Posted on 06/05/2005 6:22:17 PM PDT by demlosers
Noted French left-wing activist Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 conspiracy book, L'Effroyable Imposture, became a best-seller in 2002.
But I never imagined such an "appalling deception" would ever find a voice in America. At a recent public lecture I was buttonholed by a Michael Moore–wannabe filmmaker who breathlessly explained that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Central Intelligence Agency as part of their plan for global domination and a New World Order. That goal was to be financed by G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, Drugs) and launched by a Pearl Harbor–like attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby providing the justification for war.
The evidence was there in the details, he explained, handing me a faux dollar bill (with "9-11" replacing the "1," a picture of Bush supplanting that of Washington) chockablock with Web sites.
In fact, if you type "World Trade Center" and "conspiracy" into Google, you'll get more than 250,000 hits. From these sites, you will discover that some people think the Pentagon was hit by a missile; that U.S. Air Force jets were ordered to "stand down" and not intercept Flights 11 and 175, the ones that struck the twin towers; that the towers themselves were razed by demolition explosives timed to go off soon after the impact of the planes; that a mysterious white jet shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania; and that New York Jews were ordered to stay home that day (Zionists and other pro-Israeli factions, of course, were involved). Books also abound, including Inside Job, by Jim Marrs; The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin; and 9/11: The Great Illusion, by George Humphrey. The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.
The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.
No melted steel, no collapsed towers.
For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong.
In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.
All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon "missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. "The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives," he solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off," I retorted, "is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?"
My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales.
Yeah Sonny, if you can't use your brain, try Radioactive's brain. Practically brand new, hardly been used!
Yadah yadah yadah...........
Good point. I have been in security seminars where they show a scenario of a guy walking up to a cashier and pulling a gun, clearing out the register and walking away. 10 seconds later you are asked to describe the individual. The answers are as varied as the people giving them. Relating that to this case, most people when they think of an airliner in flight, they think of it at final approach speed. Approach speed is somewhere in the neighborhood of a lumbering 125 to 140 knots. This 757 was apparently at treetop level for the last mile or so at approximately 3 times that speed. (757s list a maximum speed of 494 knots and a cruising speed of 459 knots)
If you're sitting in traffic and a 757 happens to pass by at 400+ knots and snaps of the light post next to the car in front of you, I'm guessing one might think they just saw a missile pass by.
I did find the site you posted interesting and it did raise some questions in my mind.
So I went to the Popular Mechanics site and reviewed the information there to get a complete perspective.
I think that if you do the same you will see that PM is much more convincing in their presentation of the facts.
You need to learn less physics from Bugs Bunny cartoons.
I still wonder about Oklahoma City.
Why is it that FReepers believe all sorts of conspiracies about Clinton, but somehow will not even consider any today?
I think that if you do the same you will see that PM is much more convincing in their presentation of the facts.
That's the one written by Benjamin Chertoff, entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.
He is a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Nope, no bias there.
Very interesting! Thanks for all the details. A lot of that was floating around in the back of my mind, but I couldn't quite recall it, and other parts I hadn't heard before.
I don't get it... why do they need to have flown the plane 2 feet off of the ground? They learned how to land a plane if flight school, wouldn't crashing the plane into the pentagon be just like landing the plane, but touching down 2 feet in front of the bulding, or in the building? Why did they have to fly two feet off of the ground for a while?
The video of the object that hit the pentagon was showing that the object was flying horizontal when it hit.
Also the damage to the building indicated that whatever it was that hit the pentagon hit it on a horizontal trajectory.
If it was a plane that hit it exactly as it was told to us, then there would have been a lot more wreckage present.
I think I agree with you, I just found it interesting that Scientific American missed an opportunity to lump Global Warming skeptics (like me) with Holocaust deniers.
OH paleeese........you my freind are a DUPA!
I have not ever seen those interiews...and never heard anyone say they saw a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Something did hit the pentagon. BUt it was not a 757.
Oh you mean a super duper body...one that can survive temperatures that melted a 757 almost instantly?
Well jeez - a Radioactive source is one of the few worse sources of emissions than a dupa ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.