevant agencies, which caused the people on the ground to be extra-alert, which resulted in the apprehension of the bomber.  No such warnings were given by the Bush administration, despite even more urgent warnings by the professional staff.  The 9/11 report is quite damning in this respect.

      • Ellen Dibble

        The news I was reading that August was that bin Laden was going to attack inside the United States, and I presumed by airplane from whatever was happening at the time.  I don’t recall exactly.  But there had previously been an attack on the World Trade Center, and we since learn that al Qaeda persists with certain targets.  Also, we knew by 2011 that al Qaeda uses simultaneous attacks, whether to draw people into the action, or to cause distraction, or whatever.  But you would think that the defense establishment could have pieced together a scenario better than “Have the East Coast defense air command ready to fly off over the Atlantic Ocean.”  They could have suspected something more precise than somewhere maybe over an Iowa cornfield, maybe over a Louisiana bayou, maybe over a city in Georgia.  I think they could have had much better planning in place.

      • Steve T

        They got you fooled

  • Drlora2

    Oh, I can’t stand it, I can’t stand listening to the these ignorant, dismissive, so called intellectuals just making out the millions of people around the World who have actually looked at all the mountains of  evidence around 9/11 Truth and have deduced intellectually that the Government-Media story about 9/11 can not possibly be true!!! Well guess what, these guys are the idiots for not even entertaining the possibility that there are forces within our own Government and around the World who benefited financially and politically by 911!!! Can you spell “OIL” in Iraq, Rare Earth Minerals in Afghanistan, Oil in Libya, Halliburton, Blackwater, a National Security apparatus profited by Chertoff, Israel’s enemies in the Mid East attacked for them without them even having to raise a gun, etc, etc, etc!!! Hey idiots your Government LIES to you, it has always lied to you, over and over and over, throughout the course of history!!! Governments and their minions LIE!!!
    I hope someday we can put these pasties at Popular Mechanics in Jail for collusion with the deadly forces within our Government who actually perpetrated 9/11 or at least exile them from the country for being too stupid to be able to stay here in America!

  • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

    Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Thomas H. Kean: “FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue… We, to this day, don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us… It was just so far from the truth.”

    Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton: “We got started late; We had a very short time frame… We did not have enough money… We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people… So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail.”

  • CT

    Jane, your panel of guests on this subject matter is in no way going to provide your listeners with any sort of object view on the matter that is supported with data.  I’ve been looking into these kinds of things since about 2003 and have found really only 1 place online that holds any integrity and sincerity in my eyes.  I suggest you refer to http://www.sott.net, take a few days to digest some of the material there, and maybe ask some reputable SOTT editors to be part of a panel of guests for another show.  I actually challenge you to bring on one of the SOTT editors for a conversation with James Meigs and Jonathan Kay.  I’m sure that will be a show that will provide some really intersting material for you, the rest of the folks at NPR, and your listeners.

    • CT

      Just wanted to add…

      It’s because NPR does not regularly (not even rarely) provide a serious space for the audience to hear voices from people that challenge mainstream views that I do not and will not ever donate 1 penny during your fund raisers.  I listen to NPR via wbur.org every single day, but will never donate unless this aspect changes.

    • nj

      I went to and searched the sott site. Not a word about  9/11.

      ???

  • Kathy

    This show is a classic example of what is wrong with our country today. Not the conspiracy lunatics, but that the media gives the idiotic and insane a voice as if their opinions were at all legitimate in the name of “balance” or “reporting the controversy.”

    This is not journalism. It is the opposite of journalism.

    • BHA in Vermont

      Agreed, like the birthers. Way too much time wasted on them and their stupidity..

  • Billy Lee

    For James Meigs, what do you think of David Ray Griffin’s debunking of the Popular Mechanics debunking of “Truthers”?

  • S. O. Crates

    One bit of truth was surely spoken in the course of this interview: the Internet has unquestionably made us dumber. 

  • RealTruth

    When asked, Popular Mechanics refused to discuss the Flight Data. Click here for recording with PM.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=13

    • Vic

      The claims made by this group are openly rejected by many who do believe the attacks were an inside job.

      This is a group whose most prominent member is

      John Lear

      – a retired airline captain and son of Bill Lear
      (inventor of the Lear Jet) who flew secret missions for the CIA
      between 1966 and 1983 and is a UFOlogist who believes
      that none of the four planes used in the 9/11 attack were commercial jets.

      http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html#disruption

  • Amanda

    I can’t believe we’re still talking about this. All the truthers do is an elaborate Gish gallop of their “facts” that are easily dismissed by anyone who knows the basics of physics.

  • mark

    Obviously a pretty provocative topic – way to heavy for Jane clayson.  She’s ok as a stand-in on the incidental stories, but really ought to be kept away from hot topics such as this. 

  • BonnieRedRider

    Your guest has dismissed one of your callers as willing to accept a conspiracy theory based on a mere whiff of questionable evidence, like videos that have proliferated online.  I believe the caller simply asks, as do I, for an explanation from those like your guests for these basic questions:  Where are the remains of the planes crashed at the Pentagon and in PA?  Where are the black boxes?  Do your guests know of any other plane crashes in the last 30 years, that happened over land, when the boxes could not be found?  And why do videos indicate the WTC buildings folding from levels well below the impact levels, rather than exhibiting a “pancake” type effect from the top down?

    We just want answers to these questions, not BS.

  • Gerald Fnord

    Sorry to trip the Godwin Alarm, but:
    Whilst their opponents spent their time trying to prove that the Nazis actually set the Rechstag on fire, which really seems not to have been the case, the Nazis exploited the hell out of it in their bid for increased power.

    Like the J.F.K. assassination, this appears to be an honey-trap for intellectual dissidents.

  • Rorytn

    Those early days of the bush presidency were confusing times. Between the election and the “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq not to mention the horrors of 9/11, it’s not surprising that this is contested

  • John – Williamstown, VT

    Jane _ I’ve felt betrayed by our leaders since Nov. 22, 1963.  Like Jackie Kennedy I felt LBJ, or some linked to him, was behind the assassination.  This was another event that had only a cursory investigation and a finding that would ‘placate the public.’

  • a skeptic

    It’s interesting that the speaker frequently dismisses the value of tiny pieces of technical information.

    As someone who claims some familiarty with Science, he should know that it only requires one Black Swan to disprove a theory that all swans are white, even if that theory was previously supported by numerous observations of swans, all of which were white.

    • BHA in Vermont

      LBJ didn’t get the Democratic nomination so he had JFK assassinated so he could be president?  Wow, that’s a new one.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        NOT new!  Heard it at the time!  At least one of LBJ’s earlier opponents was asassinated, which was ‘unsolved’, at the last info I saw.   Too many powerful people were afraid of LBJ’s LUST for power, and knew the way he ‘did’ politics, and such, to trust him.  He could not win the nomination, so he was relegated to #2.  This was the only way LBJ could get the #1 position.

  • Steve

    Hearing Mr Ryan “ask questions” about 9/11 is like listening to a Creationist challenge Evolution. Thank you for taking him, rather than his questions, seriously.

  • JBauerHtfdCT

    Kevin Ryan skillfully just walked a tightrope over a morass of molten idiocy
     

    • Peetie

      Kevin did a fantastic job. He hit on a few major important points without getting boged down in futile argumentation.  He came over as a calm, reasonable and concerned person. That being said, and knowing the program was totally stacked against OCT critics, the moderator did give a few opportunities for critics to haul away, opened the curtain a few times, as it were, for her establishment guests to be wacked.

  • Sarah GM

    Thank you for this thoughtful show. I do not believe the conspiracies,  but I can see why people have them: because the Bush administration took advantage of this tragedy to accomplish goals they had set before it happened: namely, the invasion of Iraq. I never trusted the Bush administration and I found their responses morally reprehensible, but I don’t believe they conspired to create the events of 9/11.

    • Steve T

      Well you need to look again.

  • Epistem

    the same gang that told us saddam had WMD’S!!!!!

  • Vic

    Fascinating that only the comments that are against anyone daring to ask questions are read by the host.  I guess there are no others.

  • Armathi2

    Very sad that Kevin Ryan was given so little time. The other guests were clearly given much more time to explain their positions. This program doesn’t want to know the other side.

  • Epistem1

    Supporters of the conspiracy theories have claimed that 9/11: Debunking The Myths is “a propaganda piece” written by “a senior government official’s cousin” because Chertoff has the same last name as Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff. However, Chertoff has repeatedly denied this claim, most notably in the September 11, 2006 issue of U.S. News & World Report, stating “no one in my family has ever met anyone related to Michael Chertoff”.[4] In an audio interview, he noted that any possible relationship would likely only be found in “19th-century Belarus”, and that his mother has described any such possible relationship as “distant”.[5] However, when phoned at her home in Pelham, NY, and asked whether or not her son Benjamin was related to Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, Judy Chertoff replied, “Yes, of course, he is a cousin

  • Anonymous

    Listening to Kevin is making me want to cry here in the office.  So dillusional.  I find holocaust deniers saddening as well.

    Don’t get me wrong, I find it disheartening and truly hard to believe that all of the things that went wrong, went so terribly wrong, all in one day, but I am pretty sure that the only people out to get us on 9/11 were al Queda.

    • Peetie

      “I am pretty sure that the only people out to get us on 9/11 were al Queda.”

      Keep dreamin’.

  • Epistem1

    thay is why Kurt Weldon was drummed out of congress because he questioned the “drills” that were going on on 9/11

  • Anonymous

    Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite is not an explosive;
    instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely
    high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to
    cut through metal or weld metal components together both by melting
    metal from the components, and by injecting molten metal from the
    thermite reaction itself.
    Thermite may be used for repair by the welding in-place of thick steel sections such as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location.

    Thermite can be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks,
    without requiring complex or heavy equipment. However, defects such as
    slag inclusions and voids (holes) are often present in such welded
    junctions and great care is needed to operate the process successfully.
    Care must also be taken to ensure that the rails remain straight,
    without resulting in dipped joints, which can cause wear on high speed
    and heavy axle load lines.
     

  • Questionman

    Thermite was used to bring down 600 foot steel towers in Chicago Fair– see POPULAR MECHANICS Nov. 1935!

  • Binkster

    Free fall collapse speed through undamaged steel structure is impossible -therefore 9/11 was a an inside job.
    Grade school physics is not a conspiracy.

    • Okitaris

      They were buildings built on the cheep just like most of the structures build since WW2.    The empire state building was hit by a large aircraft and was repaired.

  • Epistem1

    only 14 planes protecting the east coast!WOW! sounds not to protective

  • Pat

    What makes you sure of that, SimplyMonica? Do you simply believe whatever you are told by the people on your favorite news show?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

    On ‘hyper competence’.  It is expected that a government may not handle and emergency well.  It is also not so hard to believe that given, months or years to prepare a government could easily pull of a stunt like this.

  • JZ

    What about the theory that bin Laden’s family was flown out of the U.S. Is that true or part of the conspiracy theories?

    • John – Williamstown, VT

      This is not a theory.  All the supposed hijackers were Saudi’s yet the Saudi diplomats were the ONLY flight allowed out of Reagan airport during the no-fly period.  But at that point the evidence hadn’t really pointed to all the individuals.

      • Questionman

        15 of the alleged hijackers were Saudis. 

  • Cabmanjohnny

    As long as a majority buy the official story, simple as that, the “truth” is that. That has worked repeatedly and will work again for the next problem-reaction-solution event. This nation has spent half a century building a perpetual warfare state and foreign relations empire to serve investment cycles.Iit will just continue to “react” when the need arises. Like fairly soon again, if this economy keeps heading south. Your only option is to shun the system, knowing it for what it is-evil and hope to not be in the wrong place. 

  • Guest

    To those who ask “why weren’t the planes shot down?” Ask “how easy would it be for you to give the order to shoot down an airliner full of civilians?”

    • Steve

      Full of civilians, and over one of the most densely populated parts of the country. The debris has to land somewhere.

  • Daniel LaLiberte

    Now she is reading a biased summary of the comments, just the early anti-truth blather.  This is truly awful, and inexcusable. 

    Now James is claiming that we have the preformed conclusion, and refuse to consider facts, etc, etc.  More lies and coverup.

    If you are a reader of this, I hope you are getting the sense that Jane’s program and guests are not being completely honest, and that the truthers are seeking honesty, openness, true scientific investigation.  

    Humans sometimes fail.  I admit that.  Don’t fail to do your duty to do your own investigation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

      NPR needs a redo on this story.  This was crap.  I expect more from them than being a refined version of FOX.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rickevans033050 Rick Evans

    The conspiracy “theorists” persist because, like casinos, they profit from ignorance, naivety and stupidity. It’s a lucrative business. 

    • Epistem1

      free fall speed Rick, 3000 dead ain’t nothing compared to the millions dead in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan.

      • Steve

        Your point is well taken, Epistern1. But I’m sure you don’t mean to say that 3000 dead “ain’t nothing.” It’s something.

    • hc

      I disagree. But you know- Halliburton made a killing on the Iraq war and remember it was some hawk who let fly the conspiracy theory that Saddam had nuclear warheads.

      • Ellen Dibble

        This part of conspiracy theory is more plausible, that the big money interests behind the White House, oil for Bush II (don’t attack Saudi Arabia… — actually the price of gas would get him run out of office) and defense interests for Cheney (don’t forget to justify the Defense budget; it’s been a decade since the Cold War justified all that cost — especially if Halliburton is your middle name) — so.  I actually think that “washes.”  But I don’t think there will ever be verification; more like the sands of the sea being washed ashore; of course it happens.  It doesn’t take a conspiracy to make it happen.

      • http://profiles.google.com/rickevans033050 Rick Evans

        There’s a big difference between capitalizing on a catastrophe and actually orchestrating  the catastrophe.  The Bush Admin took advantage of 9/11 to invade Iraq, but that doesn’t mean they hired a bunch of Saudi contractors to crash planes into the WTC.

        • Anonymous

          Who was responsible for the 9/11 anthrax attacks?

          • http://profiles.google.com/rickevans033050 Rick Evans

            The anthrax attacks happened after 9/11. It’s an unsolved mystery. An unsolved mystery is not evidence that some big gov’t conspiracy brought down the WTC 

          • Anonymous

             What is not in dispute about the 9/11 anthrax attacks: 1) the anthrax came from a highly-classified US government lab, 2) the mainstream media (including NPR) propagandistically bundled the attacks with 9/11 to whip Americans into a frenzy and to drive them into attacking Iraq, and 3) the US government has falsely blamed (or tried to frame) several parties for the attacks. The truth about the 9/11 anthrax attacks remains a “mystery” because of a full-press official cover-up of the truth.

          • http://profiles.google.com/rickevans033050 Rick Evans

            We don’t know who is responsible for distributing the anthrax. If if it was an individual who stole  anthrax from a government lab and used it in a terrorist attack, that does not make it a government conspiracy. 

        • Hcweatherall

          I’d be interested to hear your take on the yellowcake uranium

          • http://profiles.google.com/rickevans033050 Rick Evans

            I consider it a lie by the Bush Admin to invade Iraq. Again that’s different from claiming the U.S. orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. 

    • Steve

      Interesting analogy, Mr Evans. It might follow to point out what you state implicitly: in the end, the gambler always loses to the casino. And to your list, I’d add false hope, fear, and desperation.

  • Questionman

    PM told us that NORAD could not see the airliners on radar because their radars looked outwards.  Major Nasypany told Vanity Fair that NORAD could not see the airliners because they saw every blip in the sky.  So which was it?  Who was lying?

  • John – Williamstown, VT

    This (black boxes) is key to what is wrong w Pop Mechanics “reporting” they never saw the transcripts – just took the word of the government. These are the same folks that doubters think fabricated the original story.  Good reporters actually look at the evidence – NOT just take someone’s word for it.

    • Peetie

      Well said!

  • RealTruth

    When asked, Popular Mechanics refused to discuss the Flight Data. Click here for recording with PM.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16902

  • Billy Lee

    Just eight minutes for for the “Truther”!!? Good grief! 

    • Anonymous

      That would have been a welcome time for a pledge break.

  • Questionman

    NIST has no core steel samples showing heating above 480 degrees F.  Claims that steel was heated to 1800 F are entirely evidence-free.

    • Peetie

      Thanks for your comment. If they had wanted to know what happened, they would have saved and analysed the steel.

      • Steve T

        Also realize that in any investigation from any act,(murder, airplane crash) accidental or Purposeful, not alone the death of thousands. All evidence is held, and examined, never destroyed.  ….unless you are trying to get rid of it for some unknown reason.  

  • RealTruth

    When asked, Popular Mechanics refused to discuss the Flight Data. Click here for recording with PM.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16902

  • Suzie in Newport, RI

    Why did the Bush Administration have to be petitioned by the victims’ families to hold an investigation?  Wasn’t the US government interested in what happened on 9/11 on its own, without being pushed into knowing by the families?  Why wouldn’t Bush and Cheney testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission, why were only select commissioners allowed to attend their private interview WITHOUT taking notes?  Why was Philip Zelikow put in charge of the investigation, someone with a tight relationship to Condollezza Rice, National Security Advisor on 9/11 and therefore a clear conflict of interest?  Why was Henry Kissinger the first choice, someone with a record of lying and cover-ups?

    NONE of this inspires confidence in any so-called “truth” produced by the Bush Administration about 9/11.

    • Ellen Dibble

      I think the guest on the show explained the reaction.  Government embarrassment.  They should have known better.  They should have been better prepared.  They should have this, that, and the other, before, during, and after.  Haven’t you ever …  I’m thinking if it doesn’t matter whether I tell the truth or color it a bit, to save face, I color the truth.  I still remember the first time I discovered the usefulness of language and imagination in this way.  I had wet my pants in kindergarten.  When I got home, I explained that a little boy had shot me with a water pistol.  I still can’t believe that my parents believed me.   …

  • Questionman

    These guys don’t know what they’re talking about.  NIST says the trusses were NOT weak.  NIST says the trusses were so strong that when they sagged they buckled the perimter columns!

    • Adam Syed

      Yes, these guys do know what they’re talking about; they’re not incompetent.  They’re con artists and traitors to democracy.

    • Al2011

      Look at a pic of the floor truss. Strong enough to hold up one floor, nothing more.
      http://www.nc911truth.org/foto/truss.jpg
      Weak or strong, could these trusses, by falling, possibly convert 1000 feet of central columns into a 30-foot hole in the ground?

  • Barry

    There is nothing more depressing to me than the willingness of people to construct patently absurd explanations for things that offer them the satisfaction of confirming something they want to believe, regardless of objective evidence.  This is the same base human impulse toward superstitious beliefs and explanations of evil and who the enemy is motivating jihadists, birthers, Christian fundamentalists, and cultists of all stripes.  It is the outcome predicted by post-modern theory: the triumph of relativism over rational discourse.  We are headed back to the Dark Ages with a vengeance.

    • John – Williamstown, VT

      Are you talking about the 9/11 doubters or those that constructed what is now taken as the mainstream explanation?  Both are constructions by someone.  Remember waiting for “the explanation?”

    • Sdlw11

      Barry,

      You echo several of Carl Sagan’s points in his book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.” If you don’t know it already, you might enjoy it. Just a friendly suggestion, nothing more.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      Very well put: “There is nothing more depressing to me than the willingness of people to
      construct patently absurd explanations for things that offer them the
      satisfaction of confirming something they want to believe, regardless of
      objective evidence. ”

      So you would agree that we should do a real scientific investigation of the events of 9/11, and the coverup that followed.  Start by doing your own investigation to find out what is really being said, not what hit stories like this NPR program would like you to believe.

  • Bburritt

    This conversation is ridiculous, to say our government had something to do with this goes against everyhing this country stands for. 3000 Americans were murdered by Muslim extremists and thats it. Take the energy having this discussion and figure out how to better support our troops so they can bring those responsible to justice and the countries who harbor them.

    • Anonymous

      Obviously you haven’t done one bit of research in the actual events of 9/11.

      Consider these facts: Could Al
      Qaeda:

      Get the Pentagon and NORAD to standdown for almost two hours on the morning on
      9/11?

      Place two U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of Pakistan just prior to 9/11?

      Place explosives in the WTC towers and Building 7 (with tenants like the Secret
      Service, CIA, SEC DoD etc?

      Put Afghanistan invasion plans on Bush’s desk two days before 9/11?

      Get top Pentagon officials to cancel travel plans for the morning of 9/11 (See
      Newsweek article.)

      Plan for the U.S. military to have military war games on 9/11 simulating planes
      crashing into buildings, going in and out of radar and drawing all but four
      fighter jets away for the Northeast air sector?

      Place false blips (injects) on the screens of air traffic controllers on 9/11?

      Take the main NORAD (NEADS) radar unit that covers the Northeast U.S. offline
      for maintenance on the morning of 9/11?

      Place Bush and Condoleeza Rice crony Phillip Zelikow as the executive director
      of the 9/11 Commission?

      Get Bush to sit silently in the school classroom for almost a half an hour
      after being told “The second tower has been struck. America is under
      attack”?

      Get Bush and Cheney to only agree to speak to the 9/11 Commission together as
      long as no audio/video recordings or notes were taken?

      Get the mainstream U.S. media to completely fail to question the 9/11 story and
      not investigate any of the lies and anomalies. Then cover up all of the damning
      evidence that has come out since 9/11?

      The “official 9/11 story” is a complete farce. Please visit
      http://www.PatriotsQuestion911.com and http://www.AE911Truth.org.

       

      • Steve

        “Obviously you haven’t done one bit of research in the actual events of 9/11″?

        This is how you conduct yourself in a discussion? Grow up.

        • Steve T

          You first

    • Epistem1

      therefore, kill millions in Iraq and Afganistan who couldn’t find New York on a map!!!

    • Steve

      Fair enough, Bburritt. But I’d like to respectfully add this: What “this country stands for” is beside the point here. The theory that the White House or some other US agency was behind the attacks simply isn’t supported by facts. Rather, the facts shatter those theories. And one more thing: the nearly 3000 who died that day included scores of non-Americans.

    • bridget

      What exactly does this country stand for that goes against this conversation?  I was under the impression that this country’s citizens stood for truth and justice for ALL.  We just want truth and not spoonfed condescending truth. Answer all of the questions, back the answers up with pure undeniable fact and we’ll be satisfied. Until then don’t tell us that we’re going against what our country stands for unless you think it stands for a bunch of sheep being herded in whatever direction the government wants us to go.

  • Tacitus

    Beyond well-reasoned explanations and refutals, the fact is that US Government lied and misdirect public opinion to start an illegal war.
    After such blatant manipulation, no wonder than public mistrust any official explanation of a pivotal event

    • Ellen Dibble

      Wasn’t it bin Laden who wanted to start the war,  the better to drain us, deplete us, make us weak?  Didn’t al Qaeda manifestos say as much?  
          A similar sequence played out in Oslo not too long ago, someone trying to start war between East and West with a few bombs and targeted attacks, and an ideology that said a way of life was under threat by another’s way of life.

  • Binkster

    Jon Kay and Meigs speak is such complete nonsense.
    Support the 9/11 families.
    http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/

  • David Doane

    ALL about thermite at this site http://www.pyroguide.com/index.php?title=Thermite

  • Pat

    Now watch the air traffic controller lose his job.

    • Anonymous

      His call made my day!

    • bridget

      It seems as though they hung up on him after his comment so he couldn’t argue his point with the other two speakers.  So weak.

  • David

    When the gentleman said that he’d never won an argument with a “conspiracy theorist” he was also saying by implication that he’d never been convinced either. So that is a stupid argument. The fact is we didn’t hear from Macnamara about the Bay of Tonkin “conspiracy” until the late seventies, or deep throat. So the “The Governement” canard that debunker debunkers use is specious in the extreme. The Government is not competent or incompetent, it doesn’t exist. But DOD is competent, has secondary gain from this myth, and a proven history of using false flag ops to promote it’s agendas.

  • Tobewrench

    The real focus of investigation of 9/11 should be upon the intelligence gaps and sharing of information between the FBI and the CIA..  The saudi nationals training in Florida with only take off capability and flight control instruction. It is very clear to me there was some sort of coverup. Did the president know. Was he (W) someones pet Goat.?

    • John – Williamstown, VT

      That WAS the focus of the investigation.  Remember Condoleeza Rice repeating the title of the memo “Bin Laden Planning to Attack The U.S. via Airplanes.”  She claimed she saw it but never brought it forward to one of the daily security sessions.  It wasn’t that they didn’t have the info – they supposedly didn’t act on it.  Read Richard Clark’s book about how the administration focussed on Iraq and refuse to take Bin Laden seriously.

    • Ellen Dibble

      You could have read about bin Laden’s plans in the newspaper during August, I think a couple of times.  I know I did.  I thought to myself, this is one month when I’m not going to be flying around in planes, thank goodness.  So it wasn’t any secret.  I’m sure the government included at least one individual who was reading the New York Times.  
      However, it seems to me we had a sense of invincibility, from the White House to the streets, and that sense of invincibility was as delusional as our response, whether it be the Neoconservatives riding American horror aroused by 9/11 first into one war and then another, or whether that response was with equally delusional sense of invincibility driving 9/11 theorists to see some Evil Genius, apparently, at play, rather than the particular “inspired” individuals who were hoping for 70 virgins waiting for them in heaven, however it was promised.  (Are the Muslim women mindful not to get to heaven with their virginity intact…)
          Maybe it was Godzilla.  And thank goodness those skyscrapers did NOT fall sideways.  They could have taken down half of Manhattan.  

  • Peetie

    The Anthrax attacks were traced to a government lab. Now had that not been known, any suggestion of such would have been considered a wild conspiracy theory.

  • Binkster

    This show was pathetic.

    http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/

    • Anonymous

      It was! Nice of them to give Kevin Ryan 10 minutes half an hour into the show. Meigs and Kay are so intellectually dishonest! Nano thermite has been tested in a calorimeter and is not the same thing as Thermite. Many ‘truthers’ like myself believed the OCT until it was proven false. I didn’t have some pre-conceived notion that “the government did it with their space lasers.” We just want a new, independent investigation with subpoena power. 9/11 was the crime of the century but much of the evidence was destroyed; as the air traffic controller from Long Island called in. They couldn’t answer the Pentagon caller’s point. Lying jerks.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t see any conspiracy in what happened. Planes taken over by madmen were flown into buildings. The real conspiracy is how did they get in, where did the money come from, and how were they not detected.

    • Questionman

      NORAD actually had drilled on the scenario of a hijacked airliner flying into the WTC.  How come no air defense for 100 minutes?

  • JBauerHtfdCT

    If anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about propaganda were to analyze the statements of Meigs & Kay today, oh my, classic textbook techniques!

  • btown21

    Terrible show!!!!! wrong on sooo many levels and not a bit balanced. truly disappointed. If I wanted this I would have tuned into Glen Beck!

  • BerkshireTruth

    Thanks for giving Kevin Ryan so much time to expand on his views and research. That’s what democracy is all about. Right ….

  • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

    James Meigs and Jonathan Kay are professional liars.  Research PNAC or The Project for a New American Century.

    “the process of transformation.. is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”  — PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Sept. 2000)
     
    They lied to us about the WMD, The Anthrax, Jessica Lynch, and Pat Tillman.  There is a media blackout about World Trade Center Building 7 and its free fall collapse.

    http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/

    Kevin Ryan also mentioned the importance of the film

    • Anonymous

      Meigs and Kay are thoroughly disgusting!

      For more info on the actual facts about 9/11 people should visit:

      Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth
      Patriots Question 9/11
      Scholars For 9/11 Truth and Justice
      Pilots For 9/11 Truth
      Firefighters For 9/11 Truth
      Lawyer For 9/11 Truth
      Law Enforcement For 9/11 Truth
      Scientists For 9/11 Truth
      Military Officers For 9/11 Truth
      Christians For 9/11 Truth
      Muslins For Truth
      Religious Professionals For 9/11 Truth
      Medical Professionals For 9/11 Truth
      Actors and Actors For 9/11 Truth

  • RealTruth

    To the ZNY Center Controller from Ronkonkoma, you should contact Pilots For 911 Truth.

  • Vic

    Ed Asner does narration in the new film coming out by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  It’s called ‘Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7′ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

  • Hcweatherall

    NPR was very heavy handed with the use of the term ‘conspiracy theorist’. This show did not show due respect to the enormous number of US citizens who cannot swallow what the public has been told “happened’ that day. Here’s a question: why were members of Bin Laden’s family allowed to fly out of the country after the attack despite the lock down of airports all over the country?

    The handling of this subject irritated me enormously. And I suspect I am not alone. Rather than helping to enlighten and to put “conspiracy theories’ to rest NPR has only managed to throw fuel on the fire.

    • Questionman

      First they give us half an hour of two guys telling that conspiracy theorists are crazy.  Then they put on one guy (“Look, here’s one now!  Let’s be nice and even handed!”)  And then they send him away and won’t let him reply when the two guys get 20 minutes more to make silly errors of fact and tell us how misinformed and dishonest conspiracy theorists are.

  • Jason

    There’s a reason the conspiracies won’t go away, we know we are right. Did you know the senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of
    Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? He pretends to debunk facts, whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down. Notice how they are calling names and putting down those who simply know the facts, a STEEL CORE STRUCTURE does not fall with the path of greatest resistance. EVEN IF the jet fuel fires (which physically can’t even burn half the temperature needed to melt the steel), the building wouldn’t have fallen IN ON ITSELF that’s just simple physics. The energy required to do so is so immense, and what many people don’t know is the steel beams on the towers gradually got smaller as it went up. This purpose of this is ofcourse to prevent a global collapse like we saw on 9/11. Despite NIST ignoring the presence of molten steel, there are heat maps showing huge pools of it under ALL 3 buildings, which can only be explained by incendiaries (nano-thermite found in WTC dust by Alex Jones). Notice how they just said “we’re not saying the jet fuel melted the steel”, which is completely ignoring the obvious presence of molten steel that couldn’t be put out for months. People need to do their own INDEPENDENT research, and not just look at dunking websites that ignore very important evidence.
    This speaker from Popular Mechanics is very convincing because he shows “conspiracists” in a negative light and often mocks logical views by truthers. If you really know the true researched facts, you would notice NPR is spreading straight lies. They’re trying to make you believe that the Twin Towers WEREN’T overengineered to withstand MULTIPLE large aircraft impacts. Now wouldn’t you say it’s logical to ask the designer of the towers how they were built? But ofcourse Popular Mechanics won’t. The designer said large planes hitting the towers were like “a pencil poking through a screen in your window”. Basically this building was one of the best engineered towers of it’s time, so anything you hear to the contrary is simply a lie. “Thou dust protest too much” – Shakespeare, they accuse truthers of ignoring different pieces of evidence, when “debunkers’ are knowingly or unknowingly doing just that.

    • Questionman

      Smart comment, Jason.  Learn to use paragraphs and you’ll get more readers.

      • Jason

        Thanks, and your right I just get very heated when debunkers pretend they are right, so I tend to forget about that kinda stuff. I just don’t see how people can be so ignorant.

    • Anonymous

      Most of the jet fuel was used in the fireballs. The black smoke coming from the towers was indicative of an oxygen starved fire.

  • Anonymous

    I just want to say how absurd this conversation was betwenn Jane, James Meigs and Jonathan Kay. The lies that they all presented to their audience were astounding. Thermite isn’t used to melt steel girders or used in controlled demolitions? REALLY?  Google any video of the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 and see if that doesn’t look like a controlled demolition. Even NIST had to admit that for 2.25 seconds WTC 7 fell at FREEFALL SPEED. Thise can only happen when all lower support columns have been cut or removed below.

    This show was a complete joke. Do some research and then you will not be able to believe this ridiculour 19 Arab hijackers did 9/11.

    Jane. Meigs and Kay you are disgusting liars!

    • Anonymous

      Right on! I’m glad to see so many aware individuals in this rockin’ comments section.

  • Pat

    I agree that this show was one-sided. Very little time was given to Kevin Ryan to question the science presented in Popular Mechanics.    

  • Steve

    Can Obama account for his movements on 9/11/01?

    • Anonymous

      He was in Kenya forging his birth certificate.

  • Questionman

    They claim that thermite can not be and has not been used for demolition.  POPULAR MECHANICS November 1935 reports on the use of thermite to bring down a 600 foot tower in Chicago.

    • Anonymous

      Awesome! I didn’t know that.

  • Rclement96

    IF YOU USE THE FED’s OWN FIGURES: MASS of the COLLAPSING 16 STORIES of the N. TOWER WAS 5,800 TONS & FELL 1 STORY AT 28 ft. per sec (19 mph) IT GIVES YOU A FORCE OF 17.5 BILLION NEWTONS ( FROM PRO GOVN COLLAPSE THEORIST “NEW MEXICANS for SCIENCE & REASON”).   NOW TAKE THAT 17.5 NEWTONS TO ANY ENERGY CONVERSION TABLE ON THE WEB & CONVERT IT TO TONS OF TNT & YOU GET 4 (YES 4 ) TONS TNT.  NOW GO TO THE RICHTER SCALE WHICH DEFINES DAMAGE TO SUBSTANTIAL BUILDINGS IN BOTH RICHTER & TNT SCALES  & YOU NEED BETWEEN 800,000 TO 1 MILLION TONS OF TNT TO DO SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO A WELL DESIGNED BUILDING.  ALL THE N.TOWER HAD WAS 4 TONS TNT.   TAKE THIS 4 TONS TNT & CONVERT THEM INTO GRAINS  OF GUNPOWDER & YOU ARRIVE AT 2 BULLETS FOR EVERY SQUARE 4 INCHES (each floor was 4 inches thick concrete)  OF THE I ACRE FLOOR PLAN. THESE 2 BULLETS DIDNT SIMPLY PULVERIZE ONE 4 INCH SQUARE BUT 110 OF THEM FOR THE 110 FLOORS of the towers. IMAGINE 110 RUBIC CUBES MADE OUT OF CONCRETE STACKED ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER BEING PULVERIZED TO DUST BY ONLY 2 BULLETS. WOULD YOU EVEN BET 1 PENNY ON THE PROBABILITY OF THAT HAPPENING?

    ALSO POPULAR MECHANIC (along with NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC & HISTORY CHANNEL)  DENY THE EXISTENCE OF 48 MASSIVE CORE COLUMNS IN THE CENTER OF BOTH TOWERS. WHY? BECAUSE AFTER THE SMOKE CLEARED THESE COLUMNS WERE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. NOT STANDING ERECT OR BENT OVER, NOT FALLEN OVER, NOWHERE. WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM?  IN ABC TV REPORTER ROBERT KRULWICH’S WORDS, THE COLUMNS WERE ” VAPORIZED TO DUST.”  FIRE CAN CAUSE STEEL TO “SHORTEN” (THE FLATTENING YOU GET WHEN A COIN IS PUT ON THE RAILROAD TRACK for a train to pass over) BUT IT CANT VAPORIZE STEEL.

    IF YOU DONT BELIEVE THAT THE STEEL WAS VAPORIZED, GO TO THE WEB SITE “SEPTEMBER 11 TELEVISION ARCHIVE”.  GO TO ABC ( the only network that showed the vaporization; REST OF THE NETWORKS CENSORED THE VAPORIZATION) & LOOK AT THE INITIAL COLLAPSE SEQUENCE (9:30 AM CLIP). AN EXTERNAL COLUMN WILL TURN TO DUST BEFORE YOUR EYES. ABC NEVER SHOWED THIS WHOLE CLIP AGAIN. IN FACT, ALL THREE MAJOR NETWORKS & CNN SHARED ONLY 1 (ONE) CAMERA DURING THE WHOLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE. IS NYC A BACKWATER HOLE WITH ONLY 1 CAMERA IN THE WHOLE CITY? EACH NETWORK DIDNT USE ONLY 1 CAMERA; ALL 4 SHARED 1 CAMERA LIMITING THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE OF THE COLLAPSE. THERE WERE MORE CAMERAS FILMING THE MILD EARTH QUAKE THERE THIS WEEK THAN THE COLLAPSES WHICH PROPELLED US INTO 3 WARS.

    ITS A SHAME THAT NPR IS ALSO ANTI-WTC TRUTH. GIVING OVER SO MUCH TIME TO THOSE WHO PRETEND TO BE SCIENTIFIC BUT WHO ARENT & SO LITTLE TIME TO ENGINEERS LIKE KEVIN RYAN WHO ACTUALLY USES SCIENCE TO MAKE HIS POINTS.

    • Hcweatherall

       All caps translates to high pitched yelling. If you want to be heard speak/write more quietly.

  • Bennett

    This was an incredibly bias show on 9/11.  It is disappointing to see a lack of fairness in the search for the truth.  Unfortunately, I only got to hear the last 15 minutes of the show, and so didn’t get a chance to call in.  I truly hope they will pay tribute to such a great tragedy by scheduling for another show about 9/11, hopefully with more balanced guests and not ones who will do nothing but disrespect and disregard the unavoidable questions in what happened on that day and in the ensuing investigation.  I will certainly call in.  May the search for truth never waiver.  

  • enm

    The worst On Point show ever–by a wide margin. Note how these “experts” answered every question by first trivializing the issue and ridiculing the people who raise it. They conveniently omit any facts that support the issue (example: they failed to acknowledge that the only steel structures in history to collapse by fire are the WTC buildings.) Then they refuted the claims with “facts” that were little more than opinions and assertions. (example: “Do you expect government to be perfect?”)
    If you are wondering why these conspiracy theories persist, listen to this show with a critical ear and you’ll understand why.

  • Anonymous

    This was the most intellectually dishonest and heavily propagandistic show I can ever recall hearing on On Point, which usually produces high-quality and fair-minded material. An intellectually honest show would have given equal time to both defenders of the 9/11 official conspiracy theory and 9/11 skeptics.

    There are hundreds of high-level government, military and intelligence officials out there, and scientific and engineering professionals, who can easily rebut James Meigs and Jonathan Kay.

    A sidenote: Jane Clayson can’t come close to filling Tom Ashbrook’s shoes, but no doubt she already knew that. Thin gruel. Isn’t it amazing that a show on this topic made no reference to Richard Clarke’s recent blockbuster revelations about 9/11? Is Richard Clarke also a “conspiracy theorist” in Jane Clayson’s simplistic view of the world?

    • Peetie

      Jane did much better than I thought she would. For a show stacked for the official narrative, she was able to showcase an alternative, and the two main guests put their feet in their mouths because Jane let them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

        It is possible that this was intentional.  In which case we would have to accept that the gov. has it’s claws deeply into NPR.  I suppose we will never know.  Several websites were promoted.  I do feel that the show overall brought more awareness to 911 truth.

    • Monday45

      Amen to that, well said.  Not getting any other guests on the show other than Kevin to rebut these guys who are denying facts, was blasphemy.  Popular Mechanics?  This guy is simply tied in to the government.  Ridiculous.  

      • Al2011

        That said, Kevin has done deep and excellent research. He is as qualified as anyone to parry with trolls.

  • Jim Draper

    Doesn’t relate to today’s show.  We all agree there’s an unemployment problem,  but when you talk to small businessmen (contractors,  shop keepers,  small manufacturers) they can’t find anyone to hire.  They run ads in the local papers,  they list job openings with Career Centers, aka Unemployment Offices, and hire through temp. services.  One contractor I work with hired 30 people in a month.   Two stayed.  Maybe I’m generalizing, but it appears we’ve raised one or two generations of people with no skills (other than playing video games), no desire to learn a trade,  no ambition, and not even the motivation to provide for themselves.  Many of these new hires work one or two days and then never show up again.   I’ve heard this from every small businessman I talk to.  No wonder illegal aliens are crossing the border.
    I think this topic would be great for a future show.

    • Okitaris

      Jobs with small business  are generally dead end jobs.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

    Very very very pathetic interview.  Do I have to think twice about my NPR donations?

    • Monday45

      I totally agree.  Cutting off callers with unanswered questions, denying obvious facts regarding Building 7, the main guest apparently being part of the government, it was an embarrassment for NPR.  Never again will they get another dime from me.  What a joke.  

    • bridget

      No – just boycott the show anytime Tom’s not running it!

  • Rsokol

    Bravo, well done NPR, it was a great national public propaganda show!

  • RL McGee

    Kevin Ryan did an admirable job given the fact that he was allowed only 5 minutes to speak as the only 9/11 skeptic in a 1 hour show!   Totally skewed an biased by NPR.   Shameful. 

    Kay says “you could use all thermite in the world, and you couldn’t bring down a skyscraper,” – really….   but office fires will do it?

    Every other word out of their mouths is, “conspiracy theories.”  The official story is a conspiracy theory.    Do your own thinking and research.    1,500 Architects and Engineers conclude the towers were demolished:    http://www.AE911Truth.org

  • Questionman

    For half an hour two misinformed guys debate about whether truthers are crazy or stupid, then they put the truther on for 9 minutes, and then they send him away so he can’t reply when the two guys debate on whether truthers are stupid or crazy.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly! As expected.

    • elOnce

      The deck was stack from the get-go given the interviewee list: one 9/11 Truther against two 9/11 coincidence theorists, one biased moderator, and a heavily biased producer/editor who gave the final spin on the interview with regards to the minutes broadcast from each side (and how many minutes from each landed on the cutting room floor).

  • Sean

    It is completely possible that such and such could have occurred if so and so was combined with the other thing at the exact moment of time when thingamajig appeared… Logic is delicate and malleable.  Conspiracy theories CAN snowball into complete lunatic fantasies.  BUT, to claim that ALL questions about any inconsistencies in 9/11 research/investigation are false and that ALL questioners have fallen down a “rabbit hole” of self-deception/delusion is disingenuous junk…  Conspiracies do actually occur- the caller was correct to point out that conspiracies are prosecuted REGULARLY… Why people conspire to commit crime is as valid an issue to analyze as why people bother to engage in conspiracy theorizing (this show seemed to only ask the latter question…)  I feel that one reason people are inclined to theorize about military involvement in 9/11 is because TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE (and still are) AT STAKE…  There are people who would automatically and immediately PROFIT from such a disaster (because war would automatically and immediately follow such an attack…) Logic would/might suggest that if a certain elite class of people stand to profit hugely from a catastrophe, then they might entertain ideas of how to orchestrate (or simply ALLOW) said catastrophe (to unfold).  [Financiers have a history of manipulating the stock market, correct??  There are people who conspire to defraud others ALL THE TIME (the mortgage crisi being the latest, most egregious example)… Ponzi Schemes are conspiracies, right??…)   I recommend anyone who has suffered through my post to read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.  In the book, she explains in great detail, with great insight, and with much evidence what it is that motivates some people, powerful people, to behave in inhuman ways.  And the motivations turn out to be the things we are all too familiar with- fame, fortune, power, and sometimes, a dedication to, or an obsession with, deception and manipulation.     

  • guest

    Even the lede this morning was incredibly biased – WHY won’t they (those who question the official story) go away? WHAT is wrong with them? Thousands of high ranking US officials, professors, scientists & others are calling for an investigation into the official story – are they to be ignored too? My heart broke listening to it, I am now worried for the future of this great show.

  • Vic

    Nano-thermite, also called “super-thermite”,[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

  • Shitbird6969

    What a pathetically incurious interviewer, and a blatantly biased, propagandized show. If anything, the lack of substantial response to honest, persistent questions should cause critical thinkers to be even more skeptical of the Omission report.  Listen to Meigs swallow hard every time he offers one of his non-responses.  ANYTHING to avoid discussing the simple, specific, and scientific facts that give lie to the  government’s account.  Sadly, NPR is right on board, in lock-step with this pseudoskeptical, anti-intellectual nonsense.

  • Anonymous

    Is Jane Clayson bright enough to review the most popular comments on today’s show and come to the obvious conclusion that a large majority of her own listeners don’t believe the 9/11 official conspiracy theory?

    Has she also noticed that those who question the 9/11 official conspiracy theory tend to be more literate, substantive and better informed on this subject than those who try to defend it?

    On Point needs to redo this controversy, and this time provide a balanced debate. Let’s see how well James Meigs and Jonathan Kay fare in an open and fair debate with, say, Robert Bowman and Richard Gage. That would be an illuminating exercise.

    Why the truth about 9/11 matters: it served as the pretext for launching a series of multi-trillion dollar neoconservative wars that are bankrupting the United States as we speak.
     

    • Anonymous

      Great comment! Gage and Bowman would blow Kay and Meigs out of the water.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

    I recommend sending a version of this to your local station…. Todays On Point about 9/11 was very weak.  I am incredibly disappointed with NPR.  I do not donate money to listen to a refined version of FOX news.  The show smacked of propaganda and felt like a hit job.  No real questions were answered and the same weak talking points were repeated over and over.  This show should be called ‘beside the point’.  Please express you listeners disappointed to On Point.  In all honesty, if I hear to many more shows like this NPR will no longer be worth my money.

    • Ellen Dibble

      Cory, commenters at the OnPoint site have been asking for a show on this subject for years and years and years.  They post very demanding requests for this subject to be addressed no matter what the subject is.  Usually those are removed.  But they have been persistent.  Clearly there was demand for this show.  Given that bin Laden at the time of his death left records showing that plans for an anniversary re-attack were under way, it is a good time to consider our response to 9/11, whether we have taken it on board into the national psyche to the extent we don’t get traumatized and over-react again.  Something like that.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

        The question I have.  Is NPR attempting to broach a subject without attracting the attention of someone.  Is this the show they were ‘allowed’ to air.  NPR, always walking the knifes edge of the listeners demand for real journalism and the governments fear of the same.

        • Ellen Dibble

          Don’t you credit the fact this is no longer the same government?  Obama, as someone posted, was probably in Kenya registering his birth certificate.

          • Asdf

            Obama and his cabinet are not the entire government.  What does Kenya have to do with anything?

  • Williams6189

    James Meigs and Jonathan Kay are just protecting their rear ends so that they keep there jobs. unlike the members of the NYFD came out and told the truth and lost there jobs. And now come 9/11 these people and victums are not welcome to ground zero. Now who do u think is telling the truth. Alen Greenspand said himself that “they had to PULL building 7″, also a news caster said that building 7 had came down and behind her the building still stood and they cut her off right away. When James Meigs spoke about the black boxes being found in there 9/11 commition book said that none of them were found so who is really lying and why such a good radio show would allow these men to come on air and lie to americans as they so do. of course american government is well capabel of planing attack like this , they have been doing it for years

  • Turmat

    Wow………..this show was like a Wingnut magnet!  Amazing……….

    • Questionman

      AL Qaeda’s “Project Bojinka” plan to fly airliners into WTC and Sears Tower had been known since the 1995 capture of Abdul Hakim Murad.  NORAD had drilled on the airliner-into-WTC scenario.  So how about you explain why no air defense for 100 minutes?

      Structural engineers know that asymmetrical damage from airplanes and fires can not cause symmetrical collapse.

      • Al2011

        Really? We have videos of both George Bush and Condoleeza Rice saying that no-one could possibly ever have imagined that someone would want to fly a plane into the buildings.  Ms. Rice was promoted to Secretary of State rather than fired after her incredible bungling as America’s Security Advisor.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      Is asking for a real scientific investigation the wrong thing to do?  Is showing that previous studies, such as NISTs report on building 7, are completely unscientific the wrong thing to do? 

      We should all just believe whatever the government and press tell us so we won’t be called wingnuts?  Amazing indeed.

  • Adam Syed

    I’m never contributing any money to NPR again.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      I want a refund in fact.  Maybe we should make a public point of going down to the office to ask for a refund.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

    Like this if you vote for a redo of this conversation.  With real guests, and real honest discussion.

    • Monday45

      That would be a good thing, but I’m still stinging from this program.  I doubt that they could make up for it with a part 2.  Really unhappy with NPR for showing their true colors of sucking up to the government right now.  

  • Tobewrench

    In a vidio provided by the US government Bin Laden Says that  the  collaps of the buildings was something he suspected might happen. Do the conspiricy theorists believe Bin Laden was involved in some government supported . Plan ? to plant explosives in the buildings? Bah!

    • Questionman

      According to NOVA, most structural engineers were surprised when the towers collapsed.  The jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes, and after that we had very smoky office fires.  NIST has not one piece of core steel showing sufficient heating to weaken it. 
      Office fires burn at most 20 minutes in one place before all the fuel in an area is exhausted.

    • Ellen Dibble

      And at least one friend of several of the 19 rather quickly divulged what they knew (to the CIA).  The pursuit of bin Laden was subsequent to getting all the details such sources could reasonably supply.  
      What I heard was bin Laden saying he was surprised that the towers came down, that such was way more than he had hoped for.  
      Actually, it may have been way too much, as it turned out.  If the object is to undo our society the way the USSR was undone by overinvesting in their fighting in Afghanistan, one could probably drag us into Afghanistan with a lot less damage.  Afghanistan is, dare I say it, our “Tarbaby.”  Is that a racist comment?  Our vanilla-taffy-baby.  He succeeded in getting us stuck.  Now we have to get unstuck.  How did Brer Rabbit do that?  I believe the fox came along and laughed at the feisty rabbit, and nobody helped.

    • Chris Sarns

      The “confession” video is a fraud. If it were authentic it would be enough to get an indictment – there is no indictment.

      The FBI never charged bin Laden with 9/11 because there is NO hard evidence that he was involved.
      Google: bin Laden FBI wanted poster and see for yourself.

      The government lied to us.

  • bdautotech

    What bothers me about NPR’s reporting is the way that they seem to always structure there shows in such a way as to present the facts as black or white, with no gray areas.  Concerning the 911 conspiracy, your audience is conveyed as either a “conspiracy theorist” (defined as someone who, beyond reason, ignores the truth of a topic) or a reasonable and well adjusted person who knows and believes ‘the truth’ (the official account of 911).
    Where are the real investigative reporters?  If the facts were out there concerning all the questions that have been raised by so-called “conspiracy theorists” the “conspiracy theory” would have fallen apart years ago.  The truth is that the answers to the valid and justifiable questions are simply not there, they have not been answered, and the citizens are tired of getting the runaround.  
    Many of the “conspiracy theorists” were not that way before the event, but over time as they realized that their concerns were being swept under the rug, decided to push for answers.  These include family members of those lost, engineers and architects, pilots, and others who from their experience, and because of their level of expertise, know that something isn’t right and they just want answers.  
    And I disagree with your guest that “conspiracy theorists” would not accept the truth no matter what.  The truther’s movement is just that, a demand for truth, and these aren’t empty headed, non-intellectual, crazed anarchist, these are real people, with real questions and concerns that know there questions have not been addressed by the official investigations and reports.

    • Questionman

      NIST cut off their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus they were able to dodge the most baffling aspects of the collapses’ behavior:  symmetry, speed, totality, the pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors, the molten iron in the basments, and the persistence and subsequent failure of the lower core after the floors fell down.

    • Anonymous

      This is an excellent point.  I hope NPR takes this to heart.  Journalism has become so vacuous. Where is the search for wisdom? Where is the penetrating insight?  Where is the relevance to the pressing issues that surround us?  Where is the truth?  

      If infotainment is all we have we’re truly lost.

  • Wes

    I applaud On Point for covering this topic, but I am very disappointed On Point for taking such a decidedly one-sided position. NPR basically endorsed the official government story without questioning it. Where is the journalistic skepticism? I am not a 911 Truther, but I do support healthy skepticism and I am disappointed in NPR for not challenging the show’s guests more and probing more deeply into the facts.

    I expect more from NPR. Why was Kevin Ryan given so little time? It seems to me that NPR made an editorial decision to characterize anyone who disagrees with the official government account as a kook.

  • Okitaris

    Your show today about conspirists is an other attempt by lackeys of  the ruling class to  to mislead the people.    We don’t know what happened with the planes flying into the towers may be they were recruited by the CIA.   Just like the FBI works to recruit terrorists in the US but then arrests them.    And just why would the CIA do such a horrific thing?     Well the US economy depends on war.    Most of the trillion dollar budget is spent on war.    One must have a reason to have a gargantuan military.    Just think what the US economy would look like with out the military industrial complex.   Probably in the “real politic” view of the Bush administration a few thousand Americans killed to justify unending war would worth it.   Because the secrete factions in place in the government weal most of the power.    J. Edger Hoover had so much power over the presidents.  Remember the carter administration had to fight those in the secrete parts of the government as seen in the debacle in the Arabian desert.   And because more power gravitates to secrecy the CIA gets all and more of the budget it wants.    So we are all held hostage to the secrecy powered by our taxes.    Also we cannot have a democracy when there is any secrecy in government or for that matter business.   Thieves always work in secrecy.  
          So in a society controlled by secrecy conspiracy theories and theorists will abound.    

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QME6C6XTBAYFEJP2GYDH3VQEMU Beat

    Fire fighters wintness some explosion on 4 floors before the tower collapse. the building beside the WTC aslo collapsed and witnesses heard loud explotions before the bldg collapsed. One of the plane’s belly had something attached to it before it hit one of the towers.

  • Ed

    If you add the times the planes hit and the towers fell, the four times, they add to 3737: the message of 9/11, more interesting than conspiracy theories, is why God allowed it, and the reason was: stop killing unborn children.

    • Ellen Dibble

      I too have a certain combination of numbers which, when I see them cropping up here or there, I think divine intervention is at play.  I can’t always figure it out.  But I try.

    • Brett

      Well–albeit on about the same level as lottery players thinking the numbers they saw on a license plate (that later showed up as the sum of their local coffee shop purchase) have some significant magical powers–I’ll say you have an imagination! 

  • M Loomis

    Yeah, and 19 misfits with box cutters from a cave in East Jerkistan ISN’T a conspiracy theory…anyone notice how the neocon defenders all invoke the TV show 24 on sceptics?  They sure do love that kind of fantasy themselves, don’t they…maybe a bit of projection?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439572620 Joe Lee

    oh, this is great. all the conspiracy people have perpetrated their own cover-up conspiracy by flagging and removing any comment here that they don’t agree with. Just a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?

    This will probably go away too, but my original post about selective retention was specifically mentioned on the show, so let’s see you remove that piece of information.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QME6C6XTBAYFEJP2GYDH3VQEMU Beat

    Pentagon is the most unusual plane crash site. The wings,wheels, luggages or anything to show that a plane hit the pentagon are absent. no debris at all which is a great fuel for a conspiracy theorist. Try looking for Pentagon pictures with dead bodies or anything that can prove that a plane crashed. I have been looking and no pictures exist in the internet.  A security video caught the explotion but no actual footage of a plane actually crashing into the pentagon.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QME6C6XTBAYFEJP2GYDH3VQEMU Beat

      Wings span of the wing compared to the damage Pentagon building does not match. There is a hole at end of the building and they said it was a made by the nose of the plane but there is no evidence of nose cone inside the pentagon the no pieces of airplane debris were ever found. Where are the debris and the dead bodies?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

      Just like the photos of the dead Bin Laden… none existent.  And the body was dumped in the ocean as fast as the scrap metal from the twin towers.

      • seanmcbride

        Two interesting facts about bin Laden: 1. According to Sibel Edmonds, who is a highly reliable government source, OBL was on the CIA payroll right up to 9/11. 2. The FBI didn’t consider OBL to be a suspect for 9/11.

        Most of the OBL/al Qaeda videos and communiques since 9/11 are almost certainly fakes. Does anyone really believe that a California kid named Adam Gadahn is a high-level al-Qaeda functionary? Ridiculous.

        I’ll be happy to debate these and many other matters with James Meigs and Jonathan Kay in any forum, including right here, right now.
         

        • Ellen Dibble

          Keep your friends close.  Keep your enemies even closer.

      • Anonymous

        OMG! You have to make a blog about this. Bin Laden and the scrap metal from the WTC are buried in the ocean. Who knew there was a connection. 

  • tanabear

    It is obvious to anyone that the 9/11 twoofers are warped in the way they think. They believe that explosive charges can blow stuff up, like buildings. What will we be hearing from them next? That water will wet us and fire will burn. Crazy!

  • Williams6189

    William O’Reilly is the biggest dipshit known to man and fox news as well, who are they to judge what people should think or feel an if he thinks that a professor is nutty for believing what is fact then he must be a professor himself. it was admitted that the government shipped massive amounts of guns to mexico but bill doesn’t believe so, also admitted they were shipping cocaine into the us but bill doesn’t believe so. please lets start telling the truth lets these people go to jail were they belong and lets take back our freedom, liberty, and power, manipulated in to thinking that we need these people to run the us and we dont need them at all, its not just the government is those 13 bloodlines that want to kill us all

  • Matt from So Cal

    I see a lot of comments about the facts not lining up, but not a lot of reasons as to why “the government” or whoever it may be has “covered up” those “facts.”  

    If the truth isn’t known and something else happened, why is that?  Not how did it happen, but why?

  • RobinHordon

    My name is Robin Hordon, a commercial pilot and former air traffic controller who used to work the VERY airspace in ZBW…the Boston ARTCC [Air Route Traffic Control Center] in which AA11 first became an “in-flight-emergency” many minutes before it was thought to be a possible hijacking. I was part of the National Air Defense System, worked on operational and procedural aspects shared between the FAA and the various military aviation elements, and used to be called upon to analyze and break down both radar data and communications flows whenever there were problems, near misses [systems errors], crashes, or procedural violations within the air traffic control systems…and I would like to make only two comments:

    One, in studying at great length and using as much information as I have been able to obtain [which is A LOT] regarding the “stand-down” of NORAD on 9/11, I am pleased to stand in full agreement with the air traffic controller who called in from ZNY [New York Air Route Traffic Control Center]. I have come to this conclusion using a completely different methodology, collection and assembly of evidence that indeed, there was a very sophisticated, a very hard to notice, and very effective modification to normal scramble/interceptor protocols that ended up creating a “stand-down” of our National Air Defense System on 9/11/2001. For support and verification, I suggest that you reach out to Col. Robert Bowman…a highly decorated Air Force Pilot who has served as presidential advisor to the “Star Wars Program”…a pilot who has actually peformed live scrambles/intercepts…so that you can understand that he ALSO agrees with both of us air traffic controllers…aka…there WAS a “stand-down” of air defenses on 9/11/2001.

    The change in scramble/intercept protocols can be seen in a  Change in the Joint Cheifs of Staff Orders that took effect on June 1, 2001. Before the noted June change in orders, there were about 50-60 normal “scramble operations” reported for the previous five or six months, and after June until 9/11/2001, there were NONE-ZERO scrambles reported for those three months. Then, in the late morning of 9/11 and there after, the system went back to its previous protociols in place before the June Change-but with even higher vigilance. This is IMPERICAL EVIDENCE.

    In looking at the June Change closely, which, although not changing any specific protocols or very much wording, for the first time in NORAD-ADC [Air Defense Command-the old name]-FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] history, the scramble/intercept protocols NOW INCLUDED A BRAND NEW relationship or another “layer of approvals” that ended up being placed IN BETWEEN the the historically efficient TWO “first line responders” for handling scrambles for in-flight-emergencies. the NEW PLAYER in the protocols after June 2001, was the Joint Chiefs of Staff ant the Pentagon…and they were now placed in between the loop. On the morning of 9/11/2001…nobody answered the phone at the Pentagon…and the existing first responders [NEADS-FAA] had to hold the releases of interceptors until approvals came…which never happened from the Pentagon [Joint Chiefs]. FINALLY, a military NORAD commander in Florida made a decision to release the interceptors and that he would get approvals later…JUST LIKE the former protocols. But it was too little too late…and the June Change in scramble/intercept protocols had had their effect.  FYI…

    The two first responders are:

    The first: The FAA air traffic conrollers who see “first hand” the several signs that aircraft might be suffering an “in-flight-emergency” [AA11 showed all three major signs-loss of radio contact-loss of transponder signal-and going off course without ATC authorization] and are responsible for starting the scramble-intercept protocols to get an interceptor up in the air to “see what’s going on”. The ATCs begin the process of reaching out to NORAD [NEADS in these cases]…and

    The other: NEADS [North East Air Defense Sector]…which is NORAD’s local regional facility who has a relationship with both the overridding NORAD facility in Colorado AND the both “hot lines” to, and the DIRECT AUTHORITY OVER the various “hot bases” in the northeast sector…in this instance Otis AFB on Cape Cod and Langley AFB in Norfolk Virginia.

    Again, the net result of the June Chiefs of Staff Change in protocols and procedures in June gave indication to these “first two responder groups” that PENTAGON APPROVALS of scramble orders needed to be obtained BEFORE releasing the interceptors. This flies in the face of and is counter-instructive to the historically efficient, effective, well practiced and well understood scramble orders created in between the FAA ARTCC’s and the regional NORAD facility…aka NEADS.

    Shortening it all up, what this all means is that instead of information and decision making flows of contact and updates that normally flowed in between ZBW and NEADS insuring the fastes and most direct scramble-intercepts possible…a third party needed to be involved…and that third party, because they didn’t respond, effectively kept the interceptors on the ground when they should have been airbourne and on the hunt tens of minutes earlier.

    The second point that I wish to make is that I take DEEP ISSUE with your opening remarks in which you stated the the 9.11 Truth Seekers continue with what YOU call “conspiracy theories”. You used the following words: “…in the face of all the facts…”. Well, i WISH that we had all the facts and the TRUTH IS…that the US Governement is NOT giving us, the public at large, ALL THE FACTS…such as the high number of videotapes surrounding the Pentagon…as well as serial numbered parts etc. The list is endless regarding what information the US Governement is witholding, redacting or mis-representing.

    Here are a few quotes from within the 9/11 Commission that support my position that we DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS:

    John Farmer, lead consell for the 9/11 Commission itself states in his book: “Ground Truth” something very similar to the following:

    “…at some point the Governement made as decision to not tell the truth to the public…”

    Kean AND Hamilton, Chairpeople of the 9/11 Commission BOTH stated in their book that they each felt that they [the 9.11 Commission] was basically…set up to fail…did not have enough funding…did not have enough time…

    And they or others within the 9.11 Commission itself held discussions that because THEY WERE LIED TO by the FAA and NORAD, they considered to engage the Justice Department BECAUE of the lies being told…but for some reason they chose not to do so.

    regarding the involvement with Israel, there is a factual element of the 9.11 attacks about Mossad and it has a troubling name that will get your readers and listeners to LOOK FOR THEMSELVES…and to decide for themselves about Israel’s role in the 9.11 attacks. just google “Dancing Israelis” and you will be able to see FACTUAL information, eye witness accounts, arrests, repatriations of Mossadi agents..and their admittances that they were sent to New Jersey to “record the upcoming attacks”. This forces one to conclude that Isreal had very, very specific information that: knew the exact targets…knew the exact type of attacks that were to happen…knew the exact time[s] that the attacks on the WTCs were to take place, and MOST incriminating, knew that the ATTACKS WERE A GO and thatthe airliners had been hijacked or control of them had been acomplished…and that they had their cameras rolling at the precise right time.

    In closing, thank you for hosting thes show and in the years ahead you and your producers are going to have to reconcile why you gave Kevin Ryan about six minutes of time and the rest was given to Meigs and Kay.

    love, peace and progress

    Robin Hordon
    Kingston, WA

    • bdautotech

      Thank you Robin, well said! (and supported)

      • Ellen Dibble

        See my post above.  I’m playing with thread procedures here.  Your post is so long that the part I was replying to doesn’t easily show, so I copied it, and replied in the new post.  Otherwise your input-part would be invisible, mostly not read, I suppose.  But maybe I should post it as a reply.  I’ll try that too.

    • Ellen Dibble

      (Monitors, maybe take down the separate post that is identical, not posted as a reply, that I put up just previously)
      RobinHordon posts: “regarding the involvement with Israel, there is a factual element of the 9.11 attacks about Mossad and it has a troubling name that will get your readers and listeners to LOOK FOR THEMSELVES…and to decide for themselves about Israel’s role in the 9.11 attacks. just google “Dancing Israelis” and you will be able to see FACTUAL information, eye witness accounts, arrests, repatriations of Mossadi agents..and their admittances that they were sent to New Jersey to “record the upcoming attacks”. This forces one to conclude that Isreal had very, very specific information that: knew the exact targets…knew the exact type of attacks that were to happen…knew the exact time[s] that the attacks on the WTCs were to take place, and MOST incriminating, knew that the ATTACKS WERE A GO and thatthe airliners had been hijacked or control of them had been acomplished…and that they had their cameras rolling at the precise right time.”

          Why am I not surprised that Mossad might know more than our own CIA had pieced together.  However, is this the first time in two thousand or so years that Israel and Arabs have been on the same “side,” in particular attacking the USA?  Isn’t Israel actually dependent for significant funding from the USA which regards Israel as an ally?  So is the supposition that Israel wanted to propagate mass hysteria in the USA which would lead to widespread war against Muslim cultures? Is that it?  In which case, Mossad had a heck of a lot of faith in America’s ability to obliterate Muslim and Arab culture and economy and so on, especially since our economy and future is tied in to the success and stability of the same.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QME6C6XTBAYFEJP2GYDH3VQEMU Beat

    Nostradamus said a religion will be accused of the fire in the New City and the truth will forever be lost.

    • Modavations

      The Crusades never ended

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QME6C6XTBAYFEJP2GYDH3VQEMU Beat

        There was rumour that the Knights Templars discovered North America before Columbus discovered it. The knights templar gave that information to Christopher Columbus to sail and to discover America. hints do you notice the flag of Christopher Columbus?

        • Modavations

          Tourists from Mongolia,crossing the Alaskan Land Bridge,19,000 years ago discovered America

  • Joe

    9-11 was an inside job. 

    If On Point was serious about exposing goverment involvement into the 9-11 false-flag operation, you would have invited Alex Jones on as a guest.

  • Xonks

    Jane, what an amazing show on 9/11 conspiracies. Amazing
    because it was so blatantly one-sided. Just this morning I learned that Kevin
    Ryan would be a guest on your two-hour show, but just as I learned 9/11 would
    only be covered for one hour, I learned that Mr. Ryan’s involvement would be
    limited to 10 minutes. Now that the show is over we know that Kevin Ryan’s
    involvement was barely 5 minutes in length. This seems quite odd to me in light
    of the fact that Mr. Ryan, by virtue of the movement he represents, was the
    subject of the show.

    I hereby call for the next installment of your show concerning
    9/11 to be entitled, “Why Conspiracy Theorists Believe What They Believe”. Your
    guest, Mr. Ryan, will be joined by Richard Gage, AIA, who will talk about the
    physical science behind the events, David Ray Griffin, whose book “Debunking
    9/11 Debunking” has decimated Mr. Meigs’ assertions point by point, and Steven
    Jones who will talk about the properties of the nano-thermite found on the
    scene and its implications. In the interest of making this program as balanced
    as today’s program, you can grant Mr. Meigs five minutes to explain the events
    of 9/11 as seen by the Wile E. Coyote school of physics. Does that seem like a
    reasonable follow-up, Jane?

    I call on all posters on this thread who believe such a
    program is a good idea and would tune in to listen, to simply post “Why Conspiracy
    Theorists Believe What They Believe” in capital letters as a vote for this
    proposal. I trust this program can be put together within the coming weeks,
    rather than planned for the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

     

    • Anonymous

      Great idea!

    • Ellen Dibble

      Are you suggesting Jane Clayson should be the host?

    • Paul, Boston MA

      The only thing is that Ryan, Gage, Griffin and Jones are total nutbags. Why would NPR devote one more second of airtime to them?

      • Questionman

        You have evidence for this, or is it just your baseless opinion?

      • http://911investigate.blogspot.com PetrBuben

        they are the heroes of our time

  • bridget

    I wish Tom had done this segment. He wouldn’t have dismissed conspiracy theorists as nutjobs as she seems to be doing – he would have had both sides of the story.

    • Rsokol

      Are you so sure about that?

    • Paul, Boston, MA

      No, Tom would have hammered the nutjobs in that unique way he has. Jane did a good job nonetheless. 

  • Pat

    The two individuals that spent the hour ridiculing anyone skeptical of the government version of events did their cause more harm than good.
    Intelligent people tend to be skeptical. All skeptics are not conspiracy theorists.

  • DScott

    Obviousley another biased show from NPR.  Why is Popular Mechanics on the show anyway?  Bring in real experts.  So called “theorists” can be called debunkers for debunking the government.  So that term “conspiracy theorist” should not be used but only when referring the government’s story.  What about the Isrealis that were sent to “document” the event? Why did NPR wait 10 years to cover this topic?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QME6C6XTBAYFEJP2GYDH3VQEMU Beat

    Remember before Pearl Harbor was attacked FDR knew about it but never stop it. One good reason was the Radar that detected the invading planes. The soldiers manning the radar called General Head Quarters to warned them but HQ dismissed the report has a flock of seagulls or incoming US bomber planes. Do you actually believe everything the US government say to you?

    • Ellen Dibble

      I don’t know whether US top brass were dismissive, thinking a flock of seagulls, or whether they had orders from the top to view invading planes as such.  But I do know that the USA contributed mightily to the resolution of World War II, and came out a strong and dominant country.  Once we made up our mind to it, we did it, and if Pearl Harbor was a good launching pad for public support in participating, we can only say it worked. 
          I’m not buying it though to say that if that WERE the case in 1941, that the same ploy was in play in 2001.  
          Look at the expression on George W. Bush’s face as he is informed, as he is reading the little book to the first-graders (or maybe kindergartners).   Judge for yourself.  Is he thinking, ah-ha, let this play out; make no fast moves; we must let this happen in order to bring our nation into a war?
           We don’t have photos of FDR at the spur of that moment on December 7th, but I’m thinking he knew full well something would drag us into that war, and recognized a good excuse to mobilize public support when he saw it.  I doubt he would have chosen to sacrifice a lot of our Pacific fleet, at a predictable onset of a Pacific island-to-island war, if he had a real choice.  
          The road to war in Iraq was nowhere so clear.  No one saw 9/11 as a jumping-off spot for invasion of Iraq.  It is still extremely hard to see the connection.

      • seanmcbride

        Ellen — neoconservatives in the Bush/Cheney administration (like Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith) were well-prepared to attack Iraq from the instant 9/11 occurred (and before). That long-planned move was part of their strategic plan to wage war against at least six or seven Arab and Muslim nations on their hit list (all of them enemies of Israel). Try Googling [clean break richard perle].
         

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439572620 Joe Lee

    in the interest of providing information for people to read so they can make up their own minds, here is that NIST study about what happened in WTC 7 http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

    • Chris Sarns

      I have read the NIST final report on WTC 7 and found the following frauds:

      1) The fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour before the collapse.

      2) NIST lied about there being shear studs on the girder that was supposedly pushed off its seat.

      3) To get the shear studs on the floor beams to break, NIST heated the beams but not the slab.

      Complete analysis at http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

  • Anonymous

    I vote in favor of Xonk’s idea of an On Point show with the individuals he proposes called WHY 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE. Please repost if you agree.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QME6C6XTBAYFEJP2GYDH3VQEMU Beat

    My birthday is September 11th. I am a victim too and for the rest of my life I will remember that aweful day everytime I celebrate my birthday.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QME6C6XTBAYFEJP2GYDH3VQEMU Beat

      I am not a conspiracy theorist.

    • Ellen Dibble

      Wow.  Celebrate your birthday on Valentine’s Day; that is what my family had decided to do for me, although I was okay with the actual real date.  I remember 9/11 like this:  Someone called to tell me to turn on the TV.  I did.  Within minutes I saw the second plane fly into the second building.  I watched riveted for hours.  I called a colleague whose husband, incidentally, was a fireman in a community a couple hours away from Manhattan.  I have never heard from her since.  I suspect she associates me with a traumatic morning, and that is one way she can distance herself.  The next few months our concept of ourselves and our safety shifted.

  • Adam Syed

    National Security Alert – Sensitive Information (Pentagon attack)

    YouTube – NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT – 9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK

  • Adam Syed
  • Joe

    The movie Zeitgeist, offers strong proof that 9-11 was an inside job.

    • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.
    • Ellen Dibble

      If you want a movie to make money, you will have a strong sense of resolution at the end, and if there is evil and trauma inflicted along the way, you want to have a resounding sense of nailing them.  Isn’t it adequate to nail the 19 hijackers?  Heck, no.  They are dead already.  They WANTED to be dead.  We have to go further.  

  • Ellen Dibble

    RobinHordon posts: “regarding the involvement with Israel, there is a factual element of the 9.11 attacks about Mossad and it has a troubling name that will get your readers and listeners to LOOK FOR THEMSELVES…and to decide for themselves about Israel’s role in the 9.11 attacks. just google “Dancing Israelis” and you will be able to see FACTUAL information, eye witness accounts, arrests, repatriations of Mossadi agents..and their admittances that they were sent to New Jersey to “record the upcoming attacks”. This forces one to conclude that Isreal had very, very specific information that: knew the exact targets…knew the exact type of attacks that were to happen…knew the exact time[s] that the attacks on the WTCs were to take place, and MOST incriminating, knew that the ATTACKS WERE A GO and thatthe airliners had been hijacked or control of them had been acomplished…and that they had their cameras rolling at the precise right time.”

        Why am I not surprised that Mossad might know more than our own CIA had pieced together.  However, is this the first time in two thousand or so years that Israel and Arabs have been on the same “side,” in particular attacking the USA?  Isn’t Israel actually dependent for significant funding from the USA which regards Israel as an ally?  So is the supposition that Israel wanted to propagate mass hysteria in the USA which would lead to widespread war against Muslim cultures? Is that it?  In which case, Mossad had a heck of a lot of faith in America’s ability to obliterate Muslim and Arab culture and economy and so on, especially since our economy and future is tied in to the success and stability of the same.

  • SteveV

    After listening to the show, and reading many of the posts, I understand why we’re still talking about this subject. The wonder isn’t why so many people use drugs/alcohol, it’s that more people don’t. Now I need a drink.

  • Bob

    Very disappointing show.

  • Maturin42

    Was the show called “one side considered?” The official account of 9/11 is as transparently false as the “Obama Got Bin Laden” hoax.  NPR is just another corporate outlet that begs for money instead of running commercials. No public interest involved there.

  • Patriot

    “Why Conspiracy Theorists Believe What They Believe” +1

  • WhatsupWithThat

    What in the HELL has happened to this country?  We can’t even have HONEST debates about this topic now?  REMEMBER BUILDING 7 . org

    FREE FALL IS NOT AN OPINION, ITS A LAW OF PHYSICS.

    Free Fall in WTC7 proves Demolition.  I hate Bias, especially on this level OnPoint.  Disgusting.

    AE911Truth org

    • Ellen Dibble

      What is the alternative to freefall?  Being lifted up like Elijah in the whirlwind?  And what is the matter with demolition of a seriously compromised building?  Why is that a conspiracy theory and not a mainstream idea?  Where I live that is done all the time.  Trigger a collapse and watch the freefall.  I just don’t understand what the alternative would be.

      • Robert J

        WTC7 was not seriously compromised.  Do your reserach

        • Ellen Dibble

          So what do you think happened to it, by whom, and why?

        • Ellen Dibble

          From what I read, it was compromised enough to condemn, and also from the show today.  Cite me research that says it was salvageable.

      • Sean

        No offense Ellen, but your question here sounds a little crazy- the alternative to freefal is no fall!!  The inference is that two buildings of such size would not collapse into their own footprints.  Why would they not just topple at an angle… watch the video (as painful as it may be) and ask yourself how the top 1/4 or 1/3 of the second tower did not just collapse and crumble over… why did the entire remaining 3/4 or 2/3 of the building just “freefall” straight down?  Consider this- if the fuel that was spread from the impact caused explosions and intense fire within a certain 10-12, or even 15-20, floor area (and from that point UPWARD), how is it that the floors FAR BELOW that general area would have their structure and stability compromised to the point of affecting a completely even demolition-like freefall?  Did the fire travel DOWNWARD 50-70 floors???  Was floor #6, or #10 or #15,  rendered as structurally unsound by the explosions and fire on floor #70 as the floors above #70?  How does that happen?  It’s just very hard to imagine without thinking, perhaps, that there were other factors involved… 

        • Ellen Dibble

          I watched these come down live on 9/11, and have watched various shows by architects about what apparently happened.  I mean, I listened today carefully because for sure those buildings were not designed to collapse, and I have read that architects are still rehashing this.  
              I guess I’ll say that looking at towers 1 and 2 fall, they did what intuitively I would expect an hour or so after they were hit.  The one that was hit higher came down I think slower than the other, by about a half hour.  I don’t recall, but it made sense, from the perspective of where the weakening of the joints would be taking place, given the level at which the impact occurred.
              If someone is going to say that bombs were in the building at the precise moment the planes collided, set to go off at precisely the same time, then that is just so awesome.  Wow.  Wow.  If those 19 hijackers had the foresight and connections to get those bombs planted just exactly in the right place to melt the weakest part of the joints at the exact moment when those planes were going to be vitiating those exact same joints with their force and heat — wow.  Wow.

    • Anonymous

      It would seem a good portion of us have left our senses. 

  • joltwagon

    FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged person in American history, has recently been able to disclose this 9/11 bombshell:

    Bin Laden was a US government operative all the way up until Sept. 11, 2001.    The bogeyman was our own asset, who was treated at as US hospital in Dubai weeks before 9/11 where he met with the local CIA station officer.   Indeed, Mohammed Atta and the other accused had ties to our government.   The fact that he 9/11 Commission ignored these ties indicates a cover-up.  

    70% of the Family Steering Committee’s questions were not addressed, let alone answered.   They deserve answers.

    • Hcweatherall

       Earthshaking if this is factual.

      • Xonks

        WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

        After her testimony to Congress, many congress critters
        admitted she was a most credible witness. Many more of her coworkers at the FBI
        supported her assertions. Sibel also has much more information on individual
        members of Congress and their involvement with running drugs, selling nuclear
        secrets, and engaging in illicit sexual shenanigans. A few minutes spent
        learning more about what Sibel Edmonds has to say is well worth the time.

        WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    • Anonymous

      Boy oh boy is this good. I bet he liked hoagies as well and good pastrami on rye from Katz’s deli.

    • Ellen Dibble

      From what I’ve read, bin Laden was a respected aid in our efforts to get the USSR to back out of Afghanistan.  He was a leader among the mujahadeen (spelling?), and along with Pakistan helped America arm and coordinate our strategy there in the late 1980s.  I can’t believe the CIA would want to lose touch with its operatives, especially if they felt they were semi-double agents.  I don’t know the terminology.  But once the Soviet Union collapsed, then the next thing from al Qaeda’s point of view was to use the same tactics to get us to collapse.  Maybe the CIA didn’t want to seem to have caught onto that.  I can well imagine the reasoning.  And maybe there were others in the same situation.  
          No, I don’t think the CIA hired al Qaeda to take down the three buildings in Manhattan and the Pentagon, and the White House if possible.  Why?  That would be like handing the USA over to — to — is there anybody in the world who wants to try to control such a bunch of fanatics as we Americans?  

  • Markus

    So, who are the people who believe in these conspiracies? I didn’t hear
    the entire program, but did the speakers go over any information on the bio’s
    of the truthers? Are they otherwise normal people who looked at the facts and
    disagree? Are they gun toting right wing nuts who think the government’s after
    them? Are they left wing nuts who blame everything on Bush? Do they hold jobs?
    Are they pillars of the community, cranks that neighbors avoid, something in
    between? Are they young, old, educated, whatever? 

     

    I’ve only met a few people who admitted to
    believing in these kinds of things. They seemed nuts, but I hardly knew them
    and who knows if they’re typical. Anyway, I’d love to know more about their
    world – even if it’s no different from mine. Could be a good book on its’ own.

    • Xonks

       

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

       

      Instead of worrying about WHO these people are, why not find
      out WHAT they are saying. That way you can decide
      for yourself where the truth lies.

       

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

       

      • Markus

        Yours is a good point, but I only have so much time to spend on this. When I have looked into the claims of the Truthers (if that’s the right term) and the responses, the claims seemed wrong. But I can’t keep up with all the additional claims.

        And since very little data has been provided on the proponents of this conspiracy, I think it’s a valid request. It’s not the only thing that gives arguments validity, but it’s one of them.

        • Anonymous

          Markus, I appreciate your earnest tone. This is a difficult issue. Our  own government seems to be somehow complicit in withholding  information relevant to the event at the Pentagon. The co-chairs of the official commission said they were “lied to” and “set up to fail.” Students at the high school in Shanksville saw a fighter jet zoom past the school right after the crash.  What’s going on here?

    • Questionman

      1500 architects and engineers, among others, Markus.  Check out AE911Truth.org.   Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF (ret), veteran of 100 combat flights in Vietnam and former director of the Star Wars program.  

  • Nothwind

    James Meigs makes me ill. A complete lieng pos, nothing more. Popular mechinics is a complete jole. NPR should be ashamed.

    • Hcweatherall

      Good point. Popular Mechanics- of all authorities??

    • Anonymous

      Popular mechanics is a propaganda tool of the military industrial complex. That is abundantly clear from simply perusing any of their issues back over the years.  They are “in on it”.  They are part of the American machismo.

  • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

    Watch the latest version of the Loose Change series here:

    Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup – http://youtu.be/CPqFfiY4nfs

    Ask Questions.  Demand Answers.  Support another Investigation. 

  • Joe

    Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify under oath to the 9-11 commission?

    • Questionman

      I know that one!  To get to the other side.

      • Anonymous

        I have a question for you man,  are you one of those Cass Sunstein trolls with multiple email identies?  Are you also Patrick? 

  • Pingback: Popular Mechanics James Meigs admits black boxes found and studied « eddieleaks.org

  • Joe

    Why did it take more than 400 days for the 9-11 commission to get underway?

  • RL McGee

    On the morning of 9/11,  Dick Cheney was in charge of all NORAD orders from the White House command bunker at a time when NORAD was placing false tracks on radar screens and running simulations of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings.   These war games exercises included a live hijack exercise and a plane crashing into the NRO’s office building outside D.C.  

    Cheney was also tracking the approach of an aircraft coming at the Pentagon and issuing orders shortly after 9:00 am.   As confirmed by Norman Mineta, Transportation Secretary, and others.   “Officially” Cheney denies even being in the PEOC bunker until almost 10 am., well after the Pentagon attack.   And Mineta’s sworn testimony  was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.

    Cheney lied to the Commission about his 9/11 actions and whereabouts.

    • Hcweatherall

      chilling

  • Anonymous

    Maybe the cover up is how inept our government is all of this.
    That is the opposite of all the conspiracy nonsense.
    Really some of the stuff I’m reading here is really quite amazing.

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      Yes, Jeff, our government is so inept that they accidentally
      left thousands of pounds of high tech, military grade nano-thermite on every
      floor of the WTC. No wonder the towers collapsed in 10 seconds.

      This makes me so angry I am going to call my Congress Critter

      Oh wait, Repo Games is on. Maybe later.

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

  • Joe

    Why did V.P. Cheney order NORAD to stand down on the morning of 9-11?

    • Questionman

      He didn’t.

      • Joe

        Cheney did order NORAD to stand down on the morning of 9-11.

        Which is the proof that 9-11 was a goverment false flag operation.

        • Questionman

          He didn’t.  You’ve got that one guy who claims he overheard something on a phone at LAX.  Some people will believe anything.

          • Joe

            Just like you’ll keep believing all the goverment lies.

          • Questionman

            I don’t believe lies from anybody.  I certainly don’t believe NIST, FEMA, NORAD, Condi Rice, or the 9/11 Commission   You believe what you want to believe.  I bet you think Willie Rodriguez saved hundreds of lives.  He didn’t.  He stole his hero story from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens of people by breaking down jammed doors.  Mr. Ortiz died.  Willie didn’t. 

          • Joe

            9-11 was a false flag, domestic terrorist event carried out by the goverment as a pretext to go to war.  End of story.

          • Anonymous

            and Norman Minetta’s testimony doesn’t count? 

      • Steve T

        maybe YOU should ask some questions.

      • Matt
      • Anonymous

        If he didn’t it is because his orders were already in place. Training missions elsewhere.   

        Please help us get this before the public at large —  www.911cc.org

  • Anonymous

    I’m still wondering who shot JR!

  • Hcweatherall

    This was already posted but it needs to be posted again – and again- and again until we get a respectable response.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

     

  • Genuflection

    I think I missed Kevin Ryan while I was taking a #1.  On Point was considerate enough, however,  to go ahead and have the mainstream journalist/experts address Mr. Ryan in his absence.  It’s objective reporting like this that keeps me tuned in whenever I am not busy doing ANYTHING else.

  • Joe

    The Gulf of Tonkin was declassified and revealed to be a false flag operation,

    which resulted in 58,000 plus Americans dying, and 1 million Vietnamese as well.

    Which is proof that the goverment will stage false-flag terror attacks as a pretext to go to war.

  • Patrick

    Oh, for crying out loud.  People with common sense, who can recognize flawed argumentation, have no difficulty seeing the “9-11 Truth” movement as a bunch of nonsense, just like the “Birthers” were.  I’m sorry, but if you believe that elements of the US government orchestrated these attacks, then you are being willfully ignorant.

    I think the host and the two credible guests went out of their way NOT to say what they must have been thinking – that the majority of callers and posters on this issue are evidence that our society is producing far too many people with tragically flawed minds.

    This is not an issue of personal beliefs that need to be respected; like those who deny climate change and natural selection, people who are attracted to the conspiracy explanation of 9-11 need to have their false notions rationally and systematically dismantled by the more intelligent and even-minded among us.  Think of it as tough love, or an intervention – something that seems merciless, but is actually the most respectful act possible.

    • Binkster
      • Patrick

        Thanks, I’ve seen it, and it’s garbage.

        • Binkster

          How so ?
          (If you don’t understand “gravity” or ” resistance” – I could see your difficulty.)
          No offence – but I guess you shoulda stayed in school

        • Anonymous

          Patrick the trickster, I have to thank you for providing such a simple target. You are the perfect foil to make it obvious to everyone that you are playing the role of Devil’s advocate.

    • Anonymous

      Here I thought all this time the real reason for 9/11 was that the US is possessed by demons who are ruling the nation. It was all demonic entities…  (I’m joking here…)

      • John – Williamstown, VT

        No matter which side you come down on it still amounts to demonic or, at least, demonized entities. (Not joking here.)

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

          Demons?  Really?

          • Questionman

            Who but a demon would blow up a skyscraper with thousands of people inside?

          • Asdf

            People.  Greedy people.  The exact same kind of people who run dictatorships throughout the world and commit genocide.  People who want an excuse to wage war.  There is nothing unusual about it. 

      • Ellen Dibble

        These demons blow up buildings just to perplex us, and subvert CIA agents and others who have no skepticism about believing people who want to learn to fly but not land the plane.  Landing is just too easy to be worth paying for the instruction.  And they have sabotaged the media and the government and so on and so forth.
            It would make a nice opera if it held together, but the reason it has so much valence is because, as has been pointed out, we ARE being “played,” played for fools, by banks, by politicians, by now this party, now that.  You can’t believe anybody.  So we’ll just say what makes sense.  Witches.  They’re back.

    • tanabear

      Patrick,

      Explain to me how WTC7 fell at free-fall acceleration for 2.25-2.5 seconds?

      Let’s see some of that tough love in action.

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      Wow, Patrick, talk about willful ignorance…

      I know that one day you will decide to find out what those
      wacky truthers are saying, and you may even decide to brain your brain to the
      effort.

      Unfortunately on that day you will be too busy asking other
      questions.

      What happened to all the money?

      What happened to the Internet?

      What happened to my neighbors who disappeared in the middle
      of the night?

      Why are all of these tanks rolling down the streets?

      Sadly, on that morning it will be too late.

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

      Please enlighten the rest of us with systematic rational arguments. The guests claimed to have done so but seemed to use FOX tactics more than actual logic to support his stance.

    • FlorenceDougal

      I feel sorry for people like you, Patrick. You trust your goverment so implicitly, you trust everyone in authority, heck, you probably even get your trash to the curb at the right time every week. You are a good citizen and you pay your taxes and you really DO believe that all is ok with the world.  Have you ever been handcuffed while going through a U.S. border? Of course not, because you always wear the right shoes. Has your house ever been put into foreclosure because you forgot to pay that last $24 owing on your water and sewer? No, you probably always pay your bills on time. Do you know your social security number? Of course you do. It’s probably tattoed on your back. Honest, if you could see what was really out there it would crumble your whole perfect world. Well, open your eyes. All you have to do is look. Look around you, every day. Read between the lines, Patrick. Don’t just look at what’s on the surface. Look back on the history of our wonderful planet. What do you see? A few, always taking advantage of the many.

      • Patrick

        I can’t imagine how to respond to this without being super-drunk.

        • FlorenceDougal

          I assumed you were.

    • Steve T

      our society is producing far too many people with tragically flawed minds.

      It seems you are one of them

    • Questionman

      Did you notice how Mr. Meiggs led off the discussion not by talking about science, but by claiming that truthers proceed from the assumption that Cheney did it.  That’s a lie.

  • Test

    un fair … we need views from both sides … I trusted npr … but I dont any more … I now trust alex jones

  • Joe

    9-11 was a false-flag, domestic terrorist attack which was used as a pretext to go to war.

  • Anthony

     please read The New York Times article may 7th 2004 -Tape of Air Traffic Controllers made on 9/11 was Destroyed. please note, not only were they told to save all evidence but the supervisor destroyed and scattered the evidence  about the control center  why? Also what was Sandy Berger stealing from the national archives? and  Lets not forget Egypt Air Flight intentionally crashed as Copilot in training shouted GOD is great. Finally President George Bushes Presidential Pardon and then Unpardoned H.U.D. housing scammer files wherelost do to collapse of building # 7 Follow the money his attorney Fred Fielding sat Chaired the 9/11 commision report. W.T.F. 

    • Anonymous

      Anthony, Congrats and Thanks. We heard you this morning. Good job man.  Check out http://www.911cc.org

  • Robert J

    Amazing that some people (believers in the OCT) believe that the ones who couldn’t get anything right on the day of 9/11 (security and intelligence agencies) were the ones that got everything right about the story of the days events.  They were so right that they even named Bin Laden within minutes of the attack and had the hijackers’ names within a day or so.  Incredible.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      Excellent point that I had not thought of before.  However, both the veil of incompetence before the events as well as the disguise of explanation afterward were very thin, if you look into them, but few people will go that far.  They didn’t think it through enough to have a long term plan, except to try to avoid all serious investigation as long as possible.  The suppression continues with this broadcast, and the characterization of anyone questioning the official story as not to be taken seriously. 

      There is a parallel with how the fall of building 7 was anticipated by many people, and yet the explanation for why it fell took years to manufacture, and is full of fairly obvious holes, if you look into it.  How could it be easily anticipated and yet extremely improbable at the same time?

  • Joe

    Jet fuel (which is very simular to kerosene) does not burn hot enough to melt steel,

    it was internal explosives which brought down the Twin Towers.

    Admit it, 9-11 was an act of domestic terrorism carried out by the goverment as an excuse to go to war.

    • Al2011

      Take a look at the actual heat recorded with a thermograph.
      http://www.irinfo.org/articles/article_9_11_2001.html
      126 degrees F, if you interpret the color as the middle of the attached scale.  Can you even fry an egg with that temperature, let alone bring down a steel building?

      • Joe

        Anyone who believes that kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel, obviously failed in science.

        • Questionman

          MIT professors told us it did.  NBC, CNN, Fox, BBC, NOVA told us it did.  Scientific American said it was possible.

          • Anonymous

            The official story quickly solidified didn’t it. 

            Bush scared people, that is what a racketeer does.   People with good jobs knew they had to fall in line or be at the tip of a spear.  Not much of a choice when you have no skin in the game and a family/career to dream about.  

            Now we all have skin in the game.  

            No truth, no justice, no peace.   

            Check out http://www.911cc.org and get involved in the only truly actionable plan to do something about it.

        • Anonymous

          It did not melt the steel. It created a huge fireball that ignited all the plastic and furniture in hundreds of offices as well as other chemicals found in modern buildings. The steel was compromised and if you did your homework you have known that the WTC towers were built to withstand an aircraft from the late 60′s and early 70′s namely a Boeing 707 which is almost the same size as the 757. In theory the buildings were supposed to withstand such a crash. However the fireproofing material was woefully inadequate and this lead to a huge extremely hot fire that raged out of control for hours. Basically the perfect storm of events that compromised the buildings infrastructure. Of course it could have been demons from hell.

          http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html

          • RealTruth

            “this lead to a huge extremely hot fire that raged out of control for hours”

            Ha!

            Now search for the facts. WTC1 and 2 “collapsed” in less than an hour after the aircraft impacted.

  • Patrick

    Okay, I’ll bite.  What, pray tell, was the reason for the conspiracy?  Why did the US Government / Illuminati / Space People / shadowy overlord of your choosing kill all of those people?

    The motive of the hijackers in the reality-based version of events is clear – they were suicidal militant religious extremists.  Why did the immeasurably wealthy and powerful arch-villains of your fairy tale, whoever they might have been, do what you claim they did?

    Furthermore, how did they get all of WTC security in on their nefarious plot, so they could plant thermite (snort) or nano-bots or whatever strategically throughout the two skyscrapers with the tightest security in the US (at the time)?All of these alternative versions of events are sorely lacking in the motive and feasibility areas.  Respond directly to the points above please, not with vague insinuations that this or that “doesn’t add up” or that the evidence is missing.  Speculate responsibly, if you have the capacity to do so.

    • Robert J

      Reason for the conspiracy?   Look who benefitted from this event.  Certainly not Al Qaeda.

      WTC Security?  Research who was in control of the WTC security. The one guest today did:

      http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/kevin-r-ryan-demolition-access-3

    • seanmcbride

      Neoconservatives, who have been the lead exploiters of 9/11, had been plotting to get the United States involved in a series of Mideast wars (the “Clash of Civilizations” and “World War IV”) for several decades before 9/11. They had even expressed their desire for a “New Pearl Harbor” before 9/11.

      Without 9/11 and the 9/11 anthrax attacks (which originated in a highly-classified US military lab), they could have never convinced Americans to drop several trillion dollars down the drain in support of a succession of losing wars on behalf of neoconservative political objectives.

      Neoconservatives and their intimate allies occupy powerful and strategic positions at the highest levels of the military-industrial complex. They were in a position to manipulate and play games with the US defense system. They have many powerful allies in the mainstream media.

      Any theories about the neocons are certainly as solid as theories about OBL — especially since the FBI doesn’t even consider OBL to be a suspect for 9/11.
       

      • Patrick

        Nonsense.  Even if one was to believe that the Neoconservatives are as powerful and scheming as you claim, there would have been innumerable easier ways to galvanize the American public into waging war, which would have been less damaging to the economic power of the US (which supposedly is their bottom line).

        Additionally, you’re claiming that someone like Rupert Murdoch, who I’m supposing you’d lump in with your powerful mainstream media folks, is sophisticated enough to be involved in this without being detected, but then gets caught up in a phone-hacking scandal.

        Additionally, you’re claiming that no one involved with this would experience the shred of remorse that it would take to convince them to go public, and blow the whistle on the whole thing.

        Additionally, you’re claiming that the FBI doesn’t consider Osame Bin Laden a suspect for 9/11, which you offer with no support whatsoever.

        Your claims are utterly ridiculous.

        • Questionman

          Sure, I use that as a pickup line a lot.  “Hey baby, come back to my place and I’ll tell you how I helped blow up the WTC with two thousand people inside.”  The problem is, they don’t believe you.

          • Patrick

            Of course.  I’m sure that if someone came forward and admitted that they were involved in this conspiracy, nobody would listen… except maybe you and everyone else who’s dominating this discussion board.

          • Questionman

            Ever hear of Behrooz Sarshar? 

          • Anonymous

            google: mysterious deaths 9/11  

            Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

        • Asdf

          Be your own devils advocate Patrick.  All you need to galvanize support for a war is an excuse.  Every war needs an excuse, every war in history has had one.  Richard Clark said the first meeting he had with George W. Bush was about finding a way to finish what his father had started in Iraq.  9/11 shaped the excuse he used to do everything he had said he wanted (not talking about his campaign rhetoric) before his presidency.  Everything the people said who were against the war was true.  There were no WMD’s.  We are still embroiled in the region more than a decade later.  The region is LESS stable (which fits perfectly with neocon desire to stay there, to make money from it, to suppress rights in our own country, to create fear in our own citizens which allows for even greater control).

        • seanmcbride

          Patrick,

          What you have to ask yourself is this: how big a crime might a small cabal of fanatical criminal conspirators be willing to commit to get their hands on several *trillion* dollars?

          With regard to the successful cover-up of big conspiracies: a false flag op (the Gulf of Tonkin) was used as a pretext to launch the Vietnam War, a policy which resulted in the deaths of 58,000 Americans. The truth about that op was successfully kept secret for decades.

          Neoconservative plans for Mideast wars are a much bigger (and more expensive) deal than the the Vietnam War (the neocons still have Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other nations in their sites). The motive to engage in extreme actions to achieve their objectives should be obvious.

          Google [fbi osama bin laden] for the facts on that issue. The FBI has never considered OBL to be a suspect for 9/11. OBL himself denied any involvement in 9/11 in the last credible interview he granted the public. OBL was on the CIA payroll right up until 9/11.

          Are you also aware that the FBI was fully in control of the terrorist cell that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993? Try Googling [world trade center emad salem] for the facts.

          The world is a more complex and devious place than you imagine.
           

        • Xonks

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

          That’s quite a collection of a priori arguments you’ve got
          there, Patrick. Not familiar with the term? Look it up.

          Let’s not forget that we are talking about psychopaths here.
          Not sociopaths, psychopaths. A conservative estimate puts the number of
          psychopaths in the general population as one in 100. And you can bet that that
          percentage is much higher in the worlds of politics and mega-corporations.

          You seem much too intelligent to ignore the thousands of
          facts, mysteries and inconsistencies that point to the OCT has being a
          transparent pack of lies.

          Oops, pull up your pants. I think your agenda is showing.

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

        • Matt

          No mention of OBL being wanted for the events of 9/11…

          http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

          Do some research on the topic, Patrick…everything’s freely available.

          • Patrick

            That’s because he’s dead.  They take you off of the most wanted list when you’re dead.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

      Two profitable wars.  A lot of money for defense contractors.  A lot less freedom here in the US in the name of ‘increased security’.  A lot more government control.

    • Questionman

      There was a 9-month elevator renovations project in 2001.  Dozens of workmen were involved.  There was access to the elevator shafts 24 hours a day–which is where most of the 47 main columns of the buildings were situated..

      • Patrick

        Oh, okay, well then it all makes sense, because you claim there was an elevator renovation project, which never would have happened if it wasn’t part of the greatest and most diabolical plan ever conceived.  Ridiculous.

        • Questionman

          I didn’t claim anything.  You claimed that planting explosives was not feasible.  I cited a fact that shows you were wrong.

          • Patrick

            But that’s the point.  The fact that there was an elevator renovation is not suspicious.  The fact that it gives you a thread to grasp doesn’t prove anything other than your willingness to grasp at threads.  The full picture of what you’re suggesting is absurd to anyone who understands how individuals and organizations work.

          • Al2011

            Patrick, thank you for answering a question troofers get very often: “Wiring a building to take it down is a complex operation.  Why didn’t anyone notice?”  You have correctly pointed out that in a complex skyscraper in NYC, no one pays any mind to workmen trundling large carts down the hall laden with big boxes and piled high with coils of wire!

          • Totwo2

            The building was closed just before the attack.

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      Great questions.

      Now go find out for yourself, and don’t forget to bring your
      brain along.

      It’s time to grow up and stop expecting spoon feeding for
      the rest of your life.

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    • Genuflection

      The motivation for the attacks is spelt out in the Project for a New American Century,  [PNAC] document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century.  Paraphrasing… PNAC acknowledged that nothing short of a new Pearl Harbor event would be needed to catalyze the American people into accepting a preemptive invasion into the middle east in order to restrain the growing threat of Islamic radicals.  Islamic radicals in this case meaning any Arab or Afghani intent on defending the natural resources of their land.  Coincidentally… signatories of PNAC were members of the Bush cabinet during the attacks.  Contrast the motivation behind the military adventurism theories with the official explanation that the attacks were the result of irrational religious fanatics and one can see that reason is by admission particular to only the alternative theories
      The Security of the WTC towers was handled by Securacom. Marvin P. Bush, George W’s younger brother, was a principal in Securacom.  The complicity of the security team is not so far fetched.  BTW… three towers fell that day, not two… [snort]

    • Al2011

      No one has yet mentioned the billions of dollars in gold stored in vaults in the basement of the Twin Towers, and the millions recovered (in a truck, loaded too late to get it out before the collapse) or that the Twin Towers were infrastructural nightmares, rented to only 1/3 capacity, laden with asbestos and clad with aluminum panels, the rusting bolts of which were in danger of shedding them down into the street far below.  Taking them down conventionally was a financial impossibility.  That alone should raise the suspicion of the insurance underwriters, if not the rest of us.

    • Al2011

       “TWO skyscrapers”?  Is it really true you are ignorant of building 7?  Sure, just because the 911 Commission Report DID NOT EVEN MENTION its existence OR its collapse, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, nor that its 47 stories did not qualify it as a skyscraper.

    • Al2011

       “The tightest security in the US”.  Thank you for pointing out why so many people claim it was an inside job.  A jihadist wouldn’t have made it inside the front door, let alone wired the place.  You nailed it!

  • Joe

    It’s ironic how the Bush and Bin Laden families had business and financial dealings going back at least 20 years before 9-11!

  • John – Williamstown, VT

    I wish you would revisit this with the family members who laid out the questions they wanted the 9/11 Commission to answer.  Most of those questions have gone unanswered.  The Bush Administration, who never wanted a commission, told the families ‘We know what you asked and here are the answers that the commission could get.’  The unsaid part was ‘now go away’ – at least that’s the way they feel.

    The Obama Administration says the observance this year is for the families.  Perhaps, on On Point, we could let them ask their questions, air their grievances as well as their lingering grief and perhaps America can finally move on from this disaster and on-gogin disaster that has followed. 

  • hawkeye

    Kevin Ryan LOL

    A former water reclamation specialist ( & 9/11 insidejob wackjob ) fired from his position at Underwriters Laboratories because he misrepresented himself and the UL with his idiotic, hairbrained 9/11 conspiracy theories…

    But hey Kevin, I could use some help cleaning out my septic system LOL

    • Questionman

      This whole nation needs its septic system cleaned out, and that’s what Mr. Ryan is trying to do.

      • hawkeye

        He’s nothing more than an Al-Qaeda sympathizing profiteer of blood money, just like all the other screwballs at A&E 911 TWOOF

        • Questionman

          1500 architects and engineers want new 9/11 investigations.  How many architects and engineers will go on record saying the NIST report is accurate?  20?  30?  And how many of those have business relationships with NIST?  Just about all of them!

          • hawkeye

            & there are thousands of qualified psychiatrists who could help you deal with your paranoid schizophrenia

          • Questionman

            In other words, you can not name even one architect or engineer who will say the NIST report is accurate, and must resort to an 8-year-old’s arguments, like “seek professional help!”

          • hawkeye

            Here’s a list of architects & engineers who actually investigated the Sept.11th attacks

            http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies,organizationsandindivi

            P.S. the recommendation that you seek professional help from a qualified mental health expert isn’t an argument, it’s just obvious

          • Ellen Dibble

            It seems to me they want to build terrorist-proof buildings, and that’s terrific.

          • Questionman

            You can’t make an anthrax-proof building.  That’s what’s got the insurance companies so shook up that they’re willing to pay billions in claims without doing a proper investigation.

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      Hawkeye LOL

      A sad bird incapable of cognitive reasoning who finally got
      himself an Internet machine and now pecks away endlessly in his adult diapers.

      Hey hawkeye, maybe you could… never mind, there’s nothing
      you can do for me except grow a pair and start being honest.

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      • hawkeye

        I’d highly recommend you visit a psychiatrist after you pull your head out of your arse, maybe your friend Kevin Ryan could help give you a tug, he’s an expert in dealing with feces

        • Xonks

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

          Charming.

          Time to change your diapers.

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

          • hawkeye

            You’re must be an expert in excrement as well, just like Kevin Ryan. I must apologize for recommending you visit a psychiatrist, your head’s stuffed so far up your arse, you obviously need to call a proctologist 1st

  • Joe

    The Project For a New American Century (PNAC whom Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld were members)

    called for a ‘Pearl Harbor’ type event as an excuse for America to re-assert it’s military dominance throughout the world.

  • Joe
    • Al2011

      Anyone know if it is true, as I have heard, that ‘al qaeda’ is Arabic for ‘the toilet’?

      • Ellen Dibble

        It’s Arabic for “the base,” from what I’ve read.  Base as in departure point, not base as in lowly or posterior.

        • Anonymous

          “Base”, like  “data base”  or “list” 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053969329 Cory Hallett Vinyard

    WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

  • BillyBongPong

    This show was just, what we used to call a clinker. Neither of the proponents seemed entirely credible to me.

    I was especially disappointed when neither party seemed aware that nanothermite (or superthermite) is not just a mixture of aluminum and iron that you can come up with by mixing some debris together. When I saw the original article is claimed that it was practically a James Bond/CIA kind of material that could only be produced by advanced specialize labs and what not. This is just what I read at the time. The scientist seemed to be very certain that this material was present and that it was a nano material. Here’s the wiki on that:

    Nano-thermite, also called “super-thermite”,[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

    What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized
    powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the
    burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these
    scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster.

    Contents
    [hide]

    I’m still not convinced that anyone other than the usual suspects are suspect, but you have to admit, those films of the towers collapsing were pretty, um, “remarkable”, and I remember feeling something was fishy about the way they guarded and disposed of the rubble back then. Something doesn’t seem right about it.
    I am not yet ready to believe that even the Neocons could be that duplicitous and evil that they would burn thousands of Americans. With me, that is the fact that keeps me very much leaning in the direction of the more mundane and apparent explanations of these admittedly strange events.
    Perhaps I am fool, but I cannot believe that even the oil boys could be that callous and evil.

    • Umomma

      U right, It takes a true believer to be that evil, or at least it does to carry out the  aims of that great an evil. Drift on Osama Ben Fish Poop, drift on.

    • Timboy415

       I remember that press release from that scientist too. You can bet your a&& that US black ops has some nanothermite that will burn through to China if you light it. Cause they have the stuff with the special secret sauce. I hear it is commonly disguised as CheeseWhiz and had even been lost in shipping once, only to turn up in an abandoned storage unit that was auctioned off to the late Alice Bleez formerly of where Los Vegas Nevada used to be.

    • Chris Sarns

      You are stymied buy the “hump” that many people have a problem getting over. “I just cant believe”

      The government and news media lied us into a war in Iraq. More Americans have died in that war than on 9/11. It’s the “on American soil” that you can’t comprehend. That’s because you are sane and you cannot comprehend the thinking of a sociopath.

      The
      individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous
      he cannot believe it exists. — J Edgar Hoover

    • Anonymous

      I liked the technical explanation you gave and your forthright admission of your naivete’.  Unfortunately too many Americans believe in such a dream.  

      It was addressed in a letter above by Asdf,” Why is it so hard to believe our government might be that corrupt. We accept the idea that every other government in the world is corrupt but when it comes to our own… nahhhhh.”

      Why do you think Ike and Lincoln and the founders warned us about this problem?  The cabal that put this in action is evil. No question.  It is not likely that the cabal in question lived in caves.  It is not duplicity if you do not care.

  • Joe

    If the goverment says that 9-11 was carried out by guys with box-cutters, and that kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel, we should believe that right?

    We all know that the goverment is completely honest and that the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the C.I.A. would never lie to us. 

    • Questionman

      It wasn’t just the government.  Right after 9/11 professors at Stanford, MIT, and experts on CNN, Fox, NBC, BBC, and at Scientific American and New Scientist all led us to believe that the jet fuel fires had melted the steel.

  • Jay Rosenbaum

    James Meigs, and all these others who refuse open their minds to the evidence are racist bigots.  They will believe Arabs will do atrocity, but if I say a white person does it, their minds close.  Believe it or not, white people do commit crimes.  Rich powerful elites sometimes commit crimes.  Mr. Meigs was so nervous talking about WTC7 because he knows the NIST report was written by Elmer Fudd.

    • Asdf

      Why is it so hard to believe our government might be that corrupt. We accept the idea that every other government in the world is corrupt but when it comes to our own… nahhhhh.  This stuff is as real as the red pill in you left hand.

      • Questionman

        How dare you question American Exceptionalism?  Don’t you know we can do no wrong?

  • Joe

    How is it that the high-jacked planes on 9-11 were allowed to go so far off-course without being shot down?

  • Waitew

    If Terrorism hadn’t replaced Communism as America’s big enemy,who would the ‘enemy’ be today? What would the defense budget look like?CIA budget?FBI budget? With no big enemy there’s no apparent no need for a big military. Did you really think they were going to let it all $ go just because the USSR was gone? or that they weren’t going to use this”window of opportunity”(PNAC) as the world’s sole superpower & invade the Middle East? We’re dependent on the oil & people wont fight warsfor OIL!

    • Totwo2

      Exactly so!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DWAKA65QE3WQ5ESUYQ627OPKKE Jason

    Bottom line: no matter what you uninformed name callers post: I for one will listen to the over 1500 Architects & Engineers at http://ae911truth.org, as well as the many physicists, military experts, pilots and others listed at http://patriotsquestion911.com/ who are all demanding a new 9/11 investigation. There are many other professional organizations demanding the same. 

  • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

    WHY 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

    • Sirreal6

      WHY 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE. show more show less

  • Joe

    It’s funny how that before 9-11, jet fuel (kerosene), could not burn hot enough to melt solid steel,

    yet after 9-11, jet fuel suddenly did burn hot enough to melt solid steel.

    Know we that our goverment has the power to change the laws of science to suit it’s ‘official’ story.

    • Anonymous

      After the Bldg 7 collapse at free fall speed anyone caught smoking in a skyscraper should be jailed for reckless endangerment.  Imagine what could result from an office fire.

  • john in danvers

    Remember, the official story is also a conspiracy theory.  Let’s not cast aspersions with word choice.  

  • Jay Rosenbaum

    Yes, the US is so incompetent.  But some Arabs who “could not fly at all” according to observers at Freeway Airport in Maryland (NY Times, May 4, 2002, “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence”) these incompetent Arabs could do it.  But trillion dollar US Pentagon and CIA?  No way, they don’t have the resources.  And they have nothing to gain, except power and money and rubber stamped policy agendas.

  • Xonks

    I am posting this again so that those who are new to this
    thread will know why so many of us are posting the phrase WHY CONSPIRACY
    THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE and will have the opportunity to encourage
    PBS to correct the imbalance of this program.

     

    “Jane, what an amazing show on 9/11 conspiracies. Amazing
    because it was so blatantly one-sided. Just this morning I learned that Kevin
    Ryan would be a guest on your two-hour show, but just as I learned 9/11 would
    only be covered for one hour, I learned that Mr. Ryan’s involvement would be
    limited to 10 minutes. Now that the show is over we know that Kevin Ryan’s
    involvement was barely 5 minutes in length. This seems quite odd to me in light
    of the fact that Mr. Ryan, by virtue of the movement he represents, was the
    subject of the show.

    I hereby call for the next installment of your show concerning
    9/11 to be entitled, “Why Conspiracy Theorists Believe What They Believe”. Your
    guest, Mr. Ryan, will be joined by Richard Gage, AIA, who will talk about the
    physical science behind the events, David Ray Griffin, whose book “Debunking
    9/11 Debunking” has decimated Mr. Meigs’ assertions point by point, and Steven
    Jones who will talk about the properties of the nano-thermite found on the
    scene and its implications. In the interest of making this program as balanced
    as today’s program, you can grant Mr. Meigs five minutes to explain the events
    of 9/11 as seen by the Wile E. Coyote school of physics. Does that seem like a
    reasonable follow-up, Jane?

    I call on all posters on this thread who believe such a
    program is a good idea and would tune in to listen, to simply post “WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY
    BELIEVE ” in capital letters as a vote for this
    proposal. I trust this program can be put together within the coming weeks,
    rather than planned for the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.”

     

  • RealTruth

    Popular Mechanics Refuse To Discuss Flight Data – Recorded conversation here.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16902

  • Anonymous

    I bet the producers are wishing they never ran this show.

  • Al in Sutton

    Reading to children in his brothers state?  Only fools believe the Commission’s report.  Heck: even the Italian investigation got it right.

  • Joe

    So the C.I.A. claims that 9-11 was carried out by terrorists with box cutters, and that jet fuel (kerosene) burns hot enough to melt solid steel,

    the C.I.A. that made those claims is the same C.I.A. that claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that Hussein carried out 9-11 with the assistance of Al-qaeda.

  • John D

    Yes, debunking the “skeptics” because the sanctioned conspiracy theory of 9/11 is so very plausible.

  • seanmcbride

    If you study the comments here on this show, and the quality of analysis opposed to and in support of the 9/11 official conspiracy theory, you will realize why the mainstream media decided some years ago to try to suppress and censor ALL discussion and debate about the facts of 9/11. For years now on the Internet, defenders of the official conspiracy theory have been intellectually crushed in fair and open debate on the subject. There is a simple reason this: the official story makes no sense and is false. Many high-level US government, military and intelligence officials know the score.

    From the standpoint of the powers that be, NPR made a huge mistake in airing this show. They really can’t permit an open and rational discussion of and investigation into 9/11 without causing the collapse the official story.

    Look at how often defenders of the 9/11 official conspiracy theory rely on random verbal abuse and personal attacks to try to muddle by. Most telling.
     

    • Totwo2

      And in this vain, it is entirely possible this was the best NPR could air.  Possibly hoping the intelligence of it’s listeners would allow them to read between the lines.  I am at least glad they aired it even if it was very likely with the agreement that it would slant the story. 

  • Totwo2

    Check On Point facebook page.

  • Joseph

    This was a biased and unprofessional program, well beneath the standards of On Point.  Three-quarters of the air-time was devoted to two non-experts selling books.  Most of what these people said dealt with their critique of so-called conspiratorial thinking in general, rather than any of the serious and valid questions that have been asked – by experts – about 911.  The one person you consulted with an alternative viewpoint was given only a few brief minutes and no chance to rebut any comments.  NPR is one of the few media outlets left where members of the public can reasonably expect unbiased programming based on up-to-date information from people with credentials.  In this regard you failed miserably.  We learned nothing from this program.

  • Patrick

    Again, this is absurd.  As far as I can see, the “9-11 Truth” reasoning goes like this:

    “Some neoconservatives who were so rich and powerful that they could pull off the must diabolical conspiracy in the history of time, went ahead and did it so that they could become more rich and more powerful.”

    I’m sorry, but this type of reasoning can be applied to any event that has ever happened.  I know you that many of you think you’re being smart and heroic by picking this thing to death, but the fact is that there is something about your worldview that prevents you from accepting what happened.  Anyone ever heard of Occam’s Razor?

    The reality of this tragic event is that a few murderous human beings with knives were successful beyond their wildest dreams, and have succeeded in turning many, many Americans into paranoid, tormented wretches.

    Take a breath, talk to a professional, do some Tai Chi or something. 

    • RealTruth

      You mean these professionals?

      http://patriotsquestion911.com

    • Genuflection

      When do the competent shills come on? 

      • Binkster

        I don’t think there are any competent shills anymore.
        In any event- no one buying it anymore.

        • Binkster

          (except obviously NPR)

          • Patrick

            Of course, anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be a “shill.”  You use the word “shill” at every opportunity, and then accuse others of relying on “talking points.”  Your method is transparent, weak, and sad.

          • Totwo2

            Then ignore comments like that and reply to real ones.  There is no point in replying to that kind of stuff, the whole page will quickly become a bunch of angry name calling.  Seriously, there are valid questions that todays show didn’t even touch.

          • Genuflection

            Patrick isn’t interested in debate.  He ignores any relevant response to the questions he raises and then rehashes the same trite canards over and over… on the same thread no less.  Perhaps he isn’t a shill because his performance thus far has been single-A.  Regardless, arguing with him is pointless.  He isn’t game enough to spar with. 

          • Xonks

            WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

            Oh, I see, Patrick.

            It’s kinda like when those of your ilk use the word “ridiculous”
            in the face of scientific fact, or use the word “whackjob” to discredit one who
            is capable of critical thinking.

            I see how it works now. Thanks.

            WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    • Binkster

      Free Fall collapse speed trough undamaged steel structure is impossible – therefore 9/11 was an inside job.
      Your talking points avoid grade school physics Patrick.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

      Any questions ? We’re here to help…

      • Patrick

        Consider giving up on this thing, and mending fences with those family members and former friends that you’ve put through the miserable experience of having to listen to you explain the most tragic event in American history in terms of “grade school physics.”

        It will hurt your pride in the short term, but eventually you’ll be happier.

        • Binkster

          What about these family members Pat ?

          http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/

          • Patrick

            People trying to cope with immeasurable loss, grasping for a way to understand it.  If this is your situation, then I apologize.  If not, then what’s your excuse?

          • Totwo2

            I don’t get a reply?

          • Patrick

            Don’t just tell me it’s “far more complicated” because “lots of evidence needs answers.”  Lots of people are also making a cottage industry out of peddling this Truther nonsense.  Whenever anyone answers your questions, you pick out one piece of what appears, to you, to be missing evidence, and based on that you say that it must have been a diabolical conspiracy.

            James Meigs gave an explanation for why building 7 fell; for some reason you don’t agree with it.  So you either think that he’s completely incompetent, or that he’s in on the conspiracy.  If he’s completely incompetent, then one has to ask how he came to be the editor-in-chief of a well-know popular engineering magazine, and I’m guessing that you’d say that it’s because he’s part of some conspiracy.  So either he’s part of a conspiracy, or he’s part of a conspiracy, and the only hero who’s not part of the conspiracy is you.  Does that resonate?

          • Totwo2

            No.  It doesn’t resonate.  I’m sure you are right there are people (Alex Jones) making a cottage industry of the subject.  That doesn’t really mean anything though does it?  No one has answered my questions, that is why I am disappointed in Meigs so called explanation.  It is just as easy to say he has created his own cottage industry (selling books) on debunking 911 truth.  Your use of colorful words like ‘diabolical’ only evokes an emotional response without actually adding any meat to the subject.  I didn’t say he was completely incompetent.  I didn’t mention his competency one way or the other, so why are you talking about it.  Please do not ‘guess’ what I think.  I could never win a debate with someone who wants to speak for both sides of the argument.  At that point you are only talking to yourself.  First you need to accept there is SOME possibility of your opponent having a valid point.  Otherwise why are you here?  Snarky comments do not equal an argument.   

          • Patrick

            “Snarky comments do not equal an argument”

            Absolutely true, and I think that your side of this needs to hear that advice more than mine.  I’m out of here – good talk.

          • Totwo2

            It seems like ‘my side’ is making more snarky comments to you because you have a negative emotional reaction to them.  But the same emotion is not triggered by similar comments from your own side.   It will always seem to everyone that the other side is ruder and more unfair in their arguments than their own.

          • Totwo2

            Patrick.  You don’t reply to the meat of my point.  Just what you think you can conveniently poke at.

          • Totwo2

            And then you leave.

          • Binkster

            Physics isn’t a conspiracy.

            Time for some new talking points Pat.

    • Totwo2

      Whatever, your arguments against this aren’t exactly informed or well reasoned either.  Don’t define the truthers argument and then try to debunk it.  Classic set up your own straw man and then knock it down.  The issue is far more complicated than what you are going to learn by reading the comments of people who have only a basic introduction to the issue.  There are thousands of architects that have a lot to say on the subject.  There is plenty of evidence that needs answers.  Like why did building 7 fall?  Debris from the others?  It fell straight down.  Other buildings in the area didn’t seem to suffer ANY damage.  Why did that take enough to become a pancake?

      • Patrick

        Okay, let’s hear why you think it happened

        • Binkster

          ” let’s hear why you think it happened “?

          So you agree the official story “could use some reworking” to put it mildly.
          And I suppose you’re against a new investigation ?

          (Ummmm…Bring on the next shift of shills)

        • Totwo2

          I don’t know.  But I would feel like I was afraid of facing hard questions if I just accepted that that building just decided it was time to say goodbye cause it wished it were built in Cleveland.  The mysterious suicidal building.  I just can’t square that away.   

          • Patrick

            Again, it’s not a mystery, there’s an explanation that you didn’t like. The explanation is that it was right next to the biggest skyscraper collapse that has ever occurred, and that damaged it enough to cause its eventual collapse.

            You must think that the 35W bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis, killing several people, is a mystery as well.  What hit it?  What happened?  What happened is that it was not structurally sound, despite not even being next to the biggest skyscraper collapse in history.

            This “conspiracy” is not interesting; there’s nothing to it.  What captivates me is the fact that it’s easier for someone to believe that some wealthy and powerful secret force of American evildoers caused 9-11, instead of a non-secret, broke, suicidal force of militant Islamic evildoers.  I just don’t see why the conspiracy explanation is compelling, when we all saw the planes hit with our own eyes.

          • Totwo2

            Ugh.  Don’t dismiss someone by adding your own little tidbit of what you want someone else to think.  The explanation given was a two minute rebuttal to 1500 engineers and architects who write pages on the subject.  Just saying it was not structurally sound means nothing.  

            There is an obvious motive for militant Islamists and arguably even more motive for the American government.  It isn’t nearly as far fetched as you think.

          • Totwo2

            Further more, there was no visible damage to the outside of that building before it fell.  So where was it damaged?  If it was damaged enough to fall I expect to see some sign of stress before it implodes.  People see what they want to see, and you will say I want to see a conspiracy.  I think the idea is so outlandish and appalling to people they will go to great lengths to explain away any inconsistencies in the official version.

      • Ellen Dibble

        Maybe somebody demolished it?

      • Ellen Dibble

        Just to say, if I owned that building, I wouldn’t want it to land on the postman on his daily rounds or whomever, and I would be thinking about recouping some insurance money, and I would have it demolished.  I would talk to my lawyers first, and to my insurers, and of course the architect, but I wouldn’t publicize it in the least, because — I’m not an insider on Manhattan politics, but I have no problem with humans playing a part in that event.  Or not.  

    • Totwo2

      Your response could be applied to any statement about who caused what ever made.  You simply haven’t taken the time or opened up your mind enough to learn the REAL questions that there are.  Simplify it and dismiss it.  Birthers do not have the large numbers of professionals willing to put their reputations on the line that 911 truthers have.  There were only one or two arguments to support birthers claims.  There is a myriad of evidence that counters the OCT.  Yeah, we all know about Occam’s Razor.

  • Sean McGuire

    Today’s show was dreadful.  To hear Meigs and Kay set up and knock down their Straw Man Conspiracy Theorist and flat-out lie on so many points was the low point for me in over 30 years of listening to public radio.  Please re-schedule Kevin Ryan, who while advancing no “conspiracy theory” has uncovered truly disturbing information about the events of that day.  On Point and NPR are better than this.

  • Rclement96

    I was censored by NPR. At 12:09 today I submitted the following comments below. By 4pm I discovered I was no longer on the board. Please read the following & tell me why I was censored.

    If you use the Fed’s official figures (NIST) the mass of the collapsing 16 floors of the N.Tower was 5,800 tons & they fell 1 story at 28 ft.per.sec (19mph). Force = mass x acceleration giving us a force of 17.5 billion newtons ( from NEW MEXICANS FOR SCIENCE & REASON who support the govn. gravity collapse theory). If you take that 17.5 billion newtons to any ENERGY CONVERSION TABLE on the web, & convert newtons to tons of TNT, you get only 4  (yes 4) tons of TNT. Now go to the richter scale which defines DAMAGE, & you find that it takes between 800,000 to 1 MILLION TONS of TNT to cause substantial damage to well designed high rises. All the N. Tower had was 4 tons.   Now if you convert the 4 tons TNT into grains of gunpowder, you arrive at 2 BULLETS for every 4 inch square of the 1 acre size floors. Each floor was 4 inch thick concrete, so each two bullets would be responsible for pulverizing a 4 inch cube on all 110 floors. Imagine 110 concrete rubic cubes stacked 1 on top of the other & all pulverized to dust by only 2 bullets.
    Also  POPULAR MECHANIC ( along with the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC & HISTORY channels)  DENY the existence of 48 massive CORE COLUMNS AT THE CENTER OF EACH TOWER. WHY? Because after the dust cleared on 9/11, there were no core columns present. They weren’t standing, they weren’t bent over, they hadn’t fallen down. they were nowhere. What happened to them? In ABC REPORTER ROBERT KRULWICH’s  words, they “were VAPORIZED to DUST”. 
    If you dont believe that steel could be VAPORIZED on 9/11 just go to 
    SEPTEMBER 11 TELEVISION ARCHIVE on the web & check ABC at the 9:30 am clip.  YOU WILL SEE AN EXTERNAL COLUMN BEING PULVERIZED           to DUST BEFORE YOUR EYES. There is nothing touching the column, no fire, no collapse; just a column being vaporized in open space. Only ABC showed this pulverization, & only once. Every other network cut away from the pulverization before it happened.  Amazingly all 3 major networks & CNN shared ONLY ONE CAMERA BETWEEN THEM. Not one camera for each network, but one total. After ABC showed the pulverization, the other networks censored it (just as NPR censored my original comments). Why would  NYC, the media capital of the world use only 1 camera for the event of the century while  using many cameras for the minor earthquake this week that wont lead us into 2 major wars.  Its a shame NPR is censoring scientific facts (including Kevin Ryan) while allowing snakebite medicine to be advanced in the name of science.     PLEASE DO NOT CENSOR ME AGAIN NPR 

    • Totwo2

      screenshot captured.

  • Joe

    Al-qaeda terrorist, Anwar al-Awlkaki dined at the Pentagon days after 9-11
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/21/national/main6978200.shtml

    Al-qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki dines at the Pentagon after 9-11 and people who question 9-11 are called crazy??!!

    The only ones who are crazy are the ones who still believe that 9-11 was not an inside job because 9-11 was an inside job.

  • Cyndibrn

    I have been looking at this issue for over 6 yrs, as an RN I am taught in using critical thinking skills, and I for one can not and will not believe that in the case of both WTC 1&2, the smallest part of the building (the part above the explosion from the jets) can plow thru the biggist, rest of the building and (coldest, not on fire) in near freefall speed with no resistance from that largest part of the mass. It is called Newton’s laws of gravity, conservation of momentum and energy. Also in WTC 7, yes there was damage from debris of the towers, it still fell at near freefall speed, straight down, not towards the side where the damage was, also was admitted by NIST that approx 8 floors actually did fall at the rate of gravity, which means all connections failed simultaneously at once, this all adds up to controlled demolition, plus when you ad up all the hundreds of coincidences and gross failures, any person with any common sense and some critical thinking knows that nothing else adds up except complicity of our govt’s  ” shadowy puppet masters”

    • 4evernow

      Exactly.  And this, of course, was not addressed. I found the tone of this show demeaning and disrespectful to any rational person who questions the explanations for the events of 9/11.  It was a calculated work of propaganda, with the hallmark “us and them” mentality, intended to simply discredit all who question rather than address the multi-faceted and conflicting evidence and witness accounts.

  • Steve

    How about a show that’s a little less polarizing, like the death of God.

  • Joe

    How did WTC7 building collapse if it wasn’t even struck by a plane?

    • Totwo2

      How?  Anybody think that’s weird?  You know, there was a building there, then nothing hit it, then it fell straight down.  Why?  NOTHING HIT IT?!  So how the H does that happen?  There are very valid questions that need to be answered.

    • Ellen Dibble

      Probably the owner realized it was dangerous as is and not worth restoring.  Probably the lawyers and bankers and insurers took one look and either were extremely glad to see it fall flat or assisted it.  I wouldn’t be waiting for it to land on all the remaining New York City firefighters who were in the general vicinity trying to “clean up.”  I’d take preemptive action.
          I think this is the same position as the so-called conspiracy position.  It is what happened to many buildings in my region post tornado; or post certain fires and so on.  They do fall straight down unless pulled by strong ropes, even if they are not humongously heavy buildings.  Heavy buildings — the physicists can calculate gravity versus resistance, but I guess I don’t care.  If there was another terrorist wild in the sewers of Manhattan — shadows of The Hunchback of Notre Dame? — who came creeping out and perpetrated something else, is the idea that there is a second version of al Qaeda, another bin Laden provoking a similar set of atrocities, still loose in the underground?  Is that the reason this is such a hot subject?

      • Joe

        So you’re saying that WTC7 was detonated on purpose for insurance reasons,

        but that the Twin Towers were brought down because jet fuel (kerosene) really can burn hot enough to melt solid steel?

        Gee, thanks for explaining that to me.  I’ll never question my goverment again.

  • Theresa

    Nobody has ever said: The towers were brought down by the Government

    Jane: You are making up stuff.

    Every Controlled Demolistion is not done by the Government!!!!

    We have NEVER EVER investigated the Controlled Demolition possibility….

    This guy from Popular Mechanics is making stuff up.

    • Anonymous

      Besides, “the  government” isn’t some massive voting block that all acts in harmony.  Like “the people” it consists of various and multiple circles of usually well interwoven relationship.  Some of those relationships however has become very insular and secretive.  It is a large threat to open government and the will of the people when such a secretive cabal gets into power.  But “the government” is never “the cabal”  and the government should always remain, “of the people”.

  • John Myers

    Pathologically ignorant people tend to think they are experts at everything.
    This does remind me of the Birthers. Even when Obama released the PDF of his birth certificate so called experts said that it was a forgery because it was built in “layers.”
    It’s pretty sad when the Truther zombies have to be reminded about the nature of gravity.
    Keep drinking the Alex Jones kool-aid. It’s got electrolytes.

    • Patrick

      Ha!  Electrolytes.  It’s what Truthers crave.

      • Totwo2

        Why don’t you reply?  

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      You are missing one important point, John.

      Thee birth of Obama, regardless of where it took place,
      violated none of the immutable laws of physics. According to the official
      conspiracy theory, the events of 911 violated many of them, making it
      impossible in this neighborhood of the universe.

      I know the implications of questioning 9/11 are horrifying.
      I fought against it for months as I educated myself on the facts that the
      corporate media somehow failed to inform me of. I finally could ignore it no
      longer.

      Sooner or later we are all going to have to be smart, and we
      are all going to have to be honest about this issue.

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      • John Myers

        I’m not burying my head in the sand. I watched the Aaron Russo/Rockefeller interview. I wouldn’t rule anything out – I’m just saying whatever Truther argument I’ve seen, none of it has been compelling.

        • Xonks

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

          To the best of my recollection, the Russo/Rockefeller
          interview had nothing about the physical science of the event. If you have seen
          no compelling argument, you are not looking. I hope you will check out Loose Change
          Final Cut, 9/11 Mysteries, the second section of Zeitgeist or any presentation
          by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

          I know the implications of this information are horrifying,
          but just remember; if there is an aggressive cancer growing in your body,
          medical examination can save your life, but denial will surely kill you. There
          is an aggressive cancer growing in our country, and ignoring the symptoms is
          not the answer.

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

           

  • Brenda Camis

    Shame on you WBUR, Shame on you!!!!

    You guys have done everything to make it a biased and non-scientific argument to evade the issue.

    WTC #7 Could not have been brought down without CONTROLLED DEMOLIITION.

    WTC #1 and WTC #2 Would not have collapsed without CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

  • Jabail

    James Meigs – this guy is an idiot; paid + hired spokesman for the Official Crap

    • Oidada

      James Meigs would look good …. behind bars.
      Along with the rest of the perpetrators.

  • John D

    Hey, “Falsers,” what’s the going rate for selling out one’s countrymen? Just wondering.

  • NISTGarbage

    These guys are defending the indefensible garbage about the Official Story …. nothing about the specifics.

    Nobody can take away the fact that there was Gravity Assisted Accelerated Fall.

    NIST’s garbage about WTC #7 + Controlled Demolition:
    It there were a single explosion, people would have heard about it.  They did not, therefore there was no Control Demolition.

    Jane, Jane, Jane:  What kind of a Host are you?
    Producers:  Shame on you Shame on You

    • Anonymous

       Yes, no explosions…..unless one calls this an explosion:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLbFN3UUT24

      • Binkster

        Didn’t you listen to Jonathon Kay ? You’re supposed to ignore YouTube links.
        The internet is part of the problem – get with the program !

        • Anonymous

          Oh, yes.  This is explains Kay’s several hundred page emotional rant in his book – without examining any of the evidence. 

          Silly me.  It also explains Popular Mechanics’ attack of strawmen claims, while ignoring the most compelling forensic evidence.

          These guys are really pieces of ….. work, aren’t they?

  • Joe

    OK, so President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident which resulted in 58,000 American getting killed,

    but Dick Cheney wouldn’t lie about 9-11 would he?

    The same Dick Cheney who told Senator Leahy to “go fu#&” himself on the Senate floor.

    • John Myers

      Johnson lied, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

    • Zing

      Just because Cheney told Lamehy what we all wish we could, doesn’t make him a liar; it makes him a hero.

      • Joe

        Ok Ding, go fu#& yourself.

        Now I’m a hero.

        • Zing

          A hero to kooks…who knew?

          • Joe

            Yeah Ding,

            If Dick Cheney told you to go ‘F yourself’, you’d probably take that as a compliment.

  • Ben

    I think the major reason why people still think it was a conspiracy has nothing to do with science or engineering.  Those are merely mechanical details of the event.  The real reason why so many Americans suspect a conspiracy has much more to do with the political expediency such an event afforded the Bush administration in advancing its predermined political goals in the Middle East.  Even if the attack was carried out by radical Jihadists acting independantly, the notion that it was “allowed” to happen by our government (much in the way Pearl Harbor was “allowed” to happen) is still somewhat plausible. 

    In short, the government had the means and the motive to let this attack happen.  Is that by itself evidence that they are guilty?  Of course not, but it does leave the door open for speculation.

  • RL McGee

    NIST’s investigation is not credible:

    1.  They did not test for explosives.
    2.  They ignored explosive eyewitness testimony.
    3.  They ignored forensic evidence from the crime scene.
    4.  They did not explain the actual destruction (global ‘collapse’)
    5.  Their computer models do not match reality.
    6.  They admit freefall for Building 7 but ignore it’s implications.
    7.  They won’t release their input data to the public.

    Visit:  http://www.RememberBuilding7.org
    Kevin Ryan’s blog:  http://digwithin.net

    • hawkeye

      The NIST performed numerous blast scenario’s & found ZERO evidence to support such an event…

      http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

      all you twoofers ever present are Al-Qaeda sympathizing LIES

      • Chris Sarns

        They tried a single blast scenario based on the absurd notion that the failure of column 79 could cause the total collapse of the building.

        They ignored the evidence of thermite on the melted beam in the FEMA C report despite several people on the investigating team having extensive knowledge of nano-thermite.

        • hawkeye

          “evidence of thermite”?

          ROFLM@O!!! 

          • Binkster

            Evidence of resistance from undamaged steel structure  ?

            LOL !!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

            (And what’s with the explosive smoke ? Gravity ?)

          • hawkeye

            “What I can assure you is that once the upper floors of the building’s began to fall, there was nothing that could have saved those towers”  & considers the conspiracy theories of controlled demolition as “absolute nonsense”~Les Robertson, renowned structural engineer who designed the Twin Towers

      • Jbfarrell

        Why not check out David Chandler’s work.  As a result of his presentation to NIST before their final report, NIST concluded that for 2.5 seconds Building 7 ‘fell in a manner consistent with free fall’
        Official, certified, government report!  What are we to make of this?

        • Binkster

          Inside job ?

  • Joe

    How is it that days after 9-11, when air travel in the U.S. was halted, the Bin Laden family was flown out of the U.S. in a chartered plane?

    • Ellen Dibble

      Can you imagine what would have happened if they had been identified by certain American “elements”?  Remember what happened to the guy who shot JFK?  That perpetrator was not from a whole family of extremely wealthy plutocrats from the nation we are chiefly dependent on for the gas in our cars, the oil in our furnaces…  If you think there was Arab outrage because of (choose one, our treatment of certain dictators in Arab countries, our treatment of Israel vis-a-vis their dangerous neighborhood, the sometimes insensitive attitudes toward covering of the female body, on and on and on), then try this on for size:  Americans infuriated at everyone with the last name of bin Laden, cut off their beards, and burn their holy books in front of their faces.  
          Better not to go there.  Better to get them the heck out of Dodge. 

      • Joe

        Sure, get the Bin Ladens “the heck out of Dodge”.

        The goverment definitely wouldn’t want the Bin Laden family to reveal in a court of law that they were working for the U.S. goverment to help carry out 9-11 as a pretext to go to war.

      • Geeboy

        “Remember what happened to the guy who shot JFK?”
        Which one? The patsy?

  • Anonymous

    Sadly, they gave only 10 minutes to Mr. Ryan!  What a biased report!
    Why not examine the physical evidence, as the architects and engineers have done, ONPOINT?

    Buildings do not fall because of office fires into their own footprint at freefall (no resistance).  And yet, that is what we are told about WTC7 by NIST! 

    When the official story is finally acknowledged to be false, and it will, NPR and the rest of the media will never have the trust of the public again.

    • John Myers

      #7 was on fire all day, it had been structurally damaged from falling debris, and the force alone from the shockwaves of the massive collapse of the towers adjacent to #7 – I don’t know – maybe all those things had something to do with it?
      But in your scenario it was just an “office fire”.
      Wow.
      And you zombies keep saying that it “fell into its own footprint”.
      What’s supposed to happen when a building falls? Does it just tip over? Or does it start to fall in Manhattan but land in Utica?

      • Binkster

        If the damage is on one side , say, the Twin Towers side, -yes – the building does tip to one side.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

        Any comments ?
        ( Well ok Aisner hates ‘spunk’. But we could all use a few laughs seeing what you shills come up with next.)

      • Xonks

        WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

        John, your willful ignorance would be hilarious were it not
        so tragic. Richard Gage can explain it all for you in terms you can understand,
        and he will do it lovingly and politely without calling you an idiot.

        WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, it had small fires that barely managed to break windows – no raging inferno.  Besides, no building has collapsed from fire alone – ever.  Yet, this is what NIST believes – just an office fire – carpet, wallboard, furniture – you got it.  Not my scenario – NIST’s!

        The damage was minimal, and was asymmetric.  NIST did not consider this minor damage relevant.

        And, if you wish to delve into high school physics (this is all that you need), you will note that for an object to fall at the acceleration due to gravity – freefall- it requires the TOTAL conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic (i.e., the fall).   Therefore, as WTC7 fell, there was NO resistance.  NONE.  All the vertical columns simultaneously failed at once, with a millisecond of each other!
        There was no “work” of crushing the structure below, because that would have slowed the fall.  NIST was forced to admit for freefall
        acceleration for 100ft of the roofline drop, even when previously they stated that this would be impossible from a fire induced collapse!

        Here is a very good analysis from a high school/community college physics instructor.  You don’t have to believe him, however.  All you have to do is watch the collapse yourself.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_8783&v=rVCDpL4Ax7I&feature=iv

         

      • Chris Sarns

        NIST admits that the fires only burned for 20 to 30 minutes in any location, the debris damage had little to do with the collapse initiation (at the other end of the building)

        You attribute the absurd theory that WTC 7 collapse due to office fires to truth activists when it is actually the NIST hypothesis.

        Perhaps you should get informed rather than criticize people who have actually looked at the evidence.

        “What’s supposed to happen when a building falls?”

        Modern steel frame high rise buildings don’t fall because of fires.
        The Windsor Tower was a sub standard hybrid frame, primarily reinforced concrete and extremely light weight exterior columns on the upper 10 floors. That building looked like a torch yet the partial collapse of the upper floors took over an hour. The roof line of WTC 7 fell to the ground in about 7 seconds. It fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. Do you understand the significance of that?

  • HolyCow

    I am posting this again so that those who are new to thisthread will know why so many of us are posting the phrase WHY CONSPIRACYTHEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE and will have the opportunity to encouragePBS to correct the imbalance of this program. “Jane, what an amazing show on 9/11 conspiracies. Amazingbecause it was so blatantly one-sided. Just this morning I learned that KevinRyan would be a guest on your two-hour show, but just as I learned 9/11 wouldonly be covered for one hour, I learned that Mr. Ryan’s involvement would belimited to 10 minutes. Now that the show is over we know that Kevin Ryan’sinvolvement was barely 5 minutes in length. This seems quite odd to me in lightof the fact that Mr. Ryan, by virtue of the movement he represents, was thesubject of the show.I hereby call for the next installment of your show concerning9/11 to be entitled, “Why Conspiracy Theorists Believe What They Believe”. Yourguest, Mr. Ryan, will be joined by Richard Gage, AIA, who will talk about thephysical science behind the events, David Ray Griffin, whose book “Debunking9/11 Debunking” has decimated Mr. Meigs’ assertions point by point, and StevenJones who will talk about the properties of the nano-thermite found on thescene and its implications. In the interest of making this program as balancedas today’s program, you can grant Mr. Meigs five minutes to explain the eventsof 9/11 as seen by the Wile E. Coyote school of physics. Does that seem like areasonable follow-up, Jane?I call on all posters on this thread who believe such aprogram is a good idea and would tune in to listen, to simply post “WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEYBELIEVE ” in capital letters as a vote for thisproposal. I trust this program can be put together within the coming weeks,rather than planned for the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.”

    • Nine Eleven Is An Inside Job

      “WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE ”
      the OTC is a joke…

  • Joe

    If Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9-11, as the goverment has claimed,

    how is it that the goverment never indicted Bin Laden for the 9-11 attacks when Bin Laden was alive??

    • Joe

      Criminals can be indicted in absentia.

  • Joestokes

    NPR owes the world an apology for being too cowardly to report the TRUTH about 9/11. This shameful attempt to make “9/11 conspiracy theorists” look bad backfired. People are smarter than you think and they are not buying this propaganda anymore.

  • Anonymous

    WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    • Chris Sarns

      Indeed,

      Conspiracy theorists believe that 19 misfits got by the most sophisticated military in the world and flew a hijacked plane into their headquarters in our nations capitol, despite the fact that Cheney was informed of its approach.

  • Anonymous

    Please visit http://www.911cc.org  

    It is time to begin moving towards a legitimate Citizen’s Commission with subpoena powers.We are now active in Massachusetts, soon Oregon, Alaska and North Dakota.  

  • Shannonstoney

    I’m really glad you aired this how, despite the unbalanced coverage. I used the links to explore the claims of the “truthers,” and now I am a confirmed truther. I have always thought that it was an inside job, for many reasons, but I was afraid to say so in polite company. Now I’m proud to stand with the scholars, architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation.

  • Roy Mac

    It must be Sweeps Week; I hadn’t realized that NPR was subjected to that indignity.  What’s next for OPR?  Multi-racial polygamy in Alabama?  Multi-spieces communes in the great northeast?  Kate Gosselin and her 32 identical adopted multi-spieces offspring fathered by 64 different fathers?

    What a disappointing show from OPR…

    • Binkster

      http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/

      And your point is ?

      (Is this the new shift? Pat – see ya next time)

      • Roy Mac

        This is a goofy topic for OPR to present; further questions?

    • Joe

      If you want to keep believing the goverment lies concerning 9-11 that’s your right.

      If you want to believe that the Easter Bunny is real, that’s you’re right as well.

      • Binkster

        Yeah right.

        And why are people such as myself banned from 9/11 Blogger ?

        The Easter Bunny ? The site obviously carries a lot of “baggage.”

      • Xonks

        WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

        I only want to believe the truth. And I thank God that He
        gave me the intelligence to distinguish the truth from the lie.

        Now run along, Joe, Repo Games is on.

        WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

        • Joe

          Hey Xonks,

          for someone with an extra chromosone, you’re pretty witty.

          You’re just the kind of person the goverment needs to keep swallowing their lies.

          • Xonks

            WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

            Joe, I am afraid my partial loss of vision led me to misread
            your earlier post. I was about to call you schizophrenic, but now I understand
            your position. My mistake. Now how about posting a big fat WHY CONSPIRACY
            THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE for me. Maybe we can force NPR to make amends.
            Again, I apologize.

          • Joe

            You don’t need to apologize to me Xonk,

            If you want to believe the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, C.I.A. fairy-tale that some guy in a cave in Afghanistan ordered his C.I.A. trained operatives to high-jack planes with box-cutters and fly them into the Twin Towers, you go right ahead.

            Luckily for you Xonk, being insane is not against the law.

  • Chris Sarns

    The defenders of the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) are in a lose-lose situation. They cannot silence the decent and when they air outrageously biased programs like this they reveal just how vacant their position really is.

    • Joe

      Yeah, you got us Chris.

      We should just believe everything that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the C.I.A. tell us, right?

      Because we all know our goverment would never lie to us.

      • Totwo2

        The Official Conspiracy Theory IS what GW and Cheney and the gang told us.  You misunderstand Chris.

      • Anonymous

        It seems like Chris is on the 9/11 Truth side.

  • Crodgers13

    This is argument over the crime scene…so for argument sake I humbly admit that I must assume an I don’t know stance about the crime scene.

    I ask about conspiracy because that is the core of the issue. Conspiracy is very much a social phenomena of a crime. So, why not investigate the social facts about alleged the criminals (whether domestic or foreign) and see about elements: means, motive, opportunity, the events preceding. Why don’t we look at suspects? This is not paranoid, it is reasonable.

    When a suspect goes from suspect to criminal it is assumed investigators  have done their jobs narrowing down the suspects–in addition to evidence for suspecting.

    Radical group #1: The young Saudis, Al Qaeda, Osama, the alleged suspects, conspirators, perpetrators, criminals…what have you; they are not around to be questioned, yet their stories are important: their flight training, funding, strategy, connections, or lack thereof?

    Radical group #2: The agents of an industrial-military complex who favor interventionist policies and corporate market leverage. Their stories? Their training? Their orders, funding, connections or lack thereof?

    It seems trial & judgement were made when the official story was provided by official agents. It is right for the citizens to demand more in their pursuit of just explanations for a decade of confusion, misinformation, and ideological struggle that have followed as a result of this crime.
      

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ray-Songtree/100002522132387 Ray Songtree

    Lets look at the facts, and then lets look at the official story.  Hmm, disconnect?

  • Alan

    always look at the ones who benefit. The Neo con think tanks had written papers about restoring America’s influence around the world, “A spectacular event” was needed to galvanise the US public, it was certainly spectacular and has gained US influence in the Middle East, Central Asia and has made various American families wealthier than belief.

  • The man from UNKLE

    When the seagulls follow the trawler, it’s because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea. 

    • Joe

      Is that how you feed yourself?

      • The man from UNKLE

        Good one, dude!  It’s a nonsense topic for discussion…. no one is changing their opinion here…. the point above is that people will believe whatever they want to…. it’s just how it is. Take it easy!

  • John Myers

    Just so you Truthers know, further down this path you will be told that the Earth is hollow and is populated by humanoid shapeshifting lizards, who are the ones REALLY making the important decisions of the world, and we are all just their slaves.
    I’m not kidding.

    • Joe

      And when the goverment tells you that the rate of inflation is 0%, you believe that as well, right?

      (Even though food and gas prices are going through the roof!)

    • Binkster

      Ok. I pressed “like” instead of ‘reply.’ So sue me.

      “Gravity”. “Resistance.”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

      I’m not kidding.

    • Steve C

      The shape shifting lizards actually reside on the surface of the planet and are running my country.  Please educate yourself.

  • Snugspout

    I liked Meigs’s point that raising questions is always good.  The bad part is allowing one’s prejudices to bias one’s interpretation of really good answers.

    Zdenek Bazant (Professor at Northwestern) did an excellent job of describing a compelling mechanism of the WTC collapses in a series of academic papers… no need to melt steel.  Hot steel expands and weakens, which can lead to the collapses.

    It is a surprising conclusion, but no more surprising than, say, the germ theory, which we all accept now.  It is surprising that an invisible gas (Oxygen) sustains life too.

    Bazant also set up the differential equations that describe the collapse, which goes a bit slower than free fall, but close to free fall.

    I’ve never seen serious, effective criticisms of Bazant’s work, where better equations or more probable physical mechanisms are fleshed out with good numerical analyses.  Maybe there is a more likely explanation than Bazant’s!  But somebody has got to do the hard work to develop that explanation.

    Merely stating that a more probable cause of collapse is `nano-thermite’ without argument is not compelling.  In fact Kay delivered a pretty devastating blow to the nano-thermite theory…. Kay is a metallurgist, and claims nano-thermite is simply not an effective explosive.

    • Binkster

      If you dropped a bowling ball -threw air – from the top of the twin towers, it would land at about the same time.
      (So we’ll have to ignore the tons of undamaged steel structure)
      How’s that for a  “differential equation” ?

      And where did this Domic Suter guy go ?

      http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/press/storage.htm

      Inquiring minds want to know…

      • Binkster

        Through* (Some Falser was complaining about spelling) My bad.

      • Snugspout

        Bazant didn’t ignore the undamaged steel structure.  If you subject steel to a big enough force, it collapses.  His calculation was that the force caused by the 15 to 30 stories above the jets entry points was more than enough (by a factor of 10 or more) to collapse the steel frames beneath.

        • Haze

          Incorrect.

          The load during the first moments of destruction was only 1/9 of what it could handle. Here is how you see that from simple Newtonian mechanics and a simply measurement of downward acceleration.

          Divide the tower into two blocks: above and below the impact. By law the lower block is required be able to support 3-5 times the mass of the upper block, thus it should be able to handle a force equal to 3 M g, where g is the acceleration of a freely falling object, approximately 9.8 m/s^2, and M the mass of the upper block.

          So let’s be generous and say the lower block could only support 3 times the weight of the upper block. Secondly, it is very easy to measure the downward acceleration for the first few moments. It turns out to be roughly 2/3 g. By Newton’s second law this means that the upper block was acted upon with an upward force of (originating from the lower block) equal to1/3 M g

          in addition to the downward gravitational force -Mg.

          Newton’s third law then tells you that the lower block was impacted with an force equal in magnitude but opposite sign, i.e. -1/3 M g.

          This is only 1/3 of the force when the upper block is simply resting on top of the lower block. 

          We now see that the lower block only had 1/3 M g but should be able to handle at least 3Mg. Thus, there is a factor of 9 discrepancy.

          An elaboration of this simple argument is presented here

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk 

          as well.

    • Hunter Rose

      You fell for something interesting.
      Yes, he stated ‘nano-thermite’ is not an effective explosive, and he is absolutely correct. So the fact that nano-thermic spheres were found in the dust has been effectively neutralized with regard to any ‘demolition’ theory.
      Did you catch that? No?
      Anyone with the ability to think critically might. You see, Kay pulled a classic ‘bait and switch’ or ‘strawman’ argument here. Let’s do this in steps;
      He said that flakes of nano-thermite were found. – Absolutely correct.
      He said that small flakes of oxidized iron are rust. – Correct again.
      He said that anyone who thinks that would be used in a demolition would laugh about the idea. – Again, I totally believe him.
      Why didn’t he mention the spheres that were found?
      Don’t know what you fell for yet, do you?
      Well, here it is;
      - It is not that the oxidized iron flakes (rust) are a by-product of demolitions. Such are the by-product of many other causes, including building fires.
      No, it’s that he took ‘oxidized iron flakes’, and right in front of your ears, he convinced you that nano-thermite=Oxidized iron flakes.
      Well, nano-thermite is comprised of “iron oxide and aluminum”, but it is absolutely NOT ‘rust’.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

      Funny how what was actually found in the dust (along with the oxidized iron) is the sort of stuff that the military has been working with since the 90′s. Also, it’s just the sort of stuff that would actually be practical for demolitions where typical hyper-thermic materials are not. Kay said it’s “not an effective explosive”? Reality disagrees. From the above link;
      *”nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military
      with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times
      more powerful than conventional explosives.”*

      Don’t take my word for it. Do your own *actual* research.

      I’ve studied cog-psyche. I already know that your, and the whole reading audience’s filters are set to ‘confusion’ about the above. Hell, in 5 minutes, you’ll even forget that the guest, Kay, deliberately mislead everyone. You’ll forget that he either lied or spoke entirely out of ignorance.

      Why? Why will you forget?

      Because… you can’t stay nice and ‘comfy’ if you don’t.

      Why did he lie?

      Why are people ‘flagging’ this response already?

      Because… they can’t stay ‘comfy’ either if they know it’s still there.

      The bottom line is that “I don’t know”.

      And neither does anyone else.

      Cheers!

      • Hunter Rose

        LOL… meant to write “He stated ‘thermite’ is not an effective explosive, and he is absolutely correct.”

        • a patriot

              Thermite may or may not be a good explosive, but it sure would be good at cutting through the beams fast, making molten metal which was witnessed by first responding fire fighters.  There are pictures of beams sticking up out of the debris with straight diagonal cuts looking freshly amorphous on the cuts. 
              As sooo many have said, this show was hyper biased.  Is this media being
          directed to do so by someone or what?  Is someone afraid to let people
          actually hear the evidence? Architects and Engineers for 911 truth and In Plane Sight present overwhelming evidence which debunks the official reports.  Have a follow up show please, and this time run it like a debate.  Pick a few key points of contention, let both sides say their peace on each point and post both of their supporting docs/links etc. here on WBUR’s site. 
               By the way I think its funny how both sides got one video posted officially from this show and the “debunkers’” video is a 4 minute advertisement for his book, while the “Truther’s” video is 2 hours of careful analysis.

          • Daniel LaLiberte

            Careful.  The diagonal cut columns are not necessarily more than from debris cleanup.  I haven’t seen conclusive proof either way yet.

            In Plane Sight is not to be trusted, since it pushes several unsubstantiated or provably incorrect theories (e.g. pods on the planes firing missiles).  It may be worth seeing, however, if you can hold on to your objectivity, since it raises legitimate questions that should be answered.

  • Waitew

    If the US Government didn’t know about 911,didn’t want it to happen & would have stopped it if they could have; then why did Al Qeada warn John Ashcroft & Willy Brown NOT to fly on 911?

  • Hidan

    What’s the chances of there was actually crazy Muslims that hijacked the planes but the Bush Administration choose to let (most) of the planes hit there targets instead of shooting them down killing hundreds?

    If you think about it in a Carl Rove type of way, if the Administration were to say shoot down the planes and no one else was hurt it be bad P.R. for the administration and people would come out saying they could have found another way but if they allowed for them to crash  like the crazy Muslims wanted there be no resistance whatsoever or blame?

    • Binkster

      And your point is ?

      • Hunter Rose

        That nebulous grammar can be the safest way to insinuate whatever you’d like the reader to think you have.

  • Brett

    Aside from Clayson’s odd mixture of attempting (and failing) to keep guests on a short leash (by keeping both sides separated, as if they couldn’t be trusted to interact with each other) and letting go of the leash by asking them broad questions then letting them ramble, the show was about as good as it was going to get. 

    Frankly, Ryan was just this side of going on a rant; and, if I had been host, I wouldn’t have given him much more time than he got. It didn’t take much for him to go off on a tangent…it seems the Truthers could have had better representation. (Ryan also sounds like an unreliable witness, as it were, as he has disgruntled-employee-with-an-axe-to- grind status.) 

    The show was more about why conspiracies exist and why conspiracy theorists persist than a line by line examination of what has been throughly investigated surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, which is about all that the show could have explored. People like Meigs have their positions and people like Ryan have theirs, and we know both sides well; to go over both positions would be a kind of rehash.  

    The Truthers wanted a cheerleader to be given a full stage, so to speak. How many times can the same questions be asked and the same answers that stem from at least two investigations be completely rejected? Truthers don’t have answers only questions, and we know what the questions are…

    If Ryan had had 50 minutes, and Clayson had outright called Meigs and Kay liars, it still wouldn’t have satisfied the Truthers! I also agree with Meigs that Truthers don’t want another investigation, they want an investigation that supports the conclusion they want.       

    • Rsokol

      Birthers, Truthers, these labels don’t lead anywhere. I don’t consider myself a Truther, I’m in the mid-50s and have an academic education. A little over a year ago I received an e-mail from an old friend who works as an attorney; he wrote he thinks 9/11 was an inside job. That got me started because I knew he wouldn’t just say such a thing without good reason. Since then I have seen all the relevant documentaries, read a lot of articles, and several books and I continue updating my knowledge with the latest information that is available. The presentations of facts I saw and read about so far are pointing in one direction and one direction only: A segment of the US government, or military, or intelligence services, or all three of them, had their fingers in the execution of these attacks. That is very hard to digest because the implications are so horrendous.

      • Brett

        So, I guess what you’re saying is that you’re mature, educated and used to think about the events of 9/11 one particular way, but now you’ve been enlightened to see a more “truthful” reason behind the 9/11 attacks after examining many documentaries, articles and books on the matter. You have now drawn a different conclusion that “the US government, or military, or intelligence services, or all three of them, had their fingers in the execution of these attacks.”

        I, too, am in my mid-fifties and am academically educated. I have also examined many of the documentaries, articles and books on the matter. I draw a slightly different conclusion, though. I think the government, military and intelligence services had several red flags over time indicating there could potentially be a very real threat of an attack of the kind that happened on 9/11, and that the attack was more likely to happen sooner rather than later. Through a combination of departmental incompetence, various bureaucracies interfacing poorly with each other, human error, and management that was more invested in a reactive style rather than a proactive one, the attacks took place when they could have and should have been prevented. 

        I also think that what transpired after the attacks should be of more interest; in the good old Milton Friedman idea of using a catastrophic event as a perfect time for an administration to push through as much of its own agenda as is possible, the Bush-Cheney bunch exploited the hell out of 9-11…I don’t think our power structures ordered the attacks, and so forth, just that they handled the whole thing incompetently and exploited the tragedy to their benefit!

        • Rsokol

          I agree insofar as the Bush regime took advantage of the situation. But they didn’t just invent their response plans on the fly, they had been prepared. Then, look at the facts, the molten metal flowing from the buildings, the latest analysis and findings of thermate particles in the dust, the way Bldg 7 comes down, and then add the eyewitness accounts, the statements of firefighters that were on the scene, all the incongruent parts and loose ends documented in the Thompson timeline, the way evidence has been confiscated, concealed, shipped off to Chinese scrap yards, and the connections between people, Rice and Zelikow (sp) for instance, and the way key players acted during the hearings, the way panels were manned and operating to do damage control. A good start to catch up are the two main books by Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited. And then there is the work of Richard Gage, Stephen Jones, and all the other scientists who followed the call. What more is there to say? A lot, but I gotta go.

  • Waitew

    911 truth isn’t crazy.Thinking we invaded the ME & it wasn’t about oil,is crazy!Thinking the Pentagon sought to
    bring down the USSR using Bin Ladin with no a plan to
    replace it (no Big enemy=no Big budget) is crazy.Don’t let
    love for America make you blind.They shredded the
    Constitution because of 911 (patriot act was
    written BEFORE 911/the Antrax our own)Going along with it isn’t
    patriotism it’s treason. There’s no lying to God on
    judgment day.Support & Defend the Constitution.

  • Joe

    We should never question our leaders because they are always right.

    Just like when Bush told us “Mission Accomplished”. 

  • Engine

    If you not sure what’s going on; follow the money.. Always..

  • Eleven

    @Hawkeye Is that the same Les Robertson that reported a stream of molten steel at the WTC site.  Care to explain how there was molten steel there only from office fires and jet fuel (neither of which is hot enough to melt steel).

    • Questionman

      In 2002 Leslie Robertson told a Stanford audience that he’d seen “like a little river of molten steel”.  In 2006 in a radio debate he pretty much denied that anybody had seen such a thing. 

      See the Youtube video “The 9/11 Deep Mystery and the Crazy Engineers”

  • hawkeye

    Hey TWOOFERS…( ROFLMAO )

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ndN_NXf3o

     
     
     

    • Binkster

      Do you have anything meaningful or constructive to contribute ?
      U ‘Merican ?

      http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/

      • Binkster

        And how about these “Dancing Israelis” ? (Try Google – apparently still works)

        Or whatever they’re called. What’s with that ?

        Well. Ok. In regards to the show

        http://thy-weapon-of-war.blogspot.com/2010/03/dr-alan-sabrosky-former-director-of.html

      • hawkeye

        you got something against DEVO or something?

        ( you screwball )

        • Binkster

          DEVO ?

          You got something against “gravity” and “resistance” ?

          Let alone these guys -

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

          who were there to “record the event”

          (Ok – I missed this episode in ‘Loose Change’. How about you Hawkeye ? Did you not the Dancing Israelis lately ?)

          • Binkster

            not see* The..etc

            ( I suppose – I’m multi-tasking..)

          • hawkeye

            ROFLMAOAU

  • Binkster

    So NPR – I applaud you for – at least-  letting these comments go through.
    Factual comments are even banned from so-called “truther sites” such as 9/11 Blogger.com .
    That is what America has become.

    Needless to say – we, as a civilization- have a problem.
    Where do we go from here ?
    Gordon Duff, a disabled vet, provides a few new ‘viewpoints’
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/

    But do your own research. Believe nothing. Remember everthing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

  • Steve

    Good Job, OnPoint and Ms Clayson.

    In the unlikely event that someone from OnPoint is able to wade through all these comments and reach mine, I’d like to say that OnPoint and Ms Clayson did an admirable job handling this subject.
    The title of the show is “Conspiracy Theories and the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks.” Whoever came up with this title is a genius. It states clearly that the attacks of 9/11 were planned and carried out by terrorists, that there are conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks, and that the show will be about the disparity between what is known–and still being uncovered–and what continues to be theorized.

    Thank goodness OnPoint did not, in some misguided Cable News-style desire to appear “fair,” give equal time to Mr Ryan. In a country so benighted with ignorance as this one is, that took courage, which is what we used to call common sense.

    When a “theory” has been shown, overwhelmingly, to be so wrong–whether it’s the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe, or that Homo Sapiens sprung forth fully formed, or that the US was behind the 9/11 atacks, or that the moon is made of cheese–there comes a point when you no longer have to listen to it.

    People are right to demand investigation where reasonable questions linger, and many reasonable questions still linger regarding 9/11. But to cling to a few uncertainties as justification for denying and denouncing the entirety of the hard work done by the very people who’ve been doing that investigation is madness.

    This is not about trusting or not trusting the government. In the end, it’s about being a sensible, rational person.

    Thank you, OnPoint, for being sensible people. Don’t let the vitriolic irrationality of–what seems to me to be–the majority of commenters sway you from your purpose.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

      Hey Steve,  looks like your brown nosing to NPR is overwhelmingly outnumbered by the logically and well supported truthers on this site.

      Sensible people???  Is that what you call non-inquisitive obedient frightened lemmings such as yourself,  or are you just a shill ? 

      • Hunter Rose

        Well, at least I didn’t suggest that skeptics weren’t emotional. ;*)

      • Steve

        As long as you stay on your side, I’m happy. Keep picking at that scab. You might hit gold some day.

    • Hunter Rose

      Good Day Steve.

      Interesting how deliberately you paint the skeptics as ‘irrational’ and ‘vitriolic’ despite all evidence to the contrary. The vast majority of skeptics are not particularly favorable to either such trait in any individuals.
      For the most part, the skeptics have no “Theory” to disprove. Just a large number of questions surrounding some of the miraculous and as yet unexplained coincidences of that day and surrounding it.
      One little fact for you; Officials of the administration, Pentagon, CIA, and more actually stated, in no uncertain terms, that in order to further their agenda some kind of attack on the US would have to take place.
      As much as you and others would love to believe otherwise, that is not a ‘theory’. They signed on to the actual documentation spelling out that in order to do what they felt needed to be done, which was to invade Iraq, the US would have to experience “A new Pearl Harbor”. A few years later, once they were in power, that wish was granted.
      Can we believe that they were just extraordinarily lucky?
      Of course we can.
      But it’s hard to ignore the notion that these were not only the sort of people to ‘make their own luck’, but that they had the wherewithall to do so as well.

      • Steve

        In fact, I was writing that to the folks at OnPoint. If I’d been writing to you “Truthers,” I would not have used so many 3-syllable words. But you’re always good for a laugh. And always will be.

        • Hunter Rose

          So, just insults and insinuation, no substantive comments on the PNAC or the “New Pearl Harbor”?

          You have no problem, Steve, with the fact that key officials felt they *needed* some sort of attack on the US to further their agenda?

          Or will you just sail forth while desperately avoiding any such ‘uncomfortable’ questions?

          Also; I hope the 4 and 5-syllable words there weren’t too difficult for you.

  • Hunter Rose

    The only rational position on the events of 9/11 is “I don’t know”. There is a mountain of miraculous coincidences that lined up perfectly with the very WELL-Documented PNAC agenda. Anyone who has read “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” knows this. Since there are so many holes and so much missing information/evidence, and since it’s *possible* that 19 hijackers could get lucky enough to pull it off, then the only conclusion anyone can reach is “I don’t know”. Now… what one might *think* is another matter.

  • Steve C

    Anyone read David Ray Griffin?  He does a very nice analytical job.  The essence is that the official story defies credulity if one reviews the facts in a methodical way – you know, like the way we would expect an official inquisition to proceed!  Or, am I too naive?

  • Dwain

    Between the host and the two primary guests, they said “conspiracy theory(ies)” 31 times, and “conspiracy theorist(s)” 18 times.

    A bit much, I would say. 

    • 4evernow

      REPETITION, an essential component of all successful propaganda.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1278300472 Edward Rynearson

        catapult the propaganda – GW

    • seanmcbride

      Professional propaganda, but so crudely done that it was self-defeating and self-discrediting. By the way, most 9/11 skeptics — the leading ones — are not conspiracy theorists and eschew all forms of conspiracy theorizing. They tend to be hard-headed empiricists, many of them with advanced degrees from first-class universities in technical and demanding subjects. Check out the roster of skeptics at Patriots Question 9/11:

      http://patriotsquestion911.com/

      The intellectual firepower among this group greatly exceeds that of Popular Mechanics! :) James Meigs and Jonathan Kay are hopelessly overmatched in this debate.

      The problem with the 9/11 official conspiracy theory for skeptics with inquiring minds is that it insults their intelligence in literally hundreds of ways — it is ridiculous on its face. And most people (including 9/11 Commission members) have entirely given up on trying to defend it. It’s a lost cause.
       

  • Binkster
  • Jwelch

    Wow. The point of this seems to be character assassination of anyone who is a critic of the glaring gaps in the offical story. Not addressing the obvious questions, like: How did WTC7 fall with no plane hitting it? Instead the guests are spouting lines like ‘mountain of verifiable evidence pointing to the mainstream view’.  Wow. 

    There’s no mainstream explanation for WTC7.  Even NIST avoided it. The 9/11 commission backed off from their earlier story.

    So we are left with no explanation.  I guess the patriotic thing to protect the Homeland is to not ask questions?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1278300472 Edward Rynearson

       The official conspiracy theory is ludicrous

  • Sandoval

    Numerous posts in this forum are downright frightening. Can there really be so many misguided people walking among us? Jonathan Kay is exactly right: The Internet is giving rise to an epidemic of idiocy.  

    • Rsokol

      I pressed the ‘Like’ button of this post by accident.

      • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

        Lots of Laughs!  You are forgiven : )

        • Binkster

          So Orangutan.

          Is Jon Gold still featured at least twice a week on the front page of ’9/11 Blogger’ ?

          Been banned for years. (Says a lot about the site unfortunately.)

          You run it ? Is it “the Dancing Israelis” the site can’t digest ?

          Inquiring minds want to know…

          • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

            We are working as hard as anyone trying to get the truth of 9/11 out in the most effective way as possible.  Sorry you have had a bad experience.  Don’t be afraid to try us out again.  You know where we are : )

            http://911blogger.com/topics/dancing-israelis

          • Binkster

            Yeah – I’m still banned.

            Can you explain why ? The “Truth” site is a bit of a joke.

            Are Jon Gold – who doesn’t believe in the ‘controlled demolition theory’ still featured on the front page ?

            Are the people who featured him – still in charge. I suppose so. I’m banned.
            Truthers seem to be moving to ‘Veteran’s Today’ for professionals who will actually put forth their real names.

          • Oidada

            John Gold has announced his departure from 9-11 blogger.

          • Binkster

            He still appears whenever he wants apparently.

            Who repeatedly gave him the site’s  “Front Page” and banned the people complaining about it ?

            Are they still there ? They still ban me.

            What are they afraid of ?

          • Anonymous

            I found out about this show from 9/11blogger. Thanks!

          • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

            Cool.  We are all in this together.  Finally it seems to be going our way, as in the truth of 9/11 etc.  Peace.

          • Binkster

            Feel free to answer my concerns.
            Even sites like “Huffington Post” don’t ban people – just comments.
            Given 9/11 Blogger’s track record of regularly featuring people who completely disregard “gravity”, “resistance, ” and controlled demolition on their front page – such as Jon Gold -At one point it was at least three stories a week -  Do you think 9/11 Blogger is still…let’s say ‘unbiased’ ?
            How many truthers have you banned ?
            Free free to identify yourselves. 9/11 Truth is mainstream.
            Deal with it.
            http://www.veteranstoday.com/

          • Binkster

            Orangutan

            Your silence speaks.

          • Nausmr

            Veterans Today has some lively debates in their blogs about what happened on 9/11. I found this article and blog http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/22/confessions-of-a-911-truth-activist-2/ to be one that can give you a great education about the internal conflicts that arise in the 9/11 Truth Movement. I even added my two cents into this blog, which I don’t often do. For almost 6 years I have been active in this movement founding a website, doing street actions, organizing speaking events and also organizing speaking tours for some of the most popular names you hear about in this movement. I also produced, edited and hosted my own cable accessed TV show for over 2 years now. For much of those 6 years I, for the most part, stayed out of the debates and just watched, read, listened and learned. I’m now ready to come out speak my mind which is what I did in this blog. Take Care Matthew Naus      

          • Nausmr

            I hope in the future that we can all be in this together, but the reality for right now in the 9/11 Truth Movement is that some researchers/scientists/investigators are being shunned and discredited. Go to http://ts911t.org and read my answer for “What’s Wrong With This Picture” and also read Eric Larson’s “Open Letter to Patriots Question 9/11″ I hope we can have peace in the 9/11 Truth Movement and examine ‘all’ the physical evidence left behind at the crime scene and get a criminal investigation of 9/11 which was never conducted. Remember the first thing you do in a criminal investigation is examine ‘all’ the physical evidence before you find out how it happened, who did it and why they did it.   

          • Steve T

            To late they have systematically destroyed the physical evidence. hummm, wonder why?

          • Binkster

            There’s a lot of ‘dead wood’ there.
            The place is joke until there’s some cleaning.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1278300472 Edward Rynearson

            I was put into moderation que at 911blogger > Jon Gold pops in on my facebook wall every now and then and calls me a potty head.

    • seanmcbride

      Sandoval — most of us by now have noticed that apologists for the 9/11 official conspiracy theory — like yourself, Patrick and hawkeye — rarely address specific points of evidence in an informed and rational way. This is one of several reasons why belief in the official story in the United States and all around the world has evaporated over the last decade.

      Another observation: a high percentage of 9/11 Anti-Truthers seem to be pro-Israel militants who have been strong supporters of the neoconservative war policies for which 9/11 has served as the pretext. That tells us a great deal about the motives driving the cover-up of 9/11 and the 9/11 anthrax attacks, doesn’t it.
       

      • Sandoval

        Did you even bother to listen to the program? The two authors have calmly and rationally demolished every single crackpot theory advanced by the nutter brigades. And how have the vast majority of posters here responded? By variously claiming that the authors are co-conspirators, foreign agents, “morons” and the like. Remind me again which side of the debate champions rationality and empiricism?
        And here’s an observation: most of us — which I mean literally, as the conspiracy fetishists account for a distinct minority of the broader population — regard “truthers” as both cognitively challenged and emotionally troubled. The behavior and sentiments exhibited here — and I see where you’ve all been directed to this forum through one of your inane blogs — resoundingly illustrates the point.         

        • Hunter Rose

          This is priceless!

          Hi ‘Sandoval’. I’m going to drive you away with a few questions you’ll eventually refuse to answer or otherwise avoid. Hell, I’ll leave alone the hypocritical bit where you come down on people who suggest the guests were morons by calling them ‘cognitively challenged’. (There’s a joke there)

          SANDOVAL; You say that the ‘two authors have calmly and rationally demolished every single crackpot theory’.

          Here is the first question you will likely run away from;

          1) How did the ‘two authors’ “demolish” (a-hem) the “crackpot theory” about nano-thermite residue in so many samples from the disaster?

          (By the time we get to the third, your, umm… “cognitive challenge” will be evident.)

          • Sandoval

            Yes, this is a powerful rejoinder to be sure, complete with mangled syntax.

            I suppose you missed the lengthy discussion about thermite’s properties, uses, and limitations as a demolition tool.

            Kay’s clearly right about something else: You people are willfully and terminally obtuse. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you cling to your delusions to compensate for vacuous lives.

            Listen, I don’t care if any of you sit in your mommy’s basement and peck away at your computer. What’s worrisome is that you’ve created a kind of shadow society whose core values are irrationality and paranoia.

            Years ago, Cass Sunstein posited the “law of group polarization,” which Mark Bauerlein defines this way: “When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the
            general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs.”

            The so-called “truther” is the living embodiment of this theory. It’s impervious to rational dialogue and empirical inquiry, and exalts bizarre Manichean theories simply because they receive validation from like-minded people on the Internet.

            The implications for civilization are disquieting to say the least.     

          • Daniel LaLiberte

            Do you believe that the properties of thermite apply equally to nanothermite?  That is the implication of arguing about thermite as if it applies to nanothermite.  Nanothermite can indeed be explosive, whereas thermite is not.  Thermite might be used to cut steel more quietly and slowly in preparation for the more explosive demolition that follows.

            I agree that “you people are willfully and terminally obtuse”, but you are talking about yourself.  You might also be involved in a “shadow society whose core values are irrationality and paranoia”.  We are, in contrast, trying to expose evidence to the public, and examine it rationally. However, paranoia is irrelevant.  We do what we must.

            We WANT rational dialogue and empirical inquiry, but we rarely get it.  Instead we get name-calling and obtuse obfuscation such as what you just offered.

          • Sandoval

            You want to believe you have specialized knowledge, where clearly you have none. As the authors noted, the conspiracy “community” is quite adept at appropriating technical jargon to endow its delusions with a veneer of credibility. But it’s a thin veneer to be sure.

            So what if nanothermite “can indeed be explosive”? From this we are supposed to accept the manifestly preposterous notion that conspirators, numbering in the hundreds at the very least given the logistical issues involved, plotted and executed a highly complex terror operation seamlessly and without so much as a single conspirator speaking about it after the fact? If you’ll recall, the 2000 presidential election results were contested into December of that year, meaning Bush and his nefarious co-plotters would have at most nine months to plan and execute the whole thing, all the while setting up a new administration.

            Do I have your fantasy about right?      

    • Anonymous

      Wrong.  You’re misguided because you haven’t used the internet to find out the truth about 9/11.  Do you have some phobia of the internet whereby anything you see on it you regard as inherently false and misleading?  Kay wants the idiots to keep watching TV because the truth about 9/11 doesn’t get broadcast by the mainstream media.  If you’re not an idiot go to http://www.ae911truth.com  Then point by point, prove how stupid and misguided are the 1500+ architects and engineers who have signed the petition calling for a new investigation.

      • Daniel LaLiberte

        That’s http://www.ae911truth.org/ not .com.  There used to be a .net site that was full of bad attempts at discrediting ae911truth. 

        The coverup is gradually falling apart as more of the truth is exposed, and more people get involved.  You need to get involved as well.

        Everyone who claims to be a citizen owes all the victims of 9/11 and the followup wars the simple courtesy of listening to what truthers are expounding, not merely dismissing it.  

        • barent

          amen brother…..!

        • Anonymous

          Thanks for the correction!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1278300472 Edward Rynearson

      jonathan kay is an agent for a foreign country and i don’t mean canada

  • Mrivan

     Deja Vu.  Listening to these Bush apologists, it almost felt like the JFK assassination aftermath all over again.  The government story proved impossible by hundreds of researchers with good science, lots of uncovered evidence, mountains of documentation, even a trail of bodies of people hit to silence them (see a list at the end of Jim Marr’s book “Crossfire”), and STILL some people believe the Warren Commission.

    It took 5 years before the truth of that matter began to gain public acceptance.  And now, here we are, approaching the 10th anniversary of the 911 Inside Job, with a plethora of evidence available and well-documented to prove both the impossibility of the public explanation AND the government’s direct involvement, and we still have to put up with the kinds of insults to our intelligence broadcast on this show today.

    I’ll just put forth a few items…

    1. Two week before the hit, 5 companies placed put orders on United and American Airlines stock, to the tune of about $30 million.  In spite of countless inquiries, it took years to reveal the 5 companies that placed the orders were front companies for the CIA.

    2. The steel in the WTC frame was designed specifically to prevent it being weakened by the kind of fire produced by the fuel.  Aircraft fuel burns at 1600 degrees F.  The Steel was able to withstand 3000 degrees F without such weakening.

    3. All the material from the building was carted away under heavy security and no one was permitted to examine it.  Much like the Limo from the JFK hit–which would have revealed some additional bulletholes if it were examined.  Gee, you think someone was hiding something?

    4. George Bush Jr. and one of Usama Bin Laden’s brothers have something in common–they hold seats on the directorship of the Carlysle Group, one of the largest and more noteable war contractors.

    5. There was not one piece of metal from the Pentagon which could be positively identified as coming from the alleged Jet, NOR even one photograph of the jet hitting the building.  Eventually, they came up with a single picture of something that looked like a flywheel from a car, which they say was a component of one of the jet engines.  Well, that photo was examined in detail.  Turns out the diameter of the item was only 16 inches while that part in the jet engine was closer to 32 inches, twice the size.  So, more research was done to find out just what they had found.  Turns out the item was manufactured by the Rolls Royce company in Europe, as a component of an engine used by an American SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, one that had been mothballed in 1973.

    For the documentation of these facts, check out the Jim Marrs book “The Terror Conspiracy–Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty”.

    You’ll also find out about the role of groups such as the CFR, the Brookings Institute, and…well, I shouldn’t rag on the station’s sponsors…
    Small world.

    • Mrivan

       Correction: Near the end, it should read “AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE”.

  • OldWB

    The official story is a conspiracy theory, and not believable.

    • Questionman

      Right, how did boxcutters overwhelm the air defenses of the most powerful military state the world has ever seen?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1278300472 Edward Rynearson

      the official story can’t be defended so thus the personal attacks, the name calling, “conspiracy theorists” > if you can’t reason with them, call them names, question their patriotism, tell them they are hurting the family members > why did wtc7 collapse at all?

  • Edward

    http://youtu.be/hZEvA8BCoBw

    Calm facts of science unanswered.

  • http://whilewestillhavetime.blogspot.com/ John Hamilton

    I’m glad Jane Clayson is back doing interviews. I found it annoying that NPR “senior” correspondents were being shoehorned in as guest hosts. We hear from them more than enough.

    I have a friend who is zealous about “911″ conspiracies. I ask him to whom he hopes to expose these conspiracies. The “American” people? What would our impaired populace do with such an exposé? Riot? If there really is such a conspiracy, then the entire “U.S.” power apparatus would have to be behind it. He has no answer, but keeps writing long “editorials” to various newspapers.

    My main objection to conspiracy theories is that they give so much power to men with feet of clay. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. are all little men, pretenders, criminals. They assumed a certain level of power for a while, but they were not and are not all-powerful. They are not gods, or even, hmm, deacons, or acolytes.

    What is more important to me is that this gang of criminals was able to avoid prosecution for clearly documented criminal negligence in advance of the “911″ attacks. Bush was allowed to testify to the “911″ commission with Cheney coaching him, curiously with no requirement to take an oath swearing to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.

    Then Bush and his gang were able to parlay the furor over “911″ to launch two wars, one of which, against “Iraq,” was promoted with certifiable lies. We, as a people, do not have the wherewithal to put these people in jail.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      John, What you say is partially true, but it only scratches the surface.  Look up “limited hangout” to get an idea of how only small parts of the truth will likely be rolled out, once there is enough momentum behind exposing even that much, just enough to satisfy the public and hang a few scapegoats.  It will take a long-term concerted effort to clean up the corruption.

      When you say “the entire U.S. power apparatus would have to be behind it” that is probably an exaggeration, though it is partially true.  Most people who were involved probably didn’t know they were involved, and may still not know – they were just following orders and doing what they were told.  Now the public is mostly just believing what they are told rather than thinking for themselves.

      What happens when the truth comes out? Riots?  I hope not.  It will be very demoralizing, and large parts of the world will be justifiably very angry with us.  It has to be done, however, if we are to really repair the damage and reset our government to be ever more democratic rather than less.

  • hawkeye
  • Waitew

    “Let him rave on that men might know him mad” [Quote] Yurl Brenner in The Ten Commandments,1957.

     If NPR thought 911 truthers really real were Mad (crazy) that’s just what they’d do. Let us speak so the whole world could see just how ‘crazy’ we really are. But what do they do instead? They censor us! That should tell thinking people something. It isn’t that we’re crazy. It’s that they don’t want people to hear what we have to say. As an intelligent person you should be asking yourself why. Shouldn’t people be allowed to make up their own minds? Should they be presented with both sides? NPR appears to think it’s the listeners Mother who should decide FOR YOU what ideas you should be exposed to & which not. Let us speak. What have they got to hide?

  • ElhamraNights

    What a Great Introduction – Masterpeice:
    After 10 years, why don’t 9/11 Truth People “Go Away”.
    What do you guys learn in School of Journalism????????

    Of course, some people have CONSPIRED to bring down the buildings. Daaa.

    Jonathan Kay is a double dipper, profiteer with $$$ in his eyes, just to sell books. 

    Soft pitch Jane:
    You don’t ask questions, just for the sake of asking; you expect a decent answer.   Daaaa!

    You rushed the Key Guest off the air …. withing minutes.
    What a Mickey Mouse Program … who makes these decisions?????

  • Roy Mac

    OK.  So we’ve all been bamboozled and everything we’ve been led to believe is lies.  What happens then?  The towers spring back?  The planes rematerialize?  Our economy becomes a wonderful credit card-driven paradise again?  Come on!  Whether or not it’s correct, the past happened and isn’t going to change.

    • Questionman

      By your “The past won’t change” logic we should simply drop all murder investigations, because, after all, nothing will bring the victim back to life.  If that the kind of world you want to live in?

    • tanabear

      “What happens then?”

      Justice.

      If 9/11 is a great lie(and it is) then everything that came into existence because of 9/11 is completely illegitimate and should be done away with. This includes the two 9/11 wars, the Department of Homeland Security, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, and the entire security state apparatus that came to be because of 9/11. All must go.

      • Anonymous

        Thank you, I completely agree!

      • Terry Tree Tree

        And a LOT more!

      • Mike

        In addition we must re-regulate America’s financial industry to prevent more mayhem against the American wallets. Other regulations put in place to protect Americans must be brought back.
        Huge corporations must be broken up…….

    • Hunter Rose

      Right. You are absolutely correct. What’s in the past is in the past. Why should we bother with serial killers, rapists, or war criminals since ‘the past happened and isn’t going to change’?
      I like your thinking. Perhaps now I can do anything I want and just argue that since ‘it’s in the past’, putting me in jail would only be costly and unnecessary.
      If that was lost on you, perhaps you’ve heard the axiom about “Those who forget history…”?

  • Mark S.

    One thing’s for certain.  Between the 9/11 “truthers,” the Obama “birthers” and the Tea Party morons in general, I wish to hell I had invested in a tin foil company about 10 years ago.  Sales must be through the proverbial roof.

    Idiots all…  (I suppose the weenie moderators of this comment board will be taking this comment down too, while leaving that rants of scores of people off their meds.  So be it.  I hardly ever listen to On Point anymore, because I’ve largely lost respect for its integrity and focus.)

    • Binkster

      Yeah right.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

      Who’s wearing the hat ?

    • Terry Tree Tree

      I see nothing in your post to warrant censure, although I disagree with your conclusion, and position.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1278300472 Edward Rynearson

      people who still believe obama is anything other than a complete puppet are the idiots > or working for the cabal > like Jonathan Kay and James Meigs > google “remember building 7″ 

    • Hunter Rose

      You’ve ‘lost respect’ for a show that just handily trashed the ‘Truthers’?

      Son, y’all should be on board for it now. Did you get the wrong marching orders or something?

  • Hunter Rose

    Wow. If I’ve ever heard a deliberately weighted segment on NPR, that was it. They gave the multiple official version proponents easily 500% more time than the one skeptic/truther. When it’s so very obvious that a certain PoV is being deliberately quashed, it doesn’t help to bring skeptics around.
    That they so deliberately used the misframing technique to discredit the questions should have been pointed out, but no one did.

  • Marg

    Conspiracies thrive because the utter bureaucratic boondoggle(see, e.g, THE MAN WHO WARNED AMERICA) of our overly complicated federal systems is so hard to grasp.

    • hetware

      See Who Killed John O’Neil http://whokilledjohnoneill.com/ Also have a look at who took control of the WTC August 24th, 2001.  Look into Steven S. Lauder and Larry Silverstein. 

      Just for kicks try searching the web for N900SA and Huffman Aviation.

      • Anonymous

        Just another coincidence, John O’Neil, who was the FBI’s leading expert on Al Qaeda, was assigned to security at WTC where he died on 9/11.

        • Anonymous

          Indeed.  It was O’Neil’s first day on the job.  He had dinner with Jerome Hauer the previous evening.  Check into Hauer’s amazing connections to different aspects of 9/11. 

          Look into the CFR’s Kissinger Roundtable on Terrorism.

        • Guest

          Was he assigned or did he change jobs? I’ve heard both.

  • philb
    • seanmcbride

      Jonathan Kay is affiliated with at least *four* of the leading neoconservative publications in America: Commentary (the lead journal of neoconservatism), The New York Post (a Rupert Murdoch property), The Weekly Standard (another long-time Murdoch property and key ringleader of the Iraq War) and The New Republic. (The National Post is a Canadian neoconservative newspaper.)

      In other words, Jonathan Kay is himself a neoconservative, a member of the group with the greatest stake in obstructing any honest investigation into 9/11 and the 9/11 anthrax attacks. Their entire program of endless American wars in the Mideast (largely on behalf of Israel) is predicated on protecting the 9/11 official conspiracy theory. Now we know where Kay is coming from.
       

    • seanmcbride

       Oh my — Jonathan Kay is also a visiting fellow at the FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies), a leading neoconservative policy center and front group (essentially) for Israel and Likud. FDD has been one of the lead exploiters of 9/11 on the American scene — they have a huge investment in protecting the official narrative from any skeptical questioning. Jane Clayson, of course, mentioned none of these important facts about Kay in her interview.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1278300472 Edward Rynearson

        Wouldn’t surprise me if Kay works for the Mossad > About a month ago he was on a television program with Richard Gage and Barry Zwicker who took him apart > Kay is a “weasel”

        • seanmcbride

          Wow — Google [jonathan kay mossad] and you’ll get about 130,000 results:

          http://www.google.com/#q=jonathan+kay+mossad

          According to Joshua Blakeney:

          BEGIN QUOTE

          Kay has written two books thus far in his highly partisan journalistic career. Kay’s first book, which was co-authored with ex-Mossad officer Michael Ross, is entitled The Volunteer: A Canadian’s Secret Life in the Mossad (2007).[vii] In The Volunteer Jonathan and his ex-Israeli agent co-author explain support for the 9/11 Wars among non-Israelis as follows: “The worldwide awakening of militant Islam [. . .] explains the intense devotion exhibited by many Westerners [. . .] to Israel’s cause: they instinctively see in the state a microcosm of the civilized world’s struggle against a murderous ideology and the men who embrace it [. . . such] nihilistic killers struck the United States on 9/11.”

          END QUOTE

          The Mossad connection couldn’t be more explicit.

          I wonder if Kay would like to comment on the *fact* that an Israeli Mossad team — Urban Moving Systems — celebrated 9/11 and “documented the event.” Christopher Ketcham discusses all the details here:

          “What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?”
          http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17260.htm

          Let me be clear about this: I am challenging Jonathan Kay to debate 9/11 in any online forum of his choosing.
           

        • Binkster

          Where was that ?

          Would like to see it. Is it on the net ?  Barry was one of the first.
          ( I used to think they were all kooks0

  • Terry Tree Tree

    It’s only a theory, if there is no conspiracy!  FAR too many ‘COINCIDENCES’, and EXTREMELY convienent government, law-enforcment, and intelligence ‘mistakes’, that helped it happen!  They will take the word of a drunken AWOL coward, and DESERTER, over the word of an honorably discharged vet, with the rest of my patriotic record?

  • hetware

    I’ve read the Popular Mechanics book.  It is a joke!  It fails to address any of the most important claims of the truth movement.  The copy I read is owned by my father, who also believes 9/11 was an inside job.  He is a retired, senior-level structural engineer with over 40 years of experience working  for the US government.  He has carefully read the NIST reports.

    The show was similarly ridiculous.  Kevin Ryan was not even allowed to participate in the discussion.  He was merely called in to make a few statements about speculative opinions.  

    Just go to http://www.ae911truth.org/ to find more than enough evidence. 

  • Khulet

    This show is another whitewash. The Official Myth is a Conspiracy Theory.

    How about the large stock trades on AA, UA, Boeing, defense stocks in the days prior to 9/11? These indicate prior knowledge. NFPA protocols for investigating suspicious fires were NOT followed. Ever see pictures of real pancake collapses? The buildings do not turn to dust, instead you see stacked floors.

    There is NO challenging of false statements…. the guests are allowed to say anything they want unchallenged. Total propaganda.

  • Markus

    I still suspect the Truthers are a bunch of nuts, and I understand why
    people are drawn to conspiracies. But I admit I’ve spent very little time
    questioning the official position and I’ve never looked into who the Truthers
    are. So, next time I have some free time, I’ll check out some of the more
    popular Truther sites.

     

    Frankly, I think there’s a better chance that the moon landing was
    faked or Nessie will be found, but this subject certainly ain’t boring.

    • Anonymous

      Go to http://www.ae911truth.org Astronauts landed on the moon.  Who is Nessie?

      • Guest

        I laughed out loud for several minutes. Thanks.

        • Daniel LaLiberte

          Not a valid argument.  Thanks for trying.

          • Questionman

            Who are you to say what’s valid?  Don’t you know that all arguments are equal, everybody has an opinion, and whoever shoutest louder is the best smartie?  

    • Mike

      Think of it as someone was telling you all the main events including before and after were going to take place. Scratch your head. That would be your first pass.

      Then look at the official explanations as if you were an investigator for a legal organization.  Think of it as a possible arson/insurance type scam with the WTC owner getting billions, the Eisenhower Military–industrial complex complex getting two wars and the Patriot Act and Homeland Security.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      Glad to hear you are open to looking into *what* the truthers are saying (which is much more important than focusing on who they are). 

      I recommend you avoid the more obviously bogus fake-truther nonsense of no-planes, energy beams, mini-nukes and such.  It is telling that people pushing those wako theories also try to discredit the true science involving controlled demolition.  Also avoid most of the pentagon quagmire.

      • Hunter Rose

        Thank you Daniel.

        Had to tell too many people who had just stumbled into the issue about the contrivances. The actual skeptics avoid wild speculation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1278300472 Edward Rynearson

    James Meigs stated that the black boxes from the airplanes had been recovered and studied. 

  • Frank

    Shamelessly unbalanced and biased show.  Why was the 9/11 person only on for a few minutes?  He sounded much more like he knew what he was talking about.

    • Anonymous

      Kevin Ryan does know what he’s talking about.  Meigs and Kay also know that Ryan knows what he’s talking about.   Kevin Ryan is the former Site
      Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of
      Underwriters Laboratories (UL).  Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory
      manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report
      being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and
      Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for that.  The info on Kay is useful in assessing his motives.  I would suggest that a person who isn’t familiar with neo-conservative thinking to read this:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-05-boot_x.htm

    “What is the greatest danger facing America as it
    tries to rebuild Iraq: Shiite fundamentalism? Kurdish separatism? Sunni
    intransigence? Turkish, Syrian, Iranian or Saudi Arabian meddling?

    All of those are real problems, but none is so
    severe that it can’t readily be handled. More than 125,000 American
    troops occupy Mesopotamia. They are backed up by the resources of the
    world’s richest economy. In a contest for control of Iraq, America can
    outspend and outmuscle any competing faction.

    The greatest danger is that we won’t use all of
    our power for fear of the “I” word — imperialism. When asked on April 28
    on al-Jazeera whether the United States was “empire building,”
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reacted as if he’d been asked
    whether he wears women’s underwear. “We don’t seek empires,” he replied
    huffily. “We’re not imperialistic. We never have been.”

    That’s a fine answer for public consumption.”

  • Brett

    I remember when I lived in NYC I used to regularly go to the restaurant at the top of the WTC (Windows on the World). From the windows, looking out at the harbor, the Statue of Liberty appeared the size of an index finger…Male patrons had to wear a suit jacket to enter the dining room (and if you didn’t have a jacket they would supply you with one, one with a crest over the breast pocket–the better the tip, somehow the better the jacket fit, too!) 

  • Graham

    As somebody wise said recently.

    “The 9-11 kook community has taken over the 9-11 truth community”

    Kevin Ryan IS NOT one of these kooks, he is a very credible participant in the aftermath and study of the WTC 7 collapse.

    I am appalled that you gave him so little time. Why was that? 
    Do you realize that this is the age of the internet and that secrets are getting harder to hide?
    Which side are you going to be on when it becomes clear what happened that day? Are you going to pretend that you had questions regarding 9-11?

    See the documentary “Press For Truth” on Google video to see who really started the 9-11 Commission and what happened during the process.

  • Jerry from Ocoee, FL

    Isn’t this the same as the people believing in the “grassy knoll” & “area 51″ conspiracies?

    • Anonymous

      No, it’s completely not the same as that.  It’s the same as the people who believe the experts who say that smoking causes cancer and global warming is a big problem.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      Isn’t your argument just like people believing in “global warming” and “big bang” theories?

      FYI, the first is true and well understood, while the second is far out and who really knows?  Not very comparable, though scientific investigation can be applied in both cases.

      In all investigations, it is not about belief but about verifiable evidence.   Beliefs may guide is in what we choose to investigate given limited resources, but we know that we must reserve judgement until we have covered all the bases.

  • Ken

    Where was the debate? Where was the balanced representation from both sides?   Yes, the crimes and events that occurred on that day are immensely important to our nation and the world. That is why the truth must be thoroughly investigated.  We are not poking at flaws in the official story for our own entertainment! Our knowledge and beliefs are based on a catalog of plainly visible facts. During this brief segment, our views and our motives were openly scoffed at. This show was a soap box from which two opinionated “researchers”
    demeaned, degraded, and frankly insulted all of us who are fighting to understand the truth behind the September 11th murders. 

  • Daniel J.

    I can’t believe I just heard the straw-man arguments given by James Meigs and Johnathan Kay. It is an embarrassment to this country that these men would try to support data that high-school physics teacher could disprove. Building do not collapse at free-fall speed, especially a building such as WTC 7 which slight structural and moderate fire damage. 

    Did anyone else notice that no person called in supporting the “Official” 9/11 report? It is quite clear that this is not JUST another conspiracy theory as Mr. James Meigs suggests. Although, I must agree with what Mr. Meigs said about himself on air, he indeed is NOT a scientist, but rather a reporter, and in my opinion a pathetic one at that.

  • Foss

    Checkout zim container line. 24 yrs in wtc and out in aug 2001

  • Oidada

    Is 9/11 a 30 year old conspiracy?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx4QcjBnzOI9-11 Commissioner Bob Kerry (in a moment of candor?!) makes an enigmatic statement which creates more questions than answers.Questioner :”Do you support a criminal investigation into 911? Because I knowyours was an exposition, it was not a criminal investigation. Kerrey : “I don’t thing so, but I don’t know, but I do support a permanent commission to examine not just that , but lots of things in this area so… Questioner : But if it’s a permanent cover up then its ah, it’s I mean if it’s an act of war and it’s hiding things, which everyone on your commission knew that the Pentagon was changing their stories , lying to you , then its a cover up and anact of war and under Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution … Its treason , sounless we get to the very bottom of it , then were still talking a treasonous exposition. Kerrey : This is a longer conversation , I’m not sure this will ever get to thebottom of it. Questioner : We have to or I don’t think we can save our countr(y)ies. Kerrey : I don’t think, well if that’s the condition upon which we’ll be saving ourcountry I don’t … it’s a problem, it’s a 30 year old conspiracy. Questioner : No, I’m talking about 911. Kerrey : That’s what I’m talking about !Questioner : Oh , you are … Kerrey : Anyway, I gotta run, I gotta go.
     

    • seanmcbride

      If 9/11 was an inside job, it has its roots in the Rabin assassination, Iran-Contra, the October Surprise, the Vietnam War, the USS Liberty attack, the JFK assassination and other important events during the last half century or so. It may well track back as far as the Lavon Affair of the mid-1950s:

      Wikipedia: Lavon Affair
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
       

  • Hunter Rose

    Some of you listeners fell for something interesting.

    Yes, he stated ‘thermite’ is
    not an effective explosive, and he is absolutely correct. So the fact
    that nano-thermic spheres and flakes were found in the dust has been effectively
    neutralized with regard to any ‘demolition’ theory.

    Did any of you catch that?

    Anyone
    with the ability to think critically might. You see, Kay pulled a
    classic ‘bait and switch’ or ‘straw man’ argument here. Let’s do this in
    steps;

    He said that flakes of nano-thermite were found. – Absolutely correct.
    He said that small flakes of oxidized iron are rust. – Correct again.
    He said that anyone who thinks that ‘thermite’ would be used in a demolition would laugh about the idea. – Again, I totally believe him.

    Don’t know what some of you fell for yet, do you?

    Well, here it is;

    -
    It is not that the oxidized iron flakes (rust) are a by-product of
    demolitions (they are). Such are also the by-product of many other causes, including
    building fires.
    No, it’s that he took ‘oxidized iron flakes’, and
    right in front of your ears, he made ‘thermite’=’Oxidized iron flakes’.
    Well, nano-thermite is comprised of “iron oxide and aluminum”, but it is absolutely NOT ‘rust’. It is also NOT THERMITE.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N

    Funny
    how what was actually found in the dust (along with the oxidized iron)
    is the sort of stuff that the military has been working with since the
    90′s. Also, it’s just the sort of stuff that would actually be practical
    for demolitions where typical hyper-thermic materials are not. Kay said
    it’s “not an effective explosive”? Thing is, he was talking about ‘Thermite’, not the ‘nano-thermite’ that was *actually* found.

    From the above
    link;
    *”nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military
    with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times
    more powerful than conventional explosives.”*

    Don’t take my word for it. Do your own *actual* research.

    I’ve
    studied cog-psyche. I already know that the whole reading
    audience’s filters are set to ‘confusion’ about the above. Hell, in 5
    minutes, you’ll even forget that the guest, Kay, deliberately misled
    everyone. You’ll forget that he either lied or (less likely) spoke entirely out of
    ignorance.

    Why? Why will you forget?

    Because… you can’t stay nice and ‘comfy’ if you don’t.

    Why did he lie?

    Why are people ‘flagging’ this response already?

    Because… they can’t stay ‘comfy’ either if they know it’s still there. It’s easier just to believe that some ‘expert’ debunked something unsettling than it is to actually look at the details.

    Cheers!

    • Benjamin Cohen

      Checked the Thermite … it is used for “cutting steel”.

      What was needed to bring down undestructable steel frame?
      Thermite … Dah!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Hunter Rose

        Actually, ‘Thermite’ isn’t very good for that. Nano-thermite is. The point was about how Kay flim-flammed the NPR audience by swapping one substance for another.

        • Questionman

          Actually, Popular Mechanics of November 1935 reported that thermite had been used to demolish a 600-foot steel tower in Chicago.

  • Brett

     I think the government, military and intelligence services had several red flags over time indicating there could potentially be a very real threat of an attack of the kind that happened on 9/11, and that the attack was more likely to happen sooner rather than later. Through a combination of departmental incompetence, various bureaucracies interfacing poorly with each other, human error, and management that was more invested in a reactive style rather than a proactive approach to terrorism, the attacks took place when they could have and should have been prevented. I also think that what transpired after the attacks should be of more interest; in the good old Milton Friedman idea of using a catastrophic event as a perfect time for an administration to push through as much of its own agenda as is possible, the Bush-Cheney bunch exploited the hell out of 9/11…I don’t think our power structures ordered the attacks, and so forth, just that they handled the whole thing incompetently and exploited the tragedy to their benefit!

    • Hunter Rose

      That’s a likely scenario. The problem is that those very same people stated that they needed “A New Pearl Harbor” to further the very agenda you’ve alluded to. It was on their wish list nearly three years before the attack.
      http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    • seanmcbride

      The anthrax that was used in the 9/11 anthrax attacks originated from a high-level classified American military lab. Most observers have concluded that the FBI has gone out of its way not to find the real culprit (more likely culprits) behind the attacks, which were directed at opponents of the Patriot Act in the Democratic Party: Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle.

      The notes accompanying the attacks were clearly designed to frame Muslims and to join Israel and the United States in the intimate alliance against evil that so warms the cockles of Jonathan Kay’s heart, and the hearts of his fellow neoconservatives at outfits like the PNAC, FDD, CSP and AEI.

      Will an incompetence defense explain the 9/11 anthrax attacks?

      • Brett

        Two words: Steven Hatfill (chemist and mentally unstable ideologue who worked at the lab where the anthrax originated); he was a major nutcase! Occasionally those people get jobs with the government, too, unfortunately! I worked in government for years. I remember more than a couple of times employees committing crimes, some acts even had political underpinnings/the motivation was to further something political. It wouldn’t exactly be false to say in some of those cases the government was complicit; it wouldn’t exactly be true to say it engineered a governmental conspiracy, either. 

        Are you suggesting that the military/government is responsible for orchestrating the anthrax attacks? 

        • seanmcbride

          Brett,

          Can you possibly be unaware that Steven Hatfill was wrongly framed by several parties for the 9/11 anthrax attacks (including by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and the JDO — the Jewish Defense Organization), and received a large settlement from the FBI for the injustice he suffered?

          None of the apologists for the 9/11 official conspiracy theory here seem to be familiar with any of the facts about 9/11 and the 9/11 anthrax attacks.

          Most experts on the 9/11 anthrax attacks believe that the case remains unsolved, and deliberately so. A full-press cover-up remains in play.

          • Brett

            Sorry, you’re right, I meant Bruce Ivans, the fellow who committed suicide; he was an unstable chemist from the lab. He committed “suicide” (is there no end to the conspiracy?). But then you know about that fellow but didn’t mention him in your reply or initial post about anthrax…interesting…

          • seanmcbride

            The case against Bruce Ivins was even weaker than the frameup of James Hatfill — the vast majority of people who have studied the case believe that Ivins was innocent, as do his coworkers and colleagues, who knew him intimately. The case would have been laughed out of court.

            Perhaps you can explain why you think Bruce Ivins was guilty, and what would have motivated him to try to frame Muslims for the 9/11 anthrax attacks and to try to terrorize two leading Democrats who could have obstructed passage of the Patriot Act: Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle.

            Let’s see how credible your argument is.

        • Ellen Dibble

          Hi, Brett.  Yesterday somebody was saying just that:  the government engineered the anthrax attacks.  My sense was that again this might have been to “soften up” the public to get us sort of hysterical and ready to fund a war, that we are finally gearing up to pay for.  
              This assignment of guilt to an entire group for the errors of a few, or a single person — it’s an interesting point in justice.  In Germany post World War II do you prosecute someone who “was just following orders” (Eichmann) when the perpetrator in chief (Hitler) had committed suicide?  Does the Arab world blame the western world for having unshrouded women, uncorked liquors of all sorts, and educating people outside of the Koran?  We are probably almost all guilty, but if we had to stand before Allah, we’d probably say Barack Obama is responsible. Does the Western world blame everyone Muslim for the fanaticism of certain elements?  It’s certainly easier than trying to sort out the evil-doers.  Some said it was the end-of-the-roaders who are the danger, the ones with nothing to lose — from the point of view of Rumsfeld, those who could not be bribed or bought.  (I think the same sorts see the same threat among end-of-the-roaders here…) 
              Group guilt.  Hmm.

    • Anonymous

      Fine.  From utter incompetence came the most perfect attack in human history.  And the laws of physics were in awe of the attack and suspended themselves.  And the government of the people who were attacked killed hundreds of thousands of people who were like the horrendous nineteen attackers, and seized their resources.  And the accused Bin Laden, who was not wanted by the FBI for 9/11, was killed, and all was the new well.

      • Brett

        “…came the most perfect attack in human history.”  

        Wow! That’s going back a long way! Alexander the Great had some doozies which I would consider way up there! Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quick war enders! The Battle at Little Big Horn was also quite the attack…oops, wait, Custer was given bad counsel by his superiors; this, of course, was so his troops would get massacred, feeding the growing anti-Indian sentiment and setting up the government to have a green light at Wounded Knee, but that’s another story…have you broken down a “perfect” attack into various major headings and subheadings, and have you attached number values to each? And, how did the scoring go for 9/11? A perfect 10? A 9.5? 

        • Anonymous

          I agree and stand corrected. That was inaccurate and hyperbolic.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      OK Brett, at least you are facing the right direction in terms of who was culpable.  But if you start looking into what you are saying, what was really behind the appearance of incompetence and why no one was demoted or fired, but in fact promoted, this should lead you further down the path.    Look into what Richard Clarke says about who MUST have known what was going on and who decided he should not be informed, even though he was the counter-terrorism “tzar” who should have been informed. (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20110811114054595)

      But if you decide to not look any further, however, be aware that you are playing a contributing role in stifling the necessary investigation.  We all need to take responsibility for what we do, or do not do.  “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” – MLK

      • Brett

        Daniel, your reply, at first, had a respectful tone, it seemed earnest enough and respectful enough to warrant reading, but when I got to your second paragraph…come on…On a crusade, are you? What are you doing on this crusade? Watching videos, reading books, commenting on blogs? What a load of self-righteous drivel! …I suppose for my part, it sounds as though I’m obstructing justice! If I stand on a box and demand Richard Gage become the permanent host of On Point, would that bring me salvation? There is almost a kind of religious fervor to your tone, there, in the second paragraph…how many times has one heard the Fundamentalist proclaim he/she was once blind then became versed in the Bible and was born again to see the Truth (with a capital “T”!)? And how many times has some grave warning accompanied such proclamations regarding what others had better heed? 

  • seanmcbride

    Jonathan Kay demonstrates the fact that pro-Israel activists and militants have been the prime movers behind the campaign to obstruct an honest and effective investigation into 9/11.

    Check out the key elements of his profile:

    1. anti-9/11 Truth
    2. pro-9/11 exploitation
    3. pro-9/11 official story
    4. pro-Asper family
    5. pro-Clash of Civilizations
    6. pro-Commentary
    7. pro-Conrad Black
    8. pro-FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies)
    9. pro-Global War on Terror
    10. pro-Islamophobia
    11. pro-Israel
    12. pro-Israel lobby
    13. pro-Israeli settlements
    14. pro-Likud
    15. pro-Mossad
    16. pro-National Post
    17. pro-neoconservatives
    18. pro-New York Post
    19. pro-PNAC (Project for the New American Century)
    20. pro-Rupert Murdoch
    21. pro-Weekly Standard
    22. pro-World War IV

    So: what is the real game being played here? What precisely is being covered up?

    • John Myers

      were you Krod?

  • Ariel

    After ten years, why do apologists for the official 9/11
    story still refuse to recognize the need for an honest investigation?  Delving into their psyche would probably be
    fascinating, but pointless.  A major
    crime was committed.  The president
    tried to block an investigation.  Many
    questions were never addressed.  The
    leaders of the 9/11 Commission complained about stonewalling.  Much of the 9/11 Commission report was based
    on the testimony of one prisoner at Guantanamo, who was tortured and not
    available for questioning.  Many
    scientists, architects and engineers have come forward to dispute the official
    story based on physical evidence.  It is
    not up to Popular Mechanics to act as judge on this case, especially since
    their primary goal is to ridicule the skeptics.  Let them testify under oath at the hearings.

     

    By the way, why wasn’t there a rush to update the building
    codes after the collapse of WTC 7? 
    Wouldn’t that have been more in the interest of public safety than
    attacking Afghanistan?
     

    • John Myers

      9/11 wasn’t treated as a crime. It was treated as an act of war.

      • Questionman

        Right.  How convenient for those who wanted a big fat expensive war and wanted to make Bush an uncriticizable War President!  We don’t need no stinking evidence, this is war!

  • Joeymooreyogi

    http://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com for real science, not journalistic blah blah telephone calls blah blah.  PLEASE!! 

  • Benjamin Cohen

    NOT SO WELL KNOWN FACTS ABOUT 9/11 – The Perfect Storm + Coverup

    Late 2000   Lewis Eisenberg (head of NY Port Authority) comes up with this idea of privatizing the WTC Complex, after being in public hands since the day the towers were built in 1970′s.

    Secret Bidding: March 17, 2001  Steve Ross (Vornado Realty) wins the contract for having WTC Towers for 99 years (hint: replacement included/guaranteed)March 18, 2001  Steve Ross withdraws Vornado’s name … the winner is Larry Silverstein and ex-Commando (Israel) Frank Lowy.

    Listen to This:  All three players are joined ideologically for their obsession and support for UJA of New York.Moreover in Dartmouth College in NH around 1961 Steve Ross and Lewis Eisenberg are the founders of Dartmouth Hillel and spreading J….. way of life to fellow students.

    Coincidences that happen every day.  Yep!

  • Peter Phillips
  • lynn

    WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE 
    Just when I thought I’ve been being too hard on NPR (I often say I can’t stand them and have refused for ten years to contribute -remembering Noam Chomsky calling them ‘National Pentagon Radio’-and just yesterday was thinking I should more rationally say, “I don’t have much respect for NPR as a true news gathering organization”) they come up with this unfair, cowardly, government propaganda show repeating, for two hours, the same old scientifically impossible arguments, long ago debunked. And the real scientist gets……FIVE WHOLE MINUTES!!!! Quick! Show him the door. Let’s go back to the middle ages.

    Who paid for it? All you listeners commenting negatively in droves? It’s reminiscent of a  CIA/Operation Mockingbird- type program. (google that).  “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media,” said William Colby, former Director CIA. Another CIA head, Frank Wisner boasted,  “I can play the media like a mighty Wurlitzer.”

    NPR certainly lacks credibility and integrity in failing to honestly cover (these past  ten years) the TRUTH: regarding actual numbers, including ‘nice, middle class folks,’ of antiwar protestors in Washington D.C and NYC in winter ’03; vote fraud- it’s not ‘votER fraud!’, and esp 9/11. 

    Colorado Public TV has courage and actually made lots of money in call- in donations when they had Kevin Ryan helping to host “Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup” not too long ago. He is so courageous, rational and ethical. Google his name with “Demolition Access to WTC.”

    Sure, it’s a contentious issue, because folks have been intimidated by the ridicule heaped on those advocating for answers to rational questions too long unanswered by this government for banks and corporations, run by the CIA. Sound far-fetched? Go read a book (or even review at Amazon) by L. Fletcher Prouty, “The Secret Team.”

     CPTV also showed the Richard Gage (AIA)(some of the 1500 architects and engineers calling for a real investigation into 9/11 with subpoena power, in their soon to be released -Sept 7-DVD “Experts Speak Out,”) and ae911truth.org’s DVD “Blueprint for Truth.”  So who’s afraid of Kevin Ryan now, and why?  Somebody/ies can’t allow a fair presentation of evidence refuting the official conspiracy theory for fear the public will find out what is supposed to be kept hidden. But somebody wise once said “murder will out.” 

    Forget NPR. Tell them you won’t donate anymore. Most of the comments here show the audience to be way beyond their would-be “programmers.” 
    Visit  boilingfrogs.org website for some real truth in journalism: great interviews, including an upcoming one with Graeme MacQueen, soon to be speaking at the internationally convened  Toronto Hearings, Sept 8,9,10,& 11. Visit torontohearings.org and see what you’ve been missing.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah lynn! Sibel Edmonds is covering the minutiae of the FBI obfuscation on Boiling Frogs.  And KPFA has given 9/11 Truth a fair venue as well, so donations may be better placed there.  I’m pretty sure Richard Gage was awakened to 9/11 Truth while he was listening to David Ray Griffin on Bonnie Faulkner’s show “Guns and Butter.”

  • Benjamin Cohen

    ZIM CONTAINER LINES:They were headquartered in WTC (one of the towers) since the the towers were built.
    Perhaps more than 90% of their business with the Port of New York…. yes I was there, in the shipping business and using Zim Containers – I KNOW. 

    In May 2001, they announce that they are moving all of their 300 staff entirely to Norfolk Virginia and getting out of the New York area as of August 2001.

    Coincidences that happen every day…. Yep!!!

    • Anonymous

       Very interesting! I know that reads sarcastic, but I’m not being sarcastic. There were means by which the explosives got into the buildings.

  • Benjamin Cohen

    Please call the Ombudsman’s Office and complain about the biased handling and poor journalism that OnPoint has shown to us today.
    The new Ombudsman is Edward Schumacher-Matos [Spanish background from Council of Foreign Relations ... God helps us, I hope]
    Usually Lori Grisham  answers the phone. 
    Ombudsman’s Office:  202.513.3245

  • barent johnson

    the people at “popular mechanics”,are morons.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charley-Wooley/741206578 Charley Wooley

    conspiracy theroys are bullshit… period
    IMO this dosnt even deserve a show

  • barent

    the towers didn’t tilt,but this show sure did;on the side, of, so called conspiracy debunkers.  as one wise person, said to me, many years ago,”i’m sure glad, BS ain’t music”.

  • Guest

    So sad…

    On Point has been for years a favorite show…seldom do i turn it off as i did today

    but your coverage of this topic was so pathetic i’ve lost my respect…

    you’ve shown us all at What Point you sell out to join the ‘mainstream media’

    so sad

  • Oliver Smittens

    So the show only showcased the ‘official’ side? And was clear to stay away from addressing the issues Kevin Ryan and others raise, preferring to focus on profiling ‘conspiracy theorists’ psychology? Definitly a show slanted toward the ‘official conspiracy theory’ and not investigative at all.

  • YoprkCountyGirl

    i think 911 conspiracy theorists show a sad defetism hat soeaks of a sense of powerlessness that suggests that all is hopeless.  it is a cynisms that truly lacks courage and fails to recognize the power of collective action

    • Hunter Rose

      There is nothing more abhorrent than the undoing of fetism hat. If I might soeak for myself, I would say; Please, understand that there really are not many ’911 conspiracy theorists’ for two reasons; 1) Most skeptics have less in the way of theory than of questions. 2) Most people have perfectly good, non-conspiratorial emergency services available when they call ’911′.
      Also, I might suggest that PWD is something to look into and avoid.

      Have a good night.

      • Chris Sarns

        Hunter,

        You missed the point. You are a Conspiracy Theorist.

        Everyone is a Conspiracy Theorist.

        9/11 was a Conspiracy because it was done by two or more people.

        OBL has not even been charged with 9/11′ That’s just a Theory.

        If you believe OBL and 19 hijackers did it then you are a Conspiracy Theorist.

        • Hunter Rose

          You really need to peruse a thread a little more before commenting.
          ‘S ok though, I’ve probably done it a few times myself.

          As for whether ObL was ‘charged’ for the attacks of 9/11… that would actually be a matter of fact, not theory.

          Do you know whether he was? To the best of mine, he wasn’t.

    • Chris Sarns

      “OBL and 19 hijackers did it” is a Conspiracy Theory.

      Any crime planned and committed by two or more people is a CONSPIRACY.

      The FBI never charged OBL with 9/11 because there is no hard evidence that he was involved. That’s just a THEORY.

      • Hunter Rose

        Correct.

        The BA gave us a ‘conspiracy theory’ based on “trust us” and “we found a passport from an incinerated airliner.”

        Can we believe it? Of course we can. Thing is; “Belief” is based on two basic components; “Reality” and “Desire”.

        I think we ALL ‘desire’ the notion that 19 Arab Hijackers pulled off what amounts to a miraculously successful terrorist attack against what should have been a vigilantly secured nation.

        The reality is that such a narrative is fraught with holes. You’ve pointed out one VERY big one;

        When FBI ‘Chief of Investigative Publicity agent’ Rex Tomb (Yeah, that’s his name) was asked why Osama bin Laden was on the top ten most wanted in connection with the bombings of the USS Cole and in Tanzania, but with no mention WHATSOEVER of the 9/11 attacks, his response was;
        “The
        reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted
        page is because the FBI has no hard
        evidence
        connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

        Yet we launched two wars based on the assumption that bin Laden was responsible.

        Isn’t that
        interesting?

        Since then, Rex and the FBI have tried to backpedal a bit, but oddly enough,

        They haven’t
        ever stated that there exists any actual ‘hard evidence’ that bin
        Laden was responsible.

        Now, don’t think for a moment that anyone here is sure one way or the
        other that the NOW DEAD (and rotting in some really hot-place) bin
        Laden was innocent… (that’s how the ‘official version’ pushers love
        to mischaracterize the skeptics) no. The bottom line is that we
        don’t know to a degree of certainty that bin Laden was behind the
        9/11 attacks.

        That’s a fact.

        But just because there are plenty of ‘official version’ adherents
        that react rabidly to reason, I’ll state uncategorically that I, and
        every other uncertain American, are pleased as punch that not only is
        the bastard dead, but he went out like the coward he always was.
        There might be more to even that story, but it sits well with
        me.

        Any questions?

    • Rsokol

      What is that supposed to mean?

    • Questionman

      Some are defeatists–the ones who believe that alien reptiloids and/or the Bilderbergers run the world and all we can do is bullhorn insults at them.

      To agitate for truth and accountability is inherently an optimistic enterprise.  Who would bother if they did not think there was a
      chance to win?

  • Fredsaid

    (These comments remind me of the conspiracy believers on global warming theory.)

    And what do you think about the government and UFOs? 

  • Xonks

    I am posting this again so that those who are new to this
    thread will know why so many of us are posting the phrase WHY CONSPIRACY
    THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE and will have the opportunity to encourage
    PBS to correct the imbalance of this program.

     

    “Jane, what an amazing show on 9/11 conspiracies. Amazing
    because it was so blatantly one-sided. Just this morning I learned that Kevin
    Ryan would be a guest on your two-hour show, but just as I learned 9/11 would
    only be covered for one hour, I learned that Mr. Ryan’s involvement would be
    limited to 10 minutes. Now that the show is over we know that Kevin Ryan’s
    involvement was barely 5 minutes in length. This seems quite odd to me in light
    of the fact that Mr. Ryan, by virtue of the movement he represents, was the
    subject of the show.

    I hereby call for the next installment of your show concerning
    9/11 to be entitled, “Why Conspiracy Theorists Believe What They Believe”. Your
    guest, Mr. Ryan, will be joined by Richard Gage, AIA, who will talk about the
    physical science behind the events, David Ray Griffin, whose book “Debunking
    9/11 Debunking” has decimated Mr. Meigs’ assertions point by point, and Steven
    Jones who will talk about the properties of the nano-thermite found on the
    scene and its implications. In the interest of making this program as balanced
    as today’s program, you can grant Mr. Meigs five minutes to explain the events
    of 9/11 as seen by the Wile E. Coyote school of physics. Does that seem like a
    reasonable follow-up, Jane?

    I call on all posters on this thread who believe such a
    program is a good idea and would tune in to listen, to simply post “Why Conspiracy
    Theorists Believe What They Believe” in capital letters as a vote for this
    proposal. I trust this program can be put together within the coming weeks,
    rather than planned for the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.”

    • Brett

      “Just this morning I learned that Kevin Ryan would be a guest on your two-hour show, but just as I learned 9/11 would only be covered for one hour, I learned that Mr. Ryan’s involvement would be limited to 10 minutes.”

      Must be a conspiracy?!?! First, the program is regularly two hours long but is broken into two segments/topics; this is its normal format. There was no rearranging of the format going on, as you intimate. Also, there was no announcement that Ryan would only be on for 10 minutes beforehand when the topics were announced for the day. Where do you get this stuff? 

    • Nine Eleven Is An Inside Job

      Just to clarify…
      equal time to the 9/11 Truthers … simple.. fair

  • Chris Sarns

    WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    We have looked at the evidence. We invite you to do the same and make up your own mind.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=channel_video_title

  • http://FriendFeed.com/PetrBuben PetrBuben

    911 is controlled demolition, therefore inside false flag operation. Per irrefutable scientific evidence, and per common sense.

    With this action and the coverup thereof, the whole world war ruling elite goes.

    http://www.ae911truth.org , http://www.stj911.org , http://www.journalof911studies.com
    http://www.twitter.com/911news
    http://www.krunchd.com/911

    • Nausmr

      The first thing you should do with a criminal investigation is look at  the physical evidence left behind at the crime scene to find out what happened. One website that does this with the crime scene at ground zero in NYC with great collection of pics is http://www.drjudywood.com There are a lot of websites that give what they believe is evidence. Use your critical thinking skills when evaluating the evidence.  

      • http://911investigate.blogspot.com PetrBuben

        I agree … . I do respect Dr Judy Wood work. a lot of input. … the only thing i do not like that much is her overly semi adverse remarks towards Mr Gage and Dr Jones …. these all are colleagues, working on the common goal, common task ….

      • Daniel LaLiberte

        If you are serious about doing real science, it shouldn’t take long to figure out that Judy Wood is nuts, and serves to discredit truthful investigations.  She is into energy beams from space and does not do any kind of careful analysis of evidence.  Indeed, use your critical thinking skills.

  • Aidan Monaghan

    The official story of 9/11 is merely an unproven allegation in almost every respect. On the other hand, the evidence of WTC building demolitions is overwhelming. After all, explosives were found in the WTC dust. And there is evidence to suggest that the 9/11 aircraft attacks against the WTC and Pentagon took place under GPS-guided autopilot control as opposed to taking place under the control of the accused hijackers. 

  • http://tricksterpictures.com Uncle Joe

    A ridiculous program by NPR for it’s blatant bias. As the 10 year anniversary draws near, NPR is doing it’s part to keep folks stupid. The two “accepted conspiracy” proponents insulted the listening audience with their ham handed non-statements. That Tom Ashbrook bailed on hosting his own program for this important topic is telling. We heard this same bias on the Diane Rehm show leading up the Iraq war… and we all know how that went down. Shame NPR, shame.

    Is NPR planning coverage of the Toronto hearings – http://torontohearings.org/?  Be sure to have that Popular Mechanics / Hearst muppet on standby, we love his smarmy platitudes.

  • Mariamm Ture

    at 39:00, a caller, Walt from Ashland, NH, asked a question about the melting temperature of steel and size of steel beams in the twin towers. James Meigs responds and reveals he does not know the dimensions of the exterior box beams, and didn’t even acknowledge the existence of interior core beams????? Credibility red flag? If you ask the architects and engineers, or any serious researcher into 911 truth, they know the dimensions of the exterior box and core beams.
    Any person tasked with the serious issue of sorting out facts around the destruction of those buildings would be familiar with such knowledge.
    To quote Mr. Meigs, “It’s dismaying how people are so willing to twist the truth about such an important event.”Disgraceful.

  • Mariamm Ture

    at 39:00, a caller, Walt from Ashland, NH, asked a question about the melting temperature of steel and size of steel beams in the twin towers. James Meigs responds and reveals he does not know the dimensions of the exterior box beams, and didn’t even acknowledge the existence of interior core beams????? Credibility red flag? If you ask the architects and engineers, or any serious researcher into 911 truth, they know the dimensions of the exterior box and core beams.
    Any person tasked with the serious issue of sorting out facts around the destruction of those buildings would be familiar with such knowledge.
    To quote Mr. Meigs, “It’s dismaying how people are so willing to twist the truth about such an important event.”Disgraceful.

  • Mariamm Ture

    at 39:00, a caller, Walt from Ashland, NH, asked a question about the melting temperature of steel and size of steel beams in the twin towers. James Meigs responds and reveals he does not know the dimensions of the exterior box beams, and didn’t even acknowledge the existence of interior core beams????? Credibility red flag? If you ask the architects and engineers, or any serious researcher into 911 truth, they know the dimensions of the exterior box and core beams.
    Any person tasked with the serious issue of sorting out facts around the destruction of those buildings would be familiar with such knowledge.
    To quote Mr. Meigs, “It’s dismaying how people are so willing to twist the truth about such an important event.”Disgraceful.

    • lynn

      thymesup Says: Just listening to your interview with wonderful Lori van Auken and your agreement that no govt investigation can probably ever succeeding in uncovering the truth. I frequently share the thorough documentary “Press for Truth”Please go to the website http://torontohearings.org/ and see for yourselves the high level patrons, sponsors, and witnesses including historian/author Peter Dale Scott, fired chemist/whistleblower at Underwriters Laboratories, Kevin Ryan; theologian/prolific 9/11 truth author David Ray Griffin; Michael Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization; Dr. Graeme Macqueen, founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster; Richard Gage, AIA, who, since founding architects and engineers for 9/11 truth has shown the DVD “Blueprint for Truth” the world; Univ. Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit co-author of peer-reviewed “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the WTC Catastrophe,” and Barbara Honegger, former Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the science, technology and national security affairs graduate research university of the U.S. Department of Defense. These folks are not waiting for a govt entity to be established,(though they are signatories for such a petition at ae911truth.org,) but with great unanimity are planning to collate via this international hearing, the existing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is wrong (to put it mildly.) If the following is too long for your liking, please visit the website above. The sponsors are not being secretive, believe me.“Objectives of the Hearings:(1) To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.(2) To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.(3) To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.(4) To engage the attention of the public, the international community and the media through witness testimony as well as through media events broadcasted via the Internet during the four day event.” Lots more at the site.

      • lynn

        that Lori van Auken interview is at boilingfrogspost.com

        She is one of the “Jersey Girls” /widows responsible for the fact that we even had any 9/11 commission hearing at all, flawed though it was. Nearly 500 days after the event, and funded at a fraction of cost funded for looking  into monica lewinsky’s blue dress

    • Questionman

      I noticed that too.  The guy makes out that he’s an expert, and he doesn’t know basic stuff. 

  • Mariamm Ture

    at 39:00, a caller, Walt from Ashland, NH, asked a question about the melting temperature of steel and size of steel beams in the twin towers. James Meigs responds and reveals he does not know the dimensions of the exterior box beams, and didn’t even acknowledge the existence of interior core beams????? Credibility red flag? If you ask the architects and engineers, or any serious researcher into 911 truth, they know the dimensions of the exterior box and core beams.
    Any person tasked with the serious issue of sorting out facts around the destruction of those buildings would be familiar with such knowledge.
    To quote Mr. Meigs, “It’s dismaying how people are so willing to twist the truth about such an important event.”Disgraceful.

  • Mariamm Ture

    at 39:00, a caller, Walt from Ashland, NH, asked a question about the melting temperature of steel and size of steel beams in the twin towers. James Meigs responds and reveals he does not know the dimensions of the exterior box beams, and didn’t even acknowledge the existence of interior core beams????? Credibility red flag? If you ask the architects and engineers, or any serious researcher into 911 truth, they know the dimensions of the exterior box and core beams.
    Any person tasked with the serious issue of sorting out facts around the destruction of those buildings would be familiar with such knowledge.
    To quote Mr. Meigs, “It’s dismaying how people are so willing to twist the truth about such an important event.”Disgraceful.

  • Mariamm Ture

    at 39:00, a caller, Walt from Ashland, NH, asked a question about the melting temperature of steel and size of steel beams in the twin towers. James Meigs responds and reveals he does not know the dimensions of the exterior box beams, and didn’t even acknowledge the existence of interior core beams????? Credibility red flag? If you ask the architects and engineers, or any serious researcher into 911 truth, they know the dimensions of the exterior box and core beams.
    Any person tasked with the serious issue of sorting out facts around the destruction of those buildings would be familiar with such knowledge.
    To quote Mr. Meigs, “It’s dismaying how people are so willing to twist the truth about such an important event.”Disgraceful.

  • Mariamm Ture

    at 39:00, a caller, Walt from Ashland, NH, asked a question about the melting temperature of steel and size of steel beams in the twin towers. James Meigs responds and reveals he does not know the dimensions of the exterior box beams, and didn’t even acknowledge the existence of interior core beams????? Credibility red flag? If you ask the architects and engineers, or any serious researcher into 911 truth, they know the dimensions of the exterior box and core beams.
    Any person tasked with the serious issue of sorting out facts around the destruction of those buildings would be familiar with such knowledge.
    To quote Mr. Meigs, “It’s dismaying how people are so willing to twist the truth about such an important event.”Disgraceful.

  • guest

    My issue with the speakers was that they attempted to discredit the “Conspiracy Theorists” and they did not provide evidence.  The speakers referred to the theorists as lazy and the internet making us dumb, but as a teacher, I can find citations to look further in the theories, but the speakers from the show and Popular Mechanics articles do not share their sources so we can ask ourselves.  For many of us, we want to hear from the people involved that day who are silenced: the pilots who flew to intercept is better then the official gov’t version, since that is the basis of the distrust int he first place.  I want to hear from the Air traffic controllers, and I will now listen to the Control center in York, NY to check for myself.  But to only discredit and not provide citations or sources for us to verify your comments,

    well that is one of the causes of the continual use of theories

    • guest

      Popular Mechanics does provide sources,
      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-sources

      We just cannot verify the information that was said, and the same arguments used by PM that things were taken out of context that aid the Truthers arguments, can also be said for some of these sources.  How do we know who is telling the truth and who is lying?  Faith in someone?  I lost that.  So then what, trust in God?  That is the the one thing that has helped me feel sane and hopeful. 

  • Beez

    WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE
    Very dissapointed with the (lack of) balance.

  • Micah Q. Allen

    Tom, where were you when we needed you?  The Popular Mechanics book this program focused on is over 5 years old and has itself been thoroughly and credibly debunked in David Ray Griffin’s book “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”  It’s a shame Mr. Griffin wasn’t a guest for this segment of the program, along with Mr. Meigs and Mr. Kay— surely their back-and-forth would have been more engaging and illuminating than the empty hypocrisy and half-answers dispensed by Mr. Meigs and Mr. Kay to all of your callers (for example, Mr. Meigs’ assertion to your first caller that the hole in the Pentagon was caused by “one part of the plane,” with no further elaboration on what that means and where the rest of the plane wound up).

  • guest

    WAIT…on the show the guest said thermite could not bring the building down, yet on the Popular Mechanics website they suggest that diesel fuel in Building 7, in the basement was pressurized to support a generator on the 5th floor could have provided the fire that helped bring down tower 7.  So one the one hand thermite, a powder used in burning could not, but diesel fuel can????   See it is evidence like this that keeps me looking for answers.  We get an official answer from a source like PM, and that evidence contradicts other explanations that are offered, such as the causes of the WTC collapses. 

    I personally do not propose to answer who led this catastrophe against us, but I do believe someone was behind it, and it was not some backwoods terrorists from the mountains of Afghanistan.  I am more interested in the how did it occur, how it all came down, how an incredibly disciplined military apparatus failed so miserably.  I want answers.  THe show failed to address this and Popular Mechanics does as well.  DO not discredit us for thinking, do not treat as morons or crackpots.  More people do not believe the official version than you can imagine. 

    • Franco

      Just for the record …

      NIST Final report Summary page 33 roman numeralsOther than initiating the fires in WTC7 , the damage from the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7.The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood conventional fires on several floors for almost 7 hours.The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC1.This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the buckled column that initiated the collapsed.Even without the structural damage, WTC7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.The transfer elements  such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC7.

  • Spitefulone2001

    Regardless of all of the discussions around the taking down of the two towers the one item that continues to baffle me was Buidling 7.  By all accounts/evidence/photos, the buidling had some damage and some fire but fell in a total free fall at around 5 pm on 9/11/2001.

    That my friends is pandora’s box.

    • Micah Q. Allen

      Interestingly, Larry “The Leaseholder” Silverstein refers explicitly to the Building 7 collapse in a PBS documentary that was made in honor of 9/11′s 5th anniversary.  He claims that he gave the order to the FDNY to “pull it” (IE, bring down WTC7 via controlled demolition) because they told him they didn’t think they could put out the fire, so the FDNY laid explosives and the building came down later that day. 

      Curious about his claim is the fact that laying explosives for a controlled demolition of a building the size of WTC7 would take several weeks, not several hours.

  • CD

    I have to say, this was one of the most unbalanced On Points I’ve ever heard. And I listen almost daily. And the imbalance was in favor of the Official View. It was a hard, frustrating show to listen to. And I’m trying to be generous.

  • Anonymous

    I’m curious, if a plane had accidentally hit one of the WTC towers and it came down due to a huge fire and massive structural damage would you conspiracy folks be saying the same thing? 

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      Actually Jeff, you’re not curious at all, and that’s the
      problem.

      IF the steel from the building was quickly hauled away before
      engineers could study it in an effort to improve future construction,,,

      IF I found out that a dozen military wargames were occurring
      at the moment the plane accidentally hit,,,

      IF as a result of this accident, Hitlerian legislation was
      quickly passed to subvert the Constitution and dismantle the rights of the
      people,,,

      IF two illegal and unprovoked wars were waged because of
      this accident,,,

      IF my government denied or refuse to explain any of the
      above,,,

      Then yes, I would most likely be asking a few questions.

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    • Questionman

      If the building came down from an accidental plane strike, the same questions would be raised.  The building was designed to take a hit from four-engine 707 at 600 mph.  The lead engineer claimed in 1993 that if the towers were hit by a plane there would be a big fire and a lot of people would die, but the buildings would stand. 

      According to NIST the jet fuel burned off in less than 10 minutes.  According to one FEMA investigator, Gene Corley, the jet fuel burned off in 1 minute.  Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, and yet Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl said “I saw melting of girders at Ground Zero”.

      Even if you accept that for the building to fail might be possible, many of us have issues with the manner in which they fell.  Asymmetrical damage can not cause symmetrical collapse.  Take two legs off a table and it will not fall straight down.   The speed, totality, and symmetry of collapse; the pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors; the presence of molten iron in the rubble, and the collapse of the persistent core structure after the floors had already fallen are  all mysteries that NIST simply failed to address.

      So, yes.  If the buildings fell from an accidental plane hit, many of the more scientific-minded among us would have the same question.

      Plus, how can you prove that an accident is an accident?

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      If you were indeed curious, you would still want to find out whether the apparent accident was causally connected to the collapse, and whether it really was an accident in the first place.  You know about accidents that some people tend to have when they are witnesses to crimes?  Crime scenes need to be investigated.  Even apparent accident scenes need to be investigated to find out if they are indeed mere accidents.  The non-investigation that happened instead at ground zero was itself yet another crime.

      But you seem to be suggesting that the collapse of the towers seems plausible to you, and I can see why you might have that opinion.  I’ve seen it in others, and I held the same opinion for years. 

      But it is not the belief in a conspiracy that is used to rationalize the explanation of controlled demolition.  No, it is the other way around.  The impossibility of collapse without assistance (i.e. controlled demolition) means that the official story could not be true, and then because of that, more things become evident.  We don’t know much at all about the true nature of the conspiracy (i.e. a group of people conspired to do this), and so we mostly try to focus on waking people up about what we do know, which is that the official conspiracy theory cannot be true.

    • Franco

      Do you think the planes caused massive structural damage?
      Do you know what NIST contends in regard to that theory of yours?
      I’ll save you some research time … NIST does not claim structural damage caused the collapses.

      Oh, your wondering who NIST is now?
      Google is your friend.

  • Zeno

    After reading the comments about this I cannot imagine what entity(s),  individuals, or organizations could bring forth answers that would be acceptable if they were contrary to the “beliefs” currently held. 

    The comments below seem to indicate that 9-11 has entered the realm of religion, because those who have taken a position will likely not accept any information that is in opposition to the held viewpoint unless it is from their man, and their group, using their “science” .

    It is scary because empirical science is now invalidated by the political and legal forms of pseudo-science used regularly to deny real science that would provide the answer.  But in a time where so many fervently employ pseudo-science to bolster their worldview, how can rational analysis can ever be achieved.

    It’s the price America pays for denying empirical science and embracing pseudo-science for other political hot button issues. And that is a long list of issues. that are deliberately clouded by special interests groups.

    We get what we deserve when religion and science are considered as the same discipline.

    • Totwo2

      How about real information instead of just the critique without actual substance?

    • S2

      Saying ‘empirical science’ is not the same as providing it.

    • Voiceofreason

      It is you who are letting your emotions cloud your view.  Sure there are crazy people everywhere, saying plenty of crazy things.  There are people blabbering on about birth certificates.  Religion requires faith.  The nice thing about physics is that it requires none.  If you want to look at empirical science then lets talk about it.  Or will you, yourself, manage to ignore it because or your preconceptions?

      • Zeno

        You seem to be precognitive of the “position” I hold. How did that happen? I explain it again…

        Did you read what I wrote. There is NOTHING we can discuss in the realm of Empiricism, because empiricism is dead in America, and that makes the new science equal to religion.

        So…whatever you or I cite, write , etc is of no more value than beliefs, sermons, and opinions.  But hey, the entirety of media is no longer vetted, and is more akin to the cackling hens of The View.  

        • S2

          Empirical science still exists.  You can look at the raw information yourself.  The calculations aren’t even that hard, even if you are not good with math.  You suggest that 911 truthers have given birth to a new religion and so it creates the proper impression that you are dismissive of it.  However you cannot prove that Jesus walked on water with math, but you can prove that it is impossible for a building to fall at the speed it fell without assistance.  Plenty of architects and engineers have taken to the cause, not because they feel the need to fill some conspiracy void in their lives but because they know their material and feel the need to keep empirical science valid in our national discussions.  I agree (if this is what you are saying) that you can put a set of logical facts in front of many people and than tell them it is intellectual mumbo jumbo communist propaganda and let there emotional irrational mind dismiss black and white facts (aka man caused global warming).

          • Zeno

            I will assert that even if an exact replica of WTC1 were constructed and a plane were flown into it, and it collapsed exactly the same way, then there would be an equal or greater number of people who would say that it was rigged with explosives and weave another conspiracy into the Reconstruction conspiracy.

            That is what America has become.  There is no empiricism of belief. Even if it is demonstrated before eyewitnesses time and time again they will take such demonstrations as acts against the faith.  

          • S2

            You can keep saying this but it is just your theory.  You are a prime example of what you are talking about.

          • Zeno

            Now you are beginning to grasp it. There is no empiricism regardless of the source. So neither you, me or anyone else is going to offer up any acceptable proof…. EVER!  Understand.

            As I stated above if the entire incident were recreated, and the same result was witnessed, it still would not be accepted as proof.

          • Questionman

            That’s just know-nothingism.  Take a class in Newtonian mechanics or basic chemistry and you’ll see empirical proof of the laws of physics and the principles of chemistry.  Video analysis of the collapses of the towers soon reveals that their behavior violates the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton’s 1st and 3rd laws. 

            I’d love to see someone set up a model that can show how that can happen from gravity.

          • Zeno

            How do you know that I don’t understand physics and mechanics already. You assert that my opinion should be discredited due to a lack of simple college courses..at least I thought they were pretty simple when I took ALL of them. 

            But I don’t need 6th grade education to parse out this:

             “Video analysis of the collapses of the towers soon reveals that their
            behavior violates the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton’s 1st and 3rd
            laws. ”

            So you are stating that “video analysis” has proven that these buildings were “violating”  the “… 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton’s 1st and 3rd
            laws. ”

            Now that is a true mixture of faith and pseudo-science that embarrass Jim Jones.

          • Questionman

            Your claim that there is no empiricism is directly contradicted by what is taught in high school science classes.  We get empirical demonstrations of the laws of physics.

            There is nothing pseudo-scientific about measuring the speed of the buildings’ collapses through video analysis.  David Chandler’s work in that regard forced NIST to rewrite their WTC7 report and acknowledge that for 2.25 seconds the building was coming down at pure freefall, with no structural support whatsoever.

          • S2

            I don’t understand how if you play your video at normal speed you wouldn’t be able to get an accurate measure of how long it took the building to fall.  If you can do that you can find out wether or not it could possibly fall at that speed when there is however many tons of concrete and steel below it.  How is that pseudo-science?  It’s just math.  You act like math is somehow political.  It isn’t.  It’s just math.  It doesn’t care about our objectives, it is a tool that always works the same way.

          • Zeno

            Now don’t be naive. I’m going to apologize in advance if I’m misreading your statement.  Everything is political and under the management of power. 

            This entire issue is political, and yes that includes science and the obfuscation of it by pseudo-science as well. Its all about power…either this way or that way, depending on the desires of those stating their point. 

            Yes there is a true empirical science, but so few Americans are versed in it that they become susceptible to the political based propaganda.  Its all about power and money, and we can all agree on that, but the questions that can be answered truthfully are subject to the experience, education, honesty, emotion, ambition and bias of the observer.

            If this sounds Orwellian, then that would be correct.  We live in an Orwellian age, and what is presented as truth is no longer based in empiricism or science.

            Winston, how many fingers am I holding up?

          • S2

            2 fingers dammit!  I agree with this.  But I feel that it supports my views very well.  If it is all about power and money and we know that Americans have begun to loose there ability deduce logically (there are many reasons, a lot of intentional mis-information, but also just TO MUCH information) why is it a stretch that the powers that be would not feel free and comfortable in their ability to manipulate the masses to their will.  The motives are clear and they know they needed a dramatic excuse to get there fingers really deep in the middle east.  At the very least it would make sense for them to allow this to happen. 

          • Zeno

            As you stated “Americans have lost the ability to deduce logically”

            I agree, there is a critical mass to ignorance. If enough of a population rejects reason in favor of belief then society will collapse. We are in a collapsing empire, and no scientific investigation of 9-11 should be expected from the plutocracy.

            This nation has in all practical endeavors abandoned its space program, and anything rational. It will continue to destroy itself on the altar of greed and propaganda. Just like Rome.

            Don’t waste time with what cannot be changed. Justice is no longer blind, but completely political.

          • Zeno

            In addition top this I would recommend watching Century of the Self, if you have not already seen it. I agree with questioning Everything…as it pertains to yourself,  but it is simple logic that faith is the antithesis of rationality.

            It a very long film…Very Long.  But well worth watching if you are really interested in how people are manipulated by media in all its forms: http://www.freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=140

          • Questionman

            So first you celebrate empiricism, and then you claim the power of fortune-telling about how people you don’t know are going to react to experiments that haven’t been formulated yet.

            The experiments done by National Geographic to test the power of thermite and to test the fire resistance of a steel beam were clearly rigged to yield the desired results.  For more about the thermite experiments see the Youtube “Incendiary Experiments”.

            My own “beliefs” about what happened at Ground Zero are that the reports have been dishonest, incomplete, and unscientific.  These beliefs are demonstrably true.  They are subject to change, however, if we get new investigations that are demonstrably honest, complete, and scientific.

          • Brett

            Let’s see, now, what’s the count up to among those in on the conspiracy? 

          • Questionman

            You mean the conspiracy to derail the reports?  Oh it doesn’t take many.  Philip Zelikow exercised enough control over the 9/11 Commission that he could keep the honest and diligent researchers on the staff under control, restrict access to information, pretty much keep the Saudis out of the report, and work to obscure the criticisms of the failings and lies of his friend Condi Rice.

            Those who frame the questions can make the efforts of honest researchers dishonest.  For instance, if you are directed to show how fire brought down the WTC instead of directed to find out what brought down the WTC, your honest work can by its limitations be made dishonest through no fault of your own.

            In the case of WTC7 NIST let out a contract for structural analysis with arbitrary restrictions on which floors were to be examined.  This was presumably to avoid any pesky hypotheses like mysterious transfer-truss failure or local failures on the 47th floor under the east penthouse that might be politically incorrect.

             

          • Daniel LaLiberte

            I will assert that even if an exact replica of WTC1 were constructed and a plane were flown into it, and it did NOT collapse, then there would be claims that it was not exact enough.

            There is an outstanding challenge to construct ANY model of the WTC towers out of any (non-explosive or corrosive) material that collapses in a similar way, on its own, all the way to ground.  All studies I’ve seen so far provide further proof that they could not have fallen as they did without assistance.  And then there is building 7, which could not have fallen at free fall for 2.5 seconds without removing ALL structural support, which NIST agrees with, but does not explain.

    • Daniel LaLiberte

      I am glad to hear we are in agreement about the value of empirical science.  You should note that most of the comments from truthers are about doing real science.  You seem to be claiming it could only be pseudo-science, and indeed pseudo-science exists (particularly in global warming denial), so how do you know which is which?  If we get into the details, I bet we will agree, if you are really interested in real science.

      If you are being honest, you will also be careful about claims that someone is merely taking a position and finding support for it.  How can you tell the difference?  If someone doesn’t want to dig into the details of why they believe something, then they are merely taking a position and probably don’t have a solid basis in reality.  Guess who does that?  Who is trying to get people to look into the evidence, and who is trying to placate the public that “we already know who did 9/11″.

      On the other hand, perhaps you are arguing against empirical science, arguing that most people don’t understand it, so therefore why bother?  But you are not dealing with most people here.  You are dealing with people here (at least the truthers) who do want to dig into the science, and want you to do so too, but will you?

      • S2

        Well said.  Thank you.

      • Totwo2

        Nail on the head!

  • Brett

    I was around what would be considered ground zero in Washington, D.C., on 9/11, and I worked for Arlington County Government. Our fire fighters were the first responders on the scene (my office was next door to their station)…yes, there was debris from the plane both inside and outside of the building; the first responders I spoke with seemed to be telling the truth, but then, hey, they were government employees, right?!?!…I lived in a high-rise apartment building about a thousand yards from the Pentagon and the I-395 corridor. I was at work during the attack but was sent home soon after (Arlington County government closed after news of the attack on the Pentagon became known). When I got home, in the lobby of my building, people were gathered and crying, talking about what was going on, etc. Information was still spotty, but a couple of my neighbors saw the plane go by their window on the I-395 corridor; one neighbor, who had a clear view of the Pentagon saw the plane crash into the building. The plane passed close enough to one neighbor’s window, just under my apartment, on the tenth floor, that she could see the look of terror on the faces of the passengers from the windows of the plane…

    …I have learned a little more about Truthers after reading these comments, and this has been somewhat interesting to me. There are differing factions within the “movement” I’ve noticed. If one doesn’t believe in the “controlled demolition” theory, say, then he/she seems to be ostracized. If one thinks a plane instead of a missile hit the Pentagon, well, “be careful, bub, membership can be revoked,” seems to linger in the air…And it is a bit like trying to pinch mercury between the thumb and forefinger trying to hold every terrorist attack together in one big 9/11 extravaganza…so, if I think the anthrax attacks were NOT part of the 9/11 tragedy, I must be ill-informed, a conspirator, a lemming, and am shirking my responsibilities as a citizen whilst interfering with what could be the investigation that will reveal the truth! I should be brought up on charges of treason now that I think about it!  

    • Zeno

      Exactly. Eyewitness testimony and empirical science is no longer acceptable. The whole of 9-11 has become an act of faith, and facts are no longer welcome unless those facts are supportive to the belief, otherwise they are not facts but distortions and lies in opposition to the faith.

      • S2

        Your preconceptions are fairly obvious are they not?  

        • Zeno

          Actually they are not. Please explain my preconceptions about eyewitness testimony.  Or do you mean that the eyewitnesses were supplied and planted by…. Who?  Those nefarious others.

          • S2

            You are stating my argument for me.  Thanks, but I think I can do a better job.  You are excepting a couple of paragraphs written by who knows who as eye witness testimony.  Because it fits your preconceptions.

          • S2

            In order to debate you cannot place words (straw men) in the mouth of your opponent.  No matter how conveniently they promote your position, or discredit me.  I don’t understand how you think this is a valid way to change my mind.  It just means you are willing to fight dirty and don’t care about reality.

          • Zeno

            A question is not a “straw man” argument.  You need to refresh your understanding of Straw man. Why didn’t you answer the question. and WHY do you assert that I want to change your mind, on anything?

          • S2

            “Or do you mean that the eyewitnesses were supplied and planted by…. Who?  Those nefarious others.” – I’ve never hinted at thinking this, so why do you suggest it?  Because you are placing a straw man to knock down.  This is just another version of straw man.  You answer a false question you pretend to believe I have asked.  Whatever you want to call it, it isn’t honest debate.  If you aren’t here to change my mind, and if you aren’t here to have an open mind, then why ARE you here Zeno?

          • Zeno

            Let me restate my ORIGINAL assertion that no evidence will ever be enough to make this conspiracy go away. But yet this assertion is consistently challenged as a point of view against whatever is offered this side or that side. Which proves my point of irrational bias.  There was no position and I stated none, but was still challenged as a supporter of something that only exists in the respondents.

            Empiricism is dead, without acceptance of even simple points of logic…so why are people abusing each other over points that will NEVER be accepted by either side regardless of the evidence?

            Oh yes… they will eventually find the one truth that suits their worldview.  Like designer religions.

          • S2

            Hmm.  But if a few of us were to sit down in a room face to face do you really believe that we couldn’t slowly poor through evidence and reach logical conclusions as to it’s individual credibility?  Empiricism is not dead, it just has a lot of enemies, and most people are to lazy to adhere to it.

          • Questionman

            Right, and the know-nothingist claim that it’s dead just becomes a lazy rationale for do-nothingism.

          • Zeno

            No. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that you cannot sit down with every believer and put this to rest. Because their personal worldview may never permit the acceptance of rational argument.

            Ever hear evangelicals discuss the age of the Earth…or anything else for that matter.  There is a growing segment of the US population that automatically rejects rationality, and empirical facts are useless against the faithful.

    • Had Matter

      ” The plane passed close enough to one neighbor’s window, just under my
      apartment, on the tenth floor, that she could see the look of terror on
      the faces of the passengers from the windows of the plane…”

      Let me see if I’ve got this straight.  Your neighbor, who like you lived approx 1,000 yds from the pentagon, was able to see the “look of terror on the faces of the passengers” through the windows of a jet traveling over 500 mph, which at the closest point in the known flight path to any of the apartments across I395, would have been at least 1/4 mile away.

      Is that what your neighbor told you, or did you sort of embellish here?  Or worse?

      Sorry Brett, that’s not beleivable.

      • Brett

        Mr., Ms. Hatter, the plane didn’t follow a flight plan just before hitting the Pentagon, it went up the I-395 corridor (that’s how the pilot kept on track) just before hitting the Pentagon. AND, there were lots of eyewitness accounts taken of seeing the plane flying very low and of the crash. And, yes, my neighbors’ accounts were recorded by authorities. 

        BTW, a 1/4 mile is only a little over 1,700 yds., and there are plenty of apartment buildings along the I-395 Corridor between Arlington and the Pentagon that are closer. I could see faces in apartment windows across I-395, which is farther away than the plane would have been to our apartment, and the plane wasn’t going 500 miles per hour before it had to turn off the Corridor to aim toward the Pentagon…

        • Had Matter

          Rev Brett

          A “flight path” and “flight plan” aren’t exactly the same thing, are they.

          By flight path I’m referring to the path the FAA has officially indicated the plane traveled based on the Flight Data Recorder that was allegedly recovered at the pentagon, the data from which was released via a FOIA request in 2006.  That official data has the plane coming up Columbia Pike out of the west as it approached.  It was not following straight up the I-395 corridor as you suggest.

          According to one eye witness at the Navy Annex, who was standing between the wings near the southern edge, the plane passed directly over him, though the official path has it passing a little further to the south. 

          By describing your apt as 1,000 yds from the pentagon, to have been anywhere near the flight path you are apparently talking about the area of high rise apts just south of I-395 across from the Annex.

          That would be the area closest to the official flight path, and which is approx 1/4 mile away from where the government said the plane flew.  And the speed of the plane, 500+ mph, is also straight out of the FDR data supplied by the government.

          Or are you saying the government supplied fraudulent data in response to this FOIA request?

          And check your math.  1,700 yards is almost a mile.  But even at 1/4 that distance, it would be impossible for anyone to see the facial expressions of people inside a plane traveling at any speed.

          • Brett

            Columbia Pike is just next to 1-395; and, okay, 1,000 yds. is a little more than half a mile. And, my neighbor saw the faces as the plane passed her window, not as the plane crashed. Where were you on 9/11? Did you watch the fire from the Pentagon burn for days? Did you have to stay home from work because your company shut down? Did you have recognizance helicopters fly over your apartment every half hour after National Airport closed? Do you know what planes look like landing at National Airport when they are 500 yds. away? 1,000 yds. away? No, you see, I lived there, you didn’t. It was possible to see views of the Pentagon, Washington Monument, National Cathedral, The Jefferson Memorial and National Airport from most of the high-rise apartments in the area…but look on a map, that’ll tell you more than a native of that small area could…

    • seanmcbride

      Brett:

      This is the craziest statement on 9/11 I’ve come across in a long time:

      “The plane passed close enough to one neighbor’s window, just under my apartment, on the tenth floor, that she could see the look of terror on the faces of the passengers from the windows of the plane…”

      Anyone who would report this remark with a straight face has automatically discredited himself or herself as a credible analyst of 9/11.

      There were many security cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon that captured the events of 9/11. The recordings from those cameras were all confiscated by the government and remain under lock and key. If the recordings supported the official conspiracy theory, they would have all been released and heavily publicized in the mainstream media years ago.

      • Brett

        See my reply to Had Matter…that wasn’t an analysis, it was a personal experience..

        • seanmcbride

          Brett,

          These exchanges with you are quite unsatisfactory.

          1. You haven’t explained why you think Bruce Ivins was guilty of the 9/11 anthrax attacks when most people who have studied the case think it is based on thin air — weaker than the case against the since vindicated James Hatfill.

          2. What would have motivated the 9/11 anthrax attackers to try to frame Muslims for the deed, to try to join the US and Israel at the hip in the neocon “Global War on Terror,” and to target two leading Democratic problems for passage of the Patriot Act — Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle? Still no comments from you.

          3. Apparently you still believe it is possible to read the expressions of faces in the windows of a fast-moving jet from an apartment building. Just plain weird. Who would believe this? This statement discredits your alleged eyewitness testimony.

          4. About the all-important issue of the many security cameras in the area, and the evidence they hold, which has been suppressed and hidden, you remain silent. Why haven’t those recordings been released to the public?

    • Questionman

      People come to the truth movement for different reasons.  Some are driven by scientific curiosity, some by a quest for truth and accountability, some by their antipathy toward the Bush administration or the Bilderbergers, some by their concern for racism against Muslims, some by a desire for personal notoriety. 

      Conflict naturally arises between those who prefer a solid, scholarly approach to the many unanswered questions about 9/11 and those who want to hawk DVD’s pushing the latest science-fictiony fantasy that they believe proves “inside job”.

      Some of the people who pretend to be friends of the movement are blatant liars.  That Jew-hating PhD from the midwest, for instance, who thinks he’s the next Rush Limbaugh.  That janitor fellow, for instance, who stole his hero story from a true hero Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens of lives by breaking down doors before he died on 9/11.  The Pentagon flyover crowd. 

    • TrueBlueHuman

      Brett — seems to me I have read your comments several times before…. though you had a different name and the facts are slightly rearranged.
      So: Of course, it is taken for granted that if you live in a high-rise apartment with a perfect view of the Pentagon you will also have access to speak with first responders. (I think everyone who writes in support of the official story
      like you lives in a high-rise in view of the Pentagon and knows someone
      in a position of Authority there to proffer unassailable answers, albeit without photos or other corroborating testimony or evidence or names.)
      And you talked with an actual neighbor who could clearly see the terror in the faces of passengers as they hurled by at a blinding 350-400 mph? (A very perceptive and eagle-eyed neighbor you have there!)
      Also, your final non-eye-witness testimony covers the last nail in the coffin: you have other neighbors who spotted the plane when it flew over the “I-395 corridor”? (Do locals actually talk like that?) Amazing.
      Well, I guess your 2nd hand rock-solid “information” settles it! Case closed! If you say that people told you these things, why should we not simply believe it? You are honest, right?

      But just to be “official” about it, how about if we let the forensic evidence speak instead? Not saying I don’t believe you, but….

  • barent

    this is probably, the singular issue,where the vapid idiocy, of the mainstream liberal and conservative intersect. that is,the negation of people who challenge the accepted dogma of 911,and calling us “conspiracy theorists”.  it’s just another convenient mindless epithet,deployed by those who are too afraid, or too stiupid, to look beyond what is spoon fed.  or,we are summarilly dismissed,because of the idiots, looneys and creeps, [aka. alex jones] associated with the challenges. it’s a big tent folks,and some of the people, do belong in a three ring circus,but, what has that got to do, with the price of crazy glue….

    • nj

      Is your comma key randomly activating?

    • S2

      Nicely said.

  • Brett

    On building #7: why wait until 5pm to “demolish” it? This seems a big hole in the “perfect attack” theory. It’s safe to say that if the buildings were all rigged with explosives to bring down the buildings while making everyone think it was all due to planes crashing into those buildings, then the plan worked by using the first two buildings; there was no need to blow up #7…everyone will have to concede that in this scenario, at least a handful of people had to know. What? They decided many hours later that they’d blow up the building to destroy evidence, you say? If they were so sophisticated with their badass nanothermite technology, then they must’ve known the explosion would have created evidence, right?!? Maybe in this pro-conspiracy theory scenario a little incompetence is acceptable? They must’ve had people who could’ve gotten any evidence of demolition devices out of the building earlier in the day, without blowing up the building, during much of the chaos, particularly if these masterminds had such an ingenious plan?

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      Thank you for coming out in favor of a new investigation, Brett.

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      • Brett

        Xonked, you’re having reading hallucinations; perhaps reread my post and think about it this time!  

        • Xonks

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

          That was sarcasm, Brett. Couldn’t you tell?

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    • S2

      The nice thing about panic, and fire is that it doesn’t give people a lot of time to rummage around in elevator shafts and above drop ceilings.  Strangely the area was quarantined immediately after the threat was over.

      • Brett

        Ah, so the implication here is that they DID blow up the building in the evening to cover up evidence…is that about right? Are you saying that the lowly Arab pilots executed their part of the plan impeccably but our red-blooded American government/military/intelligence agencies/corporate power players botched their end? We’re too exceptional a people for that theory to stand! 

        • S2

          I didn’t say any of that.

        • Questionman

          The hijackings were by no means executed impeccably.  4 planes taken over simultaneously and within 20 minutes slammed into their targets would have been impeccable.  Wandering all over the skies for 100 minutes, forcing the President to sit on his ass in a little chair so he can avoid ordering fighters up to protect DC, giving time for UA93 to learn they were on a suicide plane–that was very, very sloppy. 

          Perhaps WTC7 was meant to be hit by flight 93, or perhaps it was meant to fall down when enveloped in dust from WTC1.  Sometimes when things go wrong it’s because saboteurs are at work.

          • Al2011

            If building 7 had gone down when it was “enveloped in dust from WTC1″, none of us would be here discussing this today, would we?  As a teaser, take a look at some of the pictures on the internet of WTC6, like this one from Bill Biggart:
            http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart05.htm, just before either tower fell.  It is on the very left.  Looks blown out to me.  How about you?

        • Xonks

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

          It’s always entertaining to watch you guys flop around. One
          of the most persistent a priori arguments from your side is that our government
          is far too inept to carry out such an operation. Yet when that doesn’t fit we
          hear about American exceptionalism and supreme competence.

          Flop.

          Flop.

          Flip-Flop.

           

          WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    • seanmcbride

      A case could be made that 9/11 and the 9/11 anthrax attacks were the most incompetent and badly bungled false flag op in world history. That is why controversies about these topics continue to rage — evidence of the op was left open in plain sight everywhere you look.

      As for WTC7: Larry Silverstein admitted that the building was “pulled,” that is, brought down by controlled demolition. Subsequent efforts to explain away his admission have been laughable. Straight from the owner’s mouth: the building was pulled. So why all the frenetic efforts to cover up the truth?

      • Daniel LaLiberte

        At the time Silverstein said it, he may have thought it was just fine to talk about the demolition, not realizing that it would have taken a lot longer to set up.  Seems stupid, but such things happen.  It has also recently come out that he was heard talking with his insurance company before building 7 came down about whether he would still get his insurance money if they brought it down deliberately.

        • Anonymous

          I tend to think what you’re saying is correct. Silverstein made a serious faux pas. I’ve heard the same thing, that he was talking to his insurance company on 9/11 about the ramifications of bringing building 7 down; however, I only know of one source so it’s not quite as ironclad as some of the other 9/11 info. If it is true, it would be one possible reason for the delay in bringing down WTC 7. Barry Jennings, who was in 7, reported that there were explosions going of in the building hours before it collapsed. Maybe the CD team was having a difficult time bringing it down. Clearly what I’m saying here is speculation, unlike the fact that WTC 7 was in freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

  • Mrivan

     There are two tactics the cartel apologists like to use when dealing with 911 and other coverups.  We need to become familiar with them both in order to deal with them effectively.

    One is called the “Giggle Factor”.  For instance, from this very blog…

    *************************************************

        
    Fredsaid [Moderator] Today 02:04 AM
    (These comments remind me of the conspiracy believers on global warming theory.)

    And what do you think about the government and UFOs?

    *************************************************

    As we all know, climate change is a reality.  Overwhelming evidence is available with pictures of the vanishing glaciers, the disintegrating ice caps here on earth as well as on other planets (in that case caused exclusively by solar changes), to confirm it.  Yet, the oil companies spend many millions of dollars every year to flood the media with disinformation and mocking the very idea, until the very words “Global Warming” triggers laughter in those ignorant of the facts.

    And UFOs are a similar issue.  With billions of galaxies, each containing many billions of stars, most of which host planets, the estimate of earth-like planets USED to number in the tens of thousands.  That number has risen dramatically with recent discoveries.  Given that, the odds AGAINST a significant number of those planets hosting civilizations far in advance of our own is, pun intended, astronomical.  

    So it is a clear strategy–when you wish to bury truth on an issue, one effective tactic is to discredit it by associating it with Global Warming or with UFOs, and then just “Giggle”.

    The other tactic is Divide and Conquer.

    We are dealing with a very broad conspiracy here.  At its heart is a global group of interests involving big money, very old families and chains of power that already control most of the governments on the planet as well as the vast majority of wealth.  The Financial sector proved its power in 2008 with a manufactured banking “crisis” in which it was able to “gift” itself over $1.5 Trillion and use it to buy out many of the competing mid-sized banks.  Note the control of the media by people such as Murdoch, who continues to buy out media outlets.  Look at the decimated manufacturing sector in the US, the dying auto industry, the dead steel industry, the outsourcing of US jobs overseas which, coupled with the encouraged flood of illegal aliens, work to depress wages here as well as eat up entitlements.  Look at the Domination of health care research by the Rockefeller family–a fine philanthropic gesture on their part, on its surface, until you look at the way it also kills research on any controversial new cures that would cut profits for the big drug companies.  Suggest a study on using Hydroxizine for cancer treatment, for instance, and your lab will never again see a dime of research funding.  Run a study on burning hydrogen in cars instead of gasoline, and you’ll be lucky if you live out the year.

    The most dangerous thing that can happen to these globalists is when their numerous mechanisms working towards world control are linked together and people begin to understand the grand–dare I use the term?–conspiracy.  To do so, one must check out a plethora of sources.  Jim Marrs is one of my favorites.  Richard C. Hoagland of enterprizemission.com is another, for details on Astronomy, NASA and the ET coverups.  I enjoy listening to anyone, anywhere, who can give me yet another viewpoint.  I check them  out carefully, take them all with a grain of salt until I know which ones float, and make up my own mind which to believe, both on the basis of their merit, AND on how well they fit in with the broader picture.

    A final comment:

    “Knowledge ever hurt anyone with a good sense of personal responsibility.  The restriction of knowledge, however–THAT can kill a civilization.”

  • David A

    Bush and C.Rice had ample evidence of an impending threat. the FBI had whistle blowers whose reports went unheeded. security experts had issued numerous warnings concerning possible attacks here in the U.S. the airport screeners were, et.al., blind, deaf, and dumb that day.people are fallible but this, THIS, is ridiculous. at least the passengers in plane #4 were willing and able to take bold action against the hijackers- before the biggest military apparatus in the world failed to take action.

    • Rev Brett

      How do you know what happened in plane#4? Maybe it didn’t happen that way at all? Maybe Cheney gave the order to the hijackers to bring the plane down, that the objective had already been met? Maybe it didn’t come down at all? There was no evidence of a plane at the crash site! Maybe Cheney ordered the plane out to sea and told the air traffic controllers around the world to ignore it? Have they ever looked in the Atlantic Ocean for wreckage? Sounds fishy to me…

  • http://twitter.com/Zandatsu DaviRoss

    Most of these comments only prove what was said on the show, that once a conspiracy theorist has made their mind up, there’s no point in trying to change it. The key is to educate people on rational thinking, which should be done at a young age.

    • S2

      Your comment does not show rational thinking.  Why would anyone change there mind when no evidence has been provided to suggest they are wrong.  The show just touched the surface and did not touch any of the substantial arguments we are concerned with.  

    • Vlado

      you cant get more rational than david ray griffin’s “the mysterious collapse of building 7″

    • seanmcbride

      So far most of the comments in defense of the 9/11 official conspiracy theory have been utterly vacuous and haven’t made the slightest effort to address any of the particular facts and evidence in the case. Just vague remarks or abusive snipes. Apparently the true believers in the official propaganda don’t have a case that they are willing to attempt to defend in a serious way.

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      And wasn’t it interesting how, with all the chatter and
      pontification about how unstable people are drawn to conspiracy theories (AKA how
      people with cognitive thinking skills are prone to investigate suspicious
      events in search of the truth), not one word was uttered about the other side
      of the coin. About how otherwise rational people are capable of denying undeniable
      information when it challenges their worldview or perceived sense of security.
      That might make a pretty interesting show too, don’t you think, Davi?

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      • S2

        This is what the discussion should have been about.  If they were to broach the real issue.

    • Questionman

      Speaking of minds made up, did you notice that one of our allegedly open-minded rationators on the program claimed that if there were a new investigation, it would arrive at the same conclusions as the ones we’ve had? 

      Wow!  Who needs facts when you have a crystal ball like that!

      • http://twitter.com/Zandatsu DaviRoss

        I believe he said that even if there were a new investigation that did come to the same overall conclusions (terrorist attack), conspiracy theorists would find some way to reject it. Nothing will please them until a conclusion is reached that meets their already set expectation, which might be different than some other theorists who won’t find it acceptable.. ad infinitum, almost.

        • S2

          This may be true for some.  For many, if the process was transparent and scientific it would lay the issue to rest.  But the real thing here is that the statement is a simple tactic to justify ignoring intelligent questions by making them appear irrational.  

          • http://twitter.com/Zandatsu Kai

            I wouldn’t doubt that there are rational questions about how the case was conducted, and some of the things that might not have been fully investigated. The problem is that with this particular case, there are hundreds of different views on what happened that day, some of them are most certainly irrational, while others may be rational. What may be the smoking gun for you may be what another theorist considers to be trivial and unimportant. A big problem with this is what was covered in the show, the internet, where a 15 second clip with an intentionally provocative title ALL IN CAPS!! causes certain people to abandon their rationality and start digging deeper into a rabbit hole filled with anecdotes and rumours they have heard piecemeal from various conspiracy forums. The result being a mess of disjointed information all pointing towards ‘conspiracy’. These are the people there is no point trying to convince otherwise. For the others, who have a certain problem with a particular issue that might indeed warrant further investigation.. I agree this 40 minute show couldn’t have possibly been received well by them, and I myself would be interested in another show on the topic. Still, any number of shows isn’t going to make every party happy when it comes to 9/11 and everything that happened that day.

          • Questionman

            There are certain facts.

            1.  Only 27 of the 9/11 Widows’s 300 questions were answered by the 9/11 Commission.

            2.  Condi Rice perjured herself before the Commission, and then was promoted to Secretary of State.

            3.  9/11 Commissioners tell us that NORAD’s lies so troubled them that they considered asking for a DoJ investigation.

            4.  Richard Clarke complains that 48 CIA analysts knew that al Qaeda operatives were in the USA, and none of them told the WH about them.

            5. The NIST report stops at the point that the collapses of the towers initiated, and thus dodges the most baffling scientific questions about the collapses.

          • S2

            That is an assessment I can get behind.  I would only add that this truth is very convenient for covering your tracks (IF there IS something to cover – which I am 80% convinced of).  Confused people and pages of information to wade through can bog down a call for truth.

        • seanmcbride

          DaviRoss: How many since discredited conspiracy theories promoted by the Bush/Cheney administration did you believe? How many did you debunk in advance of the mainstream media?

        • Questionman

          He said a new investigation would arrive at the same result.  I know the difference.

          • http://twitter.com/Zandatsu Kai

            “If there were a new investigation, and it supported the official theory, which of course it would, they would then immediately demand another new investigation”

            OK he did say ‘it would’ but then again you are probably of the opinion that ‘of course, it wouldn’t’ .. and if it did, you would immediately demand another investigation(*). Of course you’re just going to say you want a more transparent investigation etc etc, but it’s likely even if that were the case, there would still be thousands who disagree with it. It’s never ending really.

          • Questionman

            Wow, that almost sounds like a real quote!  Why didn’t you give us a time-stamp for it?   I am quite sure I heard him say that a new investigation would arrive at the same answers.   I could be wrong of course.  I’m not going to check now.

            The issue is that the reports we have had to date are demonstrably dishonest and incomplete.  One place to start the truth train rolling would be to release the redacted 28 pages form the joint congressional report.

        • tanabear

          This would depend on what a new investigation entails. Instead of merely interrogating witness’s and declassifying information, I would require hypothesis testing. Is the “crush-down/crush-up” hypothesis really valid? Can the inward bowing of the perimeter columns lead to the effects we observed on 9/11? Can the buckling of one column(initial local failure) lead to a collapse similar to that of WTC7? Is momentum transfer at free fall acceleration really feasible, a la building 7? If we were to frame an investigation in this manner(i.e. real world experiments) it isn’t the truthers who would be running for the hills.

    • Bluebonnet

      Well, the reason our minds have been made up, is because once you allow yourself, to get over yourself, and use your objectivity, the many science based professionals’ presentations are obviously correct. You can only wonder how you could have possible even considered the ridiculousness of the government version, in retrospect.  The government’s is quite literally a conspiracy theory.  Who even knows that the FBI has stated that there is no evidence Osama bin Laden was involved.  It’s a cartoon offered up by the government.

      • http://twitter.com/Zandatsu Kai

        You obviously have a whole world view that is already set in stone. It’s not something that can be changed easily, really. What pretty much ‘saved’ me from such things was being introduced to the http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ podcast. They don’t discuss 9/11 (maybe they have at some point), but anyway I’d recommend them to anyone, conspiracy theorist or not. Skepticism is healthy, it never proposes to have all the truths, whereas conspiracy theorism obviously does. You don’t have truth on your side, you only believe you do.

        • Questionman

          It’s interesting that pseudo-skeptics are guilty of that of which they accuse truthers.  The program started out with Meiggs claiming that truthers started from a premise, and then they play loose with the facts to bolster the premise.

          Pseudo-skeptics start with the premise that truthers are irrational and deranged, and they go through logical backflips to support this view and to ignore all the facts contrary to it.

          I’m a true skeptic.  I am skeptical of the nanothermite claims, the lies of the hero janitor, and the unscientific and dishonest official reports.  I don’t have opinions set in stone.  In fact I have as few opinions as possible.  I do know sloppy thinking when I see it, though, which is why I want honest reports that I can believe.

  • seanmcbride

    Regarding Jonathan Kay: it should come as no surprise that the very same neoconservatives who most benefited from and most heavily exploited 9/11 have been in the forefront in defending the 9/11 official conspiracy theory and in trying to obstruct an honest investigation into the most significant terrorist act in American history.

    Check out some of Jonathan Kay’s associates at the FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies), one of dozens of neoconservative propaganda operations that include the PNAC (Project for the New American Century), AEI (American Enterprise Institute), CSP (Center for Security Policy), JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), FPI (Foreign Policy Initiative), etc.:

    Charles Jabobs, Charles Krauthammer, Cheryl Halpern, Cliff May, Eric Cantor, Frank Gaffney, Gary Bauer, James Woolsey, Jeffrey Gedmin, Joe Lieberman, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Robert McFarlane, Victoria Toensing, William Kristol

    These people, using 9/11 as a pretext, led the charge to invade Iraq, to promote the multi-trillion dollar Global War on Terror, and to ignite a Clash of Civilizations between the United States and the entire Muslim world. All of them are pro-Israel activists or militants.

    Regarding Cheryl Halpern:

    “Cheryl Feldman Halpern was the chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) from 2005 to 2007. In this capacity, she has been a critic of National Public Radio, accusing the public network of anti-Israeli bias.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Halpern

  • Vlado

    According to the governments study , Building 7 fell at “free fall ” acceleration for atleast 2 seconds. This means it encountered zero structural resistance from the building below. None of the 82 steel columns were there. Heres the million dollar question: What force removed the steel columns and the floors, in order to let the building above fall at “free fall” .Fires could not remove the steel. 

    • S2

      No one will answer this because the only possible answers would have to lead them down the road of opening their minds.

    • Questionman

      Hint:  According to NIST, WTC7 fell down because an uncontrollable  chain reaction began with a local failure of floor 13.   According to FEMA, floors 14, 15, 16, and 17 were vacant.

      • Vlado

        NIST had none of the steel beams ,they were all carted away. Do you believe that with none of the steel they can isolate a single column that produced a “global collapse”?! I dont .The fact that floors were vacant doesnt explain how the building could fall at “free fall” acceleration for 2 seconds. In order to do this the columns, all 81 of them, had to be absent. What force removed the 82 steel columns??
         

        • Micah Q. Allen

          Also quite notable is the fact that the steel beams were able to be carted away so soon after the collapse because they were all in segments that were less than 20 feet long– something that professional demolition companies take care to ensure when hired to rig a building for demolition.

  • Jon

    Interesting that the main guest on the show had lots of theories and not a single reference to back them up. By contrast the “Conspiracy theorist” in the tiny time allotted to refute sounded like a credible scholar to me.

  • Guest

    Shame on you NPR! How about a little balance in this discussion!

  • Teacherrevolt

    This was the worst On Point show I’ve heard in years. 40 minutes with propagators of the official story, whose entire premise is ad hominem attacks on the “conspiracy theorist” as people unwilling to listen to “truth.” 5 minutes with a rep from the other side. 

    I’m disgusted with the lack of balance and the poor moderating done for this show… it is a disservice to America to discuss the doubts about 9/11 with such blind deference to the Popular Mechanics journalist. 

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      A “disservice”?

      As an institution of the national press, charged by our
      forefathers as a watchdog servant of the people and challenger to the deeds of
      the government, I would say it borders on treason. I also have a problem with
      referring to the Popular Mechanics tool as a journalist.

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

  • S2

     Benjamin Chertoff was lead researcher of the Popular Mechanics 911 investigations. His cousin Michael Chertoff co-authored the Patriot Act. Conflict of interests??

  • Patrick

    The “9-11 Truthers” are the shame of the American left.  Of all of the absurd claims that conservatives make about what the left thinks and what the left believes, this is really the only issue where they can point and say “Look, people who hated the Bush administration are so deranged that they believe he orchestrated 9-11; therefore, all ‘lefties’ are morons,” and get real traction with the 99.99% percent of Americans who aren’t afflicted by this delusion.

    I don’t know, I tend to like to think that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have a more reality-based worldview than the right (which is part of the reason why left-wing talk radio has never really worked, and why NPR, which trips over itself to appear unbiased, is so popular among progressives).  However, seeing the comments page of my favorite NPR show dominated by this kind of lunacy makes me second-guess that particular prejudice, which I suppose is a good thing.

    It saddens me to know that the opinions expressed below could easily be used to argue for the federal government de-funding NPR, which would be a blow to the most objective and useful news organization in the country, and a real defeat for the truth.

    • Questionman

      There is nothing left or right about the fact that only 27 of the Jersey Widows’ 300 questions were answered.

      There is nothing left or right about the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton’s 3rd and 1st laws.

      There is nothing left or right about the unscientific dishonesty of the official reports about Ground Zero.

      There is nothing left or right about the fact that the director of the 9/11 Commission wrote an outline for the report before the investigation even began.

      The shame of the left is yours, Patrick.  Please consider dropping the attitude and joining the reality-based community.

      NPR popular among progressives?  Oh, you mean the Nancy Pelosi “progressives”?

    • Townie

      There is a huge grey area between the official explanation and the people claiming the government did it.  Many of us recognize the absence of hard evidence for an ‘inside job’ but are troubled by the complete lack of explanation for WTC7.

      So who are you referring to by ’9-11 truthers’?  I find it creepy and Orwellian that ‘truth’ is now a suspect word.

      • Questionman

        It was Richard Clarke’s revelations in 2004 that got me started questioning 9/11.  I went to see him speak.  He said “In these times, facts are controversial.”

    • S2

      If you walk through the main points, and put the effort into systematically dismantling them with logic and science I will listen.  However, I propose that were you to do this hard work you would find yourself having to admit there is more to this than lunacy.  

      • S2

        So, if you take the trouble to read the 911 debunking take the time to read the counter argument ‘debunking 911 debunking’ (yes, an actual book).  There is a lot of similarity to ‘the global warming conspiracy’ here.  There are movies with seemingly credible scientists attempting to dismantle the idea that global warming is real and is caused by humans, but then there are plenty of movies that discredit that movie.  At this point it would seem there is more evidence and more professionals questioning the official 911 story than not.  For gods sakes, just take the time and put in the effort and settle the question for real.

    • Anonymous

      I’m liberal but many people in the 9/11 Truth movement are conservative or libertarian. I’ve seen many such individuals calling on others to vote for Ron Paul. Richard Gage and Dr. Steven Jones have both described themselves as Reagan republicans.

    • seanmcbride

      Patrick,

      You wrote: “The “9-11 Truthers” are the shame of the American left.” Actually quite a few leading 9/11 skeptics are Republicans and conservatives, some of whom have held high offices in the American government.

      Again, you illustrate that you don’t know what you are talking about. Few emotional defenders of the 9/11 official conspiracy theory do. These are the same people who were eager to rush off to a disastrous war with Iraq    because they believed that Saddam was behind 9/11 and the 9/11 anthrax attacks and possessed WMDs. Awake from your slumber.
       

    • Al2011

      Patrick, if you do your homework, you will see that many of the Who’s Who of the truthers are conservative Republicans. In fact, while this issue is more about treason than politics, the political right has really carried the ball for the larger part of this movement.

  • Bluebonnet

    Categorizing “conspiracy theorists” was what the show was about.  The facts with science as the basis of what the Truth Movement offers was not even regarded by the anti-truth shills. 

    It now common knowledge that the government uses propaganda, which the tax payers have to eat as well.  I won’t regard NPR with a scintilla of respect at this point now. 

    Laws of physics are all on the side of the Truth Movement. Even high school physics teachers can see that.

    Stigmatizing was the strategy. Real discussion of that which is verifiable, which the Truth Movement has going for it, overlooked by the name callers, which is all they were.  Revulsion is my reaction to this despicable sabotage upon Truth. The Truth Movement is called that because the obvious truths are all on their side.  But having the integrity to look honestly, bypassing the fear of stigma, is rare obviously.  Hats off to the ever expanding international Truth Movement, with the data, based in honest science consistently growing as well.

    • Micah Q. Allen

      It was pretty discouraging listening, all right.  I’ve long tried to avoid accepting the truth behind the “National” part of “National Public Radio,” but this program made it quite starkly clear that NPR is just another mouthpiece for the powers that be.

  • Ted

    3000 people lost their lives that day and you in a presumed show of “balanced journalism”  put on a show featuring two “experts” to promote the exactly the same view.    This is not journalism it is propaganda.  Regardless of the cause of 9/11 both sides of this controversy deserve to be heard.  Shame on you.  

  • Bluebonnet

    Interesting that this professional journal of those that study the American psyche concluded that the most rational minds are of the Truth Movement. AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST is on the side of the Truth Movement. http://abs.sagepub.com/content/53/6/783.abstract

  • Bluebonnet

    And a professional journal for firefighters makes the statement, the study done of the day, was “a half baked farce”. This said by the editor of that firefighters’ journal. http://www.wethepeoplewethemedia.com/farce.htm

  • Bluebonnet

    Very relevant, this fellow who works in the field of forensics, and also lost two relatives that day has done the forensics study. Have you the objectivity to look, and be honest with yourself? http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html

    • http://twitter.com/Zandatsu Kai

      Flatearthers can do exactly what you’re doing right now, bravo.

      Oh, and I hear cherries are delicious this time of year.

  • Patrick

    To S2 - 

    The comparison with global warming is apt – another example of a phenomenon that, for reasons that I can’t begin to fathom, some people are incapable of accepting.
    I think that people like the “Truthers” (you know what I’m talking about, it’s not Orwellian at all) find these phenomena to be extremely challenging to their sense of safety, and so they wind up going on line and getting into these echo chambers where the standard of evidence is warped.

    Unfortunately, the Bush administration didn’t do itself or the public trust any favors when it (1) missed the signs of an impending terrorist attack, and (2) cynically used the tragedy to drum up support for an immoral war.  Those things happened, and anyone who denies it is as deluded as someone who makes the jump from those facts to a belief that the Neoconservatives planned the whole thing.

    The way to have sound notions about the world is to first decide WHO is credible, and then listen critically to the things that they say.  Do you believe that the NIST is credible?  If so, then they deserve some degree of deference to their conclusions, although it’s perfectly legit to evaluate their individual claims.  If not, well, then that’s another whole conspiracy that you have to explain.

    Do I believe that Kevin Ryan is credible?  No, I have to say that I don’t.  His background is full of red flags, and he has a vested interest in preserving the appearance of a conspiracy, because it’s now his full-time job.

    On a side note, I highly recommend the Errol Morris film “Mr Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.”  It’s a fascinating portrait of someone with zero expertise who became a scientist hero to another group of conspiracy theorists, the neo-nazi holocaust deniers.  I suspect that Kevin Ryan’s story is similar.

    • S2

      Everything you say here is respectable and understandable.  However, I feel that it does not put to rest any of the questions posed by many truthers.  We could forever parse who is more credible, but we can instantly figure out a few answers to these questions on our own.  Do the math on the collapse of building 7 yourself and thereby bypass the need to trust someone else.  Just like people could stick a thermometer outside there house in few locations take the temp once a week for three years and get an average that shows global warming is real.  This can be done.  We don’t need to battle it out like this.  I’m sure you will agree that the show was biased, at the very least in terms of time allotted to the guests.  Kevin Ryan is not the only person standing on this side of the debate.  We can also call the credibility of PM into question: Benjamin Chertoff was lead researcher of the Popular Mechanics 911 investigations. His cousin Michael Chertoff co-authored the Patriot Act. Conflict of interests??  It may or may not mean anything, but it is worth noting.  Self delusion can go both ways.

    • Totwo2

      The amount of work it would take to discredit truthers would be far less than the amount of work to wage a media battler, IF the science were to back them up.  Granted, some people would always believe it, just like some will always believe we never landed on the moon, but once the truth was shown in a step by step logical fashion most rational people would grow quiet on the issue and the media battle would take care of itself.  Why isn’t this approach taken?  Why are the only people trying to take this approach the truthers?  Why did they architect who actually designed the towers say it didn’t add up?  He actually designed it specifically to withstand a jet crashing into it.  Any hole in the structure should behave like a pencil pushed through a screen.  Maybe the reason there are so many questions is that something is off with the OCT.  If you say something loud enough, in simple enough words over and over again, the truth does not matter in shaping public opinion. 

    • Xonks

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

      Patrick, in the interest of mental clarification, please
      chant along with me:

      Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominemmmmmmm

      Instead of focusing on WHO Kevin Ryan is, why don’t you
      challenge what he SAYS. Could it be that there are no facts to support your
      assertions?

      WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE

    • Charlie Musier

      Patrick…To put Kevin Ryan in the same sentence as a Holocaust denier is low…I’ve talked with Kevin…seen his hard work…and read his work…all while detecting his sense of compassion for humanity! He is a credible investigative journalist!  Red Flags? come on?

      • Patrick

        I think that you’ll find no shortage of people who are as horrified by Kevin Ryan’s efforts to blame his own countrymen for the slaughter of 3000+ innocent people as they are horrified by the efforts of holocaust deniers.

        • Larrypayne

          I have not yet heard Kevin Ryan blame his own countrymen for the slaughter of  3000+ innocent people. Can you direct me to where he said this?

  • Xonks

    Why Conspiracy Theorists Believe What They
    Believe
    As we pass the 1,000 comment mark on this thread, I am
    posting this again so that those who are new to this thread will know why so
    many of us are posting the phrase WHY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVE WHAT THEY
    BELIEVE and will have the opportunity to encourage PBS to correct the imbalance
    of this program.

     

    “Jane, what an amazing show on 9/11 conspiracies. Amazing
    because it was so blatantly one-sided. Just this morning I learned that Kevin
    Ryan would be a guest on your two-hour show, but just as I learned 9/11 would
    only be covered for one hour, I learned that Mr. Ryan’s involvement would be
    limited to 10 minutes. Now that the show is over we know that Kevin Ryan’s
    involvement was barely 5 minutes in length. This seems quite odd to me in light
    of the fact that Mr. Ryan, by virtue of the movement he represents, was the
    subject of the show.

    I hereby call for the next installment of your show concerning
    9/11 to be entitled, “Why Conspiracy Theorists Believe What They Believe”. Your
    guest, Mr. Ryan, will be joined by Richard Gage, AIA, who will talk about the
    physical science behind the events, David Ray Griffin, whose book “Debunking
    9/11 Debunking” has decimated Mr. Meigs’ assertions point by point, and Steven
    Jones who will talk about the properties of the nano-thermite found on the
    scene and its implications. In the interest of making this program as balanced
    as today’s program, you can grant Mr. Meigs five minutes to explain the events
    of 9/11 as seen by the Wile E. Coyote school of physics. Does that seem like a
    reasonable follow-up, Jane?

    I call on all posters on this thread who believe such a
    program is a good idea and would tune in to listen, to simply post “Why Conspiracy Theorists Believe What They
    Believe” in capital letters as a vote for this proposal. I trust this
    program can be put together within the coming weeks, rather than planned for
    the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.”

  • Since1970

    9/11 was an inside job.

    • Ellen Dibble

      I suppose this is why we need smaller government, or at best, no government at all?  Less than invisible?  Is that how small “inside” has to be?  Government is our undoing whether or not we can see what it’s doing (or not doing)?  (To be sure, this is more plausible now than 10 years ago.)
      Or is the “inside” meaning local gang activity, gangs of Republicans in gray suits hoping for defense contracts, mucking through elevators and sewers in the dead of night?  Trying to surprise people by demolishing stable buildings if they think somebody else’s misdeeds might be blamed and somehow redirect the anger?  The discussions of the physics are nowhere near as interesting as the possibilities of what exactly the conspiracy might consist of and why (aside from the conspiracy we all know about, the one that I guess was a chance event and a distraction from the main event).

  • Bluebonnet

    Since the side of the Truth Movement was not really given a fair chance to tell the facts behind their position, I would ask that any intact minds with objectivity working (find it in yourself, please) to watch this. It is only 15 minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

  • KORP

    Shame on NPR for this complete piece of blatant propaganda.  Jonathan Kay is a neo-conservative tool whose soul purpose it to make a name for himself within journalistic circles.  This show purported to be balanced, yet in the very beginning those who question the official story are ridiculed as, at best, “deluded” or, at worst, dangerous.  It ignored the fact that our government has lied to us on more than one occassion.  It ignores the fact that conspiracies actually do happen everyday and that fact does not make the person who calls attention to it crazy or “deluded.”  NPR has always garnered my financial support.  I am now reconsidering that choice as it edges ever more in line with the corporate propagandist mainstream media.

  • Patrick

    To S2 - 

    The show was supposed to be about what the enduring nature of this conspiracy theory says about the traumatic effects of 9-11 on the American psyche.  As such, it would have been a very interesting show.It wasn’t supposed to be a forum for people to bring up questions about the size of the girders, the speed that the buildings fell, etc.  That would make for terrible radio programming – a topical radio show is not the place to raise, re-hash or refute these kinds of technical claims with any kind of coherence.  And anyone who expects that is going to be severely disappointed. Unfortunately, that’s what most of the callers wanted to talk about, and it wound up being a terrible show.And no, I don’t think that it was biased, the same way that I don’t think NPR’s coverage of global warming is biased.  The conspiracy theorists are overwhelmingly in the minority on both issues, and giving them any mention at all amounts to aggrandizing their position in the most undeserved way.  Even if Kevin Ryan got 10 minutes in a 45 minute show, that greatly exaggerates his importance and the prevalence of his viewpoint.For myself, I have enough self-awareness and humility to know that the complexities of the collapse of a 20-story building, in the midst of the largest skyscraper collapse event in history, are beyond my expertise to evaluate.  If you believe otherwise, you’re in effect saying that an investigation wasn’t necessary; that all anyone had to do to understand the collapse of building 7 is just ask you what you think.  For example, a lot of people have been commenting about the speed of the building falling, and it rings of over-simplification.And yet, from this over-simplification, they conclude that the most complicated conspiracy in history must have been behind the attacks.  It’s just sloppy reasoning, and if someone can’t detect sloppy reasoning then they’re doomed to a life of getting conned and screwed by everyone around them.  I wish you a happier fate than that.

    • S2

      It is sloppy reasoning to automatically say a simple calculation on the speed of the fall of building 7 is beyond your ability to understand without even trying it.  

      Fair enough: the show was not about the validity of 911 truthers but was about why they think ‘in the face of overwhelming facts’ what they think.  The entire premise of the show was biased.  If they really wanted to discover this they would have touched in on why people refuse to also open their minds to such possibilities.  This being the counter view needed for perspective in understanding the ‘deluded’ truthers.

      The reason you can say that 911 truthers are in the minority is because the general population has not really tackled the question in a meaningful way.  Everyone thought the world was flat until new ideas emerged and spread.  No one believed in evolution until they were introduced to the concept.

      We both need to be meticulous in subjecting ourselves to our own arguments.

      • Patrick

        You miss my point.  I’m sure that I could run that calculation, and that if I used the same premises that you are using, that I’d get the same result.  That’s the great – and dangerous – thing about physics; if you have a bunch of people using the same assumptions, they reach the same results.

        What I’m saying is that I know that I am not an expert in the physics of skyscraper collapse, so I have no confidence that I would recognize if my premises would be valid or not.  I suspect that you’re in the same boat.

        • Questionman

          The assumptions are the 1st law of thermodynamics, Newton’s 1st law, and Newton’s 3rd law.  if you’re going to try to claim that the laws of physics are faulty assumptions, you’re going to have to write your own laws.  Which is pretty much what NIST did.  That’s the problem.  That’s what we’re screaming about,

        • S2

          It doesn’t matter wether or not we are talking about sky scrapers or pine trees.  Everything falls at the same rate, bowling balls and quarters.  However that is only when they are falling through un-obstructed air.  These buildings should not have been falling through un-obstructed air.  They are designed to stand up and in normal circumstances will resist falling no matter what hits it.  The building clearly falls as if there is nothing below it.  This would not be possible if it were collapsing naturally.  

        • Questionman

          So Patrick, basically your argument is “I don’t know anything about buildings or physics, but I don’t need to know anything to trust that the official reports are true and that the truthers don’t know what they’re talking about.”

          Can’t you see that the rational and honest position would be “I don’t know anything about buildings or physics, and I try to avoid having strong opinions about things I know nothing about.”

          • S2

            You cannot deny that is the rational thought process here Patrick.

          • Patrick

            No, because that leads to complete solipsism.  “How do I know that all of my experiences aren’t the illusions of some demon that controls my mind?”  It’s a classic paradox, see Descartes, Renee.

            I have strong opinions about things that stink of amateur science, paranoia and a persecution complex.

            The rational position is “maybe all of those engineers and scientists employed by the government, via the same process that selects the experts who design and certify the well-functioning infrastructure all around me, might have some awareness of high-school physics and wouldn’t put themselves in the position where a conspiracy theorist could seriously refute them using a 10th grade textbook.”

          • Questionman

            Patrick, all those scientists were responsible only for small subcomponents of the work, and I’m sure they did their work diligently and honestly.  Since the part that violates the laws of physics was not their work, they’re not responsible for it and it’s pretty much none of their business to comment on it.

            Pray tell, what is amateur science about 50 structural engineers and 40 highrise architects.

          • Ellen Dibble

            Questionman, do these 50 structural engineers and 40 high-rise architects say that “it was an inside job”?  Or do they say there are unexplained things here, and they are professionally and personally interested in figuring it out?

    • Zeno

      Agreed. The subject of the program was about the conspiracy, not the facts. It cannot be overstated that complexity clouds reason, even for experts.

      • Questionman

        More than complexity, faulty framing clouds honesty.

        If the task given you is “show how fires brought down the building” you write a different report than if it’s “tell us what brought down the building”.

    • Questionman

      You don’t think it was biased to frame a show around the premise “Just what is wrong with these people who don’t believe the official reports, anyway?  Are they crazy or is it that they’re just stupid?”

      You’re damned straight it wasn’t about the size of girders, etc.  James Meiggs, the supposed scientific expert, doesn’t even know the size of the perimeter columns, and he made the ludicrous claim that the core of the building was built of reinforced concrete.   He didn’t mention the 47 massive steel box columns in the core–some at the bottom were 52″ X 22″, built of steel plate 4″ thick.

      It is by no means an oversimplification to expect the official explanation of a building collapse to adhere to the laws of physics and to point out that it does not.  NIST acknowledges that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7.  That is impossible unless all structural resistance is removed.  You don’t need to be an expert in buildings to know that.  High School physics is enough.

      NIST’s draft report contained the claim, stated several times, that their analysis was “consistent with physical principles”.  In the final report, every single iteration of that claim was removed. 

      Are you willing to accept a report that is not willing to claim that it is consistent with physical principles?  

      • Patrick

        Post your credentials, and if they indicate that you’re qualified to spout off about the construction and collapse of building 7, then I’ll consider listening to the technical claims that you’re making on the subject.

        • Questionman

          The claimed credentials of an anonymous internet poster are meaningless. 

          High School physics is all that is needed. 

          For verifiable credentials, go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:  1500 architects and engineers, 50 of them structural engineers, 40 of them high-rise architects. 

          • Patrick

            Again, 1500, 50, or 40 people is an insignificant number in the face of the greatest American tragedy of this century.  If you can’t convince more engineers than that, then you can’t expect anyone to believe you.

            To say that high school physics is all that is needed to understand this massive event is absurd.

            And no, I guess I didn’t expect any credentials from someone who doesn’t post his own name.

          • Questionman

            “Patrick”, if you don’t understand that unverified credentials from unverified names are meaningless, your logical competence is much in doubt. 

            1500 architects and engineers have put their professional credibility and their careers on the line for truth.

            How many will come forward to endorse the findings of the NIST report?  20?  30?  How many of those have no contractual relationship with NIST.  0?

            Name me one independent architect or engineer who says NIST got it right.