Ted:

I wanted to thank you for making some well reasoned and intelligent arguments. You take offense to the comment that all those doubting the 9/11 conspiracy just use pejoratives..however, you are the only exception.

Why use four planes? Why such a big incident? Well, because they could, I suppose. Because it is quite easy to install remote control devices on airplanes (assuming that's what they did). Because, who could believe that terrorists could sneak into the WTC planting explosives all over? Because, this way, it constricts travel.

Why, then, did they not plant WMDs in Iraq? I don't know, it's a good question. It might make sense when you think about the attacks in the context of psychological warfare against the American people to make them accept a police state. To me, the Iraq war seemed like a huge smoke screen, to draw media attention and the ire of those from those who might be suspicious of the government. So, the whole Iraq fiasco is made as preposterous as possible (for instance, only guarding the oil ministry and not the national museum in the initial invasion) in order to make it appear the the government is just hopelessly inept, and not overtly malicious.

So, the "politically correct" thing to do is to criticize the Iraq War, and not to mention 9/11..even when, whether the govt. did it or not, the 9/11 commission report is glaringly erroneous and full of holes.

By the way, it is clearly a woman that is in the hole in the photos. The "official line" (NIST website) is that she was just away from the center of the heat.

In my eyes, I do believe it is possible that 19 hijackers committed the act..but I wouldn't put the odds at more than 5-10%. There are just too many things that don't fit together in the story. Why didn't they scramble planes to protect the pentagon more than an hour after the wtc attacks? Why wasn't anyone reprimanded in the air defense? What about norm mineta's testimony on cspan that directly contradicted what cheney had claimed? Why the lies about having "never anticipated anything like this?", why were the pentagon video tapes and wtc rubble destroyed?

If people doubt the government's story, it is because the government acted like a guilty criminal in dealing with it.

Ted:

Unfortunately, they did it in an incredibly sloppy and ham-handed way. They left all sorts of evidence. It was a very sloppy operation. Millions of Americans think there is something very, very fishy.

However, it was primarily a media event, and through the television camer lens, it was quite successful. The real story is that the the media is compliant enough they they won't serious ask any of the really hard questions. The fact that 9/11 has been allowed to stand as long as it has seriously calls into question the credibility of most media in this country.

On to his article:

Claim: "There is no way that jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt the steel in the World Trade Centers. Therefore, the fires from the planes could not be the cause of the Tower's collapse."

A more nuanced version of this arguent is: there is no way that jet fuel could burn hot enough to cause the towers to collapse in the way they did. They collapsed straight down, into their own footprint, at a free fall speed. Undoubtedly, the impact along with massive fires could cause the towers to collapse. But...NOT IN THE WAY THAT THEY DID. Maybe they could cause the top part to keel over, bringing the rest with them. But..THEY FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED. If we are to assume the pancake theory to be accurate, that the top floors collapsed into the lowers floors, it seems reasonable to assume that each floor, being undamaged by fire or impact, would slow down the descent of the floors collapsing on top of it, even a little bit. And yet, this didn't happen. All three buildings that fell that day fell at the same speed as an apple dropped from the roof. So, somehow, the fire on the top floors caused the bottom floors to instantaneously have ZERO structural integrity. I don't understand how this can be. Not to even mention the fact that, if you burn any quantity of fuel, it will EXPLODE. After 30 seconds, what is left burning? Carpets, papers, desks? How hot can they burn? After two hours, is there still any jet fuel burning?

He claims, without support, that "A combination of fire and intense structural damage contributed to the collapse of building 7." The funny thing about WTC7 is that it is simply NOT MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE "AUTHORITATIVE" 9/11 REPORT. Go and ask ten people on the street how many buildings fell on 9/11, and I bet you that 8 will tell you "two, of course." It is amazing that no one knows such a basic fact about what was one of the most widely covered news events in modern history. Also, of course, if you watch a video of the fall of WTC7 back to back with a number of controlled demolition clips, it is visually indistinguishable.

On to the pentagon: It is interesting that all the videos that showed what happened (from local gas stations, etc) were immediately seized by the FBI and never released. If you watch the few frames that were released, it is quite clear: they produce a completely different type of explosion from the WTC explosions. The WTC explosions were dark and smoky, the Pentagon explosion was bright and white. Why would they be different? He then goes on to claim that "There are dozens of pictures of wreckage." He posts one picture. This picture is, of course, THE ONLY ONE. If there are "dozens of pictures" of Pentagon wreckage, I challenge him to post even a second picture. Good luck.

As for the other claims: he's mostly right, they are bogus. A lot of what is written on the internet is really crazy: missiles fired into the buildings, pods on the planes, the planes were CGI, etc. Just because there's a lot of garbage out there doesn't make the official story any more credible. This reflects on the amazing Popular Mechanics article: They cherry-picked just the most absurd and stupid theories, and in debunking them claimed to have verified the official story beyond a doubt.

He claims that there is "There is not one shred of evidence of a conspiracy." I would dispute this, there is a MOUNTAIN of direct and logical evidence. However..what is the evidence of the "official story"? 1) A video tape, supposedly found in an Afghani house, showing Bin Laden confessing. However (and this is one of the first things that clued me in to the fraud)...the guy DOESN'T LOOK LIKE BIN LADEN! All these wars, this massive restructing of society..all based on a video of some fat arab with a beard. news flash: Bin Laden is not fat!...2) A passport that somehow escaped the massive explosion in NYC that incinerated the planes and fluttered to the ground, unharmed...okay, and 3) a bag that one of the hijackers forgot and left in their car in boston with a koran and a flight training manual. Also, some sketchy video of guys with beards walking through Logan airport. I may be wrong, but I believe that is ALL the evidence that was presented for years.

What there is little evidence of are the assertations he makes in this article. It is tabloid sensationalism, and any who believe it deserve the reality they live in.

Good work, linking to a "pop culture blog" for their uninformed and demagogic rantings about 9/11. Full of name calling, slander, and emotional manipulation.

I would like to give this article credit for at least considering some of the more relevant facts.

However, the whole article is completely unprofessional and biased, starting from a certain conclusion and selecting just the evidence that fits them. It is appropriate for a "pop culture blog", but not for a source that would help you figure out what is going on in the world, and frankly, Neatorama should be ashamed at linking to it. The slanderous assertation that "The motivation for the distribution of these crazy-go-nuts theories is greed masked by phony patriotism." is refuted by a quick glance at one of the most interesting 9/11 sites, "patriotsquestion911.com." This site shines light on the fallacy that those who don't believe the official line are all unemployed thirty year olds blogging from their moms' basements. It includes on the record statements from dozens of military colonels, majors, and captains; lifelong intelligence officers; airplane pilots; and high ranking foreign officials, including a couple European heads of state, top cabinet members, senior military officers, and parlimentary members. About 20% of the statements on this site say that the 9/11 report was an uncredible whitewash; the rest straight out claim that 9/11 was perpetrated by interests within the U.S. intelligence services. It's worth reading for anyone who is truly curious.

First, to deal with his main assertation:

"If there was any proof of conspiracy, it would be the largest news story in history."

Here's the truth: The U.S. Government has a long and successful history of perpetrating massive crimes and subterfuge around the world, spreading lies and misinformation into the public record, and getting away with it. For all those who say that surely, somebody would come forward and report the conspiracy..I saw, what about Iran in 1954? What about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? What about Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, the Iran-Contra affair, etc. etc. etc? Who came forward in any of these cases, all of which required coordinated lies, deceit, and homicidal intent by highly placed officials? They all would have been major news stories, but no plucky young journalist ever won a Pulitzer for reporting them.

In all of these incidents over the last 50 years, officials in the "intelligence" agencies conducted massive crimes against humanity that made 9/11 look like a day at the park. In virtually all of these cases, they succesfully maintained a veil the secrecy and silence from all those who were in on the deeds, and kept the events out of the popular consciousness to this day, even though they are now considered part of the historical record.

Ask the average person on the street about the Iran-Contra affair, in which we secretly sold weapons to the same Iranian regime we now threaten with nuclear annihilation in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua, and you will get a blank stare. And this was widely reported and congressionally investigated just 20 years ago. Don't even mention the time our guys killed the democratically elected president of Iran, and succesfuly kept it a secret for decades. As we threaten to go to a disastrous war with Iran, most Americans don't know about that crucial event in the relations between our two great countries.

Yes, he does mention the Iran-Contra affair and Watergate in the article. But, what other incidents of massive crime committed by our so-called intelligence" agencies have been widely reported and have entered the public consciousness? The number of such incidents that were widely reported are miniscule in comparison to those that did not.

The U.S. Intelligence services have a proven track record of committing heinous acts of sabotage and violence, and keep their actions secret for a very long time.

To those who say that there is no way they could keep their actions secret, I ask: Have they not successfully concealed crimes of similar magnitude in the past?

Indeed, some people STILL question whether it was actually Hitler's agents who burned the Reichstagg.

To those who say that no American could be so callous and heartless to kill 3,000 of their countrymen, I ask: What is the difference between killing 3,000 New Yorkers and killing 300,000 Guatemalan Peasants?

Never doubt the corrupting influence of money. Money buys loyalty, money buys silence, money buys fear. Especially when those Ms turn to Bs turn to Ts.

Most of the people who participated in the logistics of the attacks never really knew what they were doing, I bet. They were just following orders, and were on a need to know basis, kept in the dark themselves. most of them still haven't connected the dots as to what they were really doing. As for the people who were actually in on in, I imagine the number is less than 100, all sworn to a blood vow-if any of them spill, their family's lives would be forfeit, I imagine (this is, of course, pure conjecture). Remember: it is estimated that a core group of about 100 is enough in North Korea to keep that country shrouded in lies, disinformation, and tyranny.

On a side note: In America, Television news defines reality. If something does not make the 24/7 news cycle, it is not accepted as having really happened. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to support it. This crime was of such a magnitude, and hit so close to home, that most people could simply NEVER believe it was possible no matter what evidence was committed.