Don't Quote Me

Friday, September 11, 2009


For 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the anniversary of the attacks functions as a PR peg for spreading their version of what happened that day. WNYC's Beth Fertig is taking special note this year, after discovering that her reporting from September 11, 2001 is being used as evidence on conspiracy theorist websites and literature.

Comments [42]

Richard from NY

IF THE 9/11 COMMISSION CAN'T BELIEVE THEIR OWN REPORT...MAYBE ONLY A FOOL WILL!_____________________________________________

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies, by Gordon Duff @

John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book:“The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Sep. 29 2009 03:33 PM

David Ray Griffin observed that the dominant religion of America is nationalism. While it is perfectly acceptable to deny the existence of God, entertaining the possibility that our leaders would purposely allow Americans to be hurt is taboo.

Sep. 22 2009 01:28 AM
DJP from Raleigh NC

Apparently the FBI isn't dismissing some of the alternative theories..


" ..AE911 supporters recently received acknowledgment from the FBI's counter-terrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves—and will get—FBI scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach assessed AE911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis." "

Sep. 19 2009 11:41 AM
DJP from Raleigh NC

In the past 4 days, the AE911 site has added another 20 Professional Architects & Engineers.

Recall when the first question was, "well, if there were anything to the alternative theories--why aren't there any architects or engineers asking questions about how the towers collapsed?"

Good question.
Fair question.

Answer: 867 & rising rapidly.

Sep. 18 2009 06:21 PM
DJP from Raleigh NC

When did so much of the mainstream media go from primarily being a watchdog for the people to being mostly a shill for the powerful?

Did the mainstream media question the official conspiracy theory of 9/11?

Did they question the Bush admin's case for preemptive war against another nation during the run up to invasion?

Sep. 18 2009 10:43 AM
TinFoilHat from Omaha

I don't blame you, Bob. The mainstream media would laugh you out of your job if anyone thought you supported the 9-11 truthers. Its not about truth. Its about your journalistic reputation in an era in which the press regulates what we are allowed to think. The military industrial and intelligence complex have had much practice at this in the years since the JFK assassination, and as a result, anyone aspiring to a career in journalism must be will established in the art of factual denial. I understand, Bob. I don't expect any act from you which might require exceptional courage. But I would respect such an act in service of the truth.

Sep. 18 2009 07:17 AM
DJP from Raleigh NC

Perhaps one of the most dangerous emotions/sensations a society can experience is that of exceptionalism. The tribal belief that one's own leaders would never do anything really bad. In conjunction is the belief that Other leaders (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, etc) are fully capable of great evil and must be stopped at any cost.

Even if we (the exceptionally good guys) must preemptively invade & attack other countries, kill & maim huge numbers of their populations (incl women & children who have done U.S. zero harm), and repeatedly torture scores of our fellow human beings.

What was it that Saddam did that made him so bad?

Might maketh Right.
American Exceptionalism.
Here today, Here to Stay.

Sep. 17 2009 10:21 AM
Richard from NY

I encourage everyone reading this to look up "Operation Northwoods" in order to understand how our own central intelligence agency looks at the world.

Obama has good reason to fear the CIA!

Sep. 16 2009 10:18 PM
russell geer from boston, ma

I personally don't think 9/11 was allowed to happen simply because a small group of greedy men would benefit. It's simply too monstrous for that scenario to occur, though some individuals may have been motivated by greed alone. I think that the only way that the military leaders and people in government (FAA, Executive Branch, CIA, FBI, EPA, NSA,etc.) could have rationalized such a craven act, is if they truly believed that our security as a nation was at risk and that only a threat of this magnitude could motivate us to make radical changes. The reason would have to be so large - such as societal breakdown due to a plague-like pandemic, oil supply shortage, economic crisis, etc.) Fear of a total collapse of law and order is the only thing that could possibly motivate people in positions of responnsibility to take such horrendous actions. That our leaders wouldn't trust us to shoulder the threat of catastophe sanely and cooperatively is one thing; and it wouldn't be the first time they've tried to motivate us by fear of foreign attack.

Bottom line, the country deserves better than we've gotten from these leaders who think they can keep their jobs after not keeping us safe and keeping us in the dark. The best case scenario is one where the cover-up is due to cowardice, which would still be better than failure due to incompetence. The worst case scenario is that our government knows that our fundamental system is in jeopardy and they'd rather motivate us through fearby killing 3000 of us than risk what we'd do if they told us the truth. I would like to know the truth, whatever it is. I think the idea that we can't handle the truth is demeaning and disempowering and that a thorough investigation is the very least we should demand.

Sep. 16 2009 08:53 PM
grant from USA

"How about the fact that nano thermite was found in the dust of WTC? Why is NPR, "all things considered" not talking about this?"
"This otherwise devastating story was of course buried under the events of 9/11."
"I had never considered there was any alternative explanation to what happened on 9/11 UNTIL I happed to catch a news report in early December 2001 that infrared satellite photographs revealed pools of molten steel under the debris pile at the WTC."
"As a service to their listeners, NPR should push for open hearings in which anyone with questions or observations based on their area of expertise can testify under oath and be questioned"

how do we like that NPR is part of the cover up and the problem?
its as though they are saying, don't worry, go out and shop.
i would like to see someone at on the media, NOT SHRINK, from JUST ONE, just one of these quotes. all valid reasons for why, with logic, we might take another look. for our sake, even if NPR doesn't really care about our nation's history.

Sep. 16 2009 07:15 PM
grant from silicon valley, ca

everyone got their piece of the pie,
and those that didn't were murdered on 9/11 and we don't even care to remember why they died. why they died and 5000 soldiers had too also. and 30,000+ more wounded brave americans serve this country knowing that freedom to speak this oppression means something. something worth fighting and dying for.
do you know that mr. bob garfield?
or is shooting from the hip just like bush good enough for you?
if so "mission Accomplished"
at least the american people won't stand for it and we are letting you know. because guess what, some people aren't ready to jump to conclusions as you are.

Sep. 16 2009 04:47 PM
grant from silicon valley, ca

JP is right, "a conspirator would have had an end goal" the fact that the Administration got everything they could ever dream of in the wake of 9/11 is the basis of a very easy to understand theory of how to manipulate a democracy. google "golf on tonkin" don't take my word for it.
here is another easily understandable and totally plausible reason why the NEW owner of the WTC complex had them insured against airborne terrorist attack. oh say less than a year before he collected a double payout for the "separate" attacks.
Simple insurance fraud.
the asbestos cleanup costs IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF THE BIULDINGS. THE COST related to the FIRE RETARDANT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY sprayed between every floor IN CASE THERE WAS EVER A FIRE AND THEY NEEDED SOMETHING TO PROTECT THE STEAL BEAMS WAS ENORMOUS. after losing the appeals process. the owner was faced with a collosal money sink, an environmental disaster in the middle of a city, costing tens of millions if not more to clean up.
Did he pay a cent to clean up the asbestos?
did he directly profit from them getting "pulled" as were his words.
instead of being on the hook for millions. he got the government to hand him enough money to biuld whatever he wanted.
Bush got saddam, cheney got to grow haliburon with no bid- uncapitalistic contracts.
Oil interests got iraq to lay hands on.
Law enforecment got warrantless wiretapping.
the rich got a tax break.
we got to go on pretending as though we are the victims in the world and not the owners of this environmental, global mess.

and lets be real, the people who really control this country got another 8 years of no one paying attention the the man behind the curtain.
no one is talking about the disclosure project which ties all these interests into a shadowy network that clinton admitted "there is a government within the government, and i don't control it."

Sep. 16 2009 04:42 PM
russell geer from boston, ma

This is my third attempt at posting, and I'm not sure why I haven't been able to get through, but here goes again, anyway.

I've been critical of OTM's blithe disregard for the plethora of mainstream accounts contradicting the official account of 9/11, but as this thread grows I just have to be grateful that the subjects been brooched on NPR and is getting a fair hearing, so far as the comments go.

Here's the angle I continue to take with friends and skeptics of reopening the investigation: We in the USA have grown up on a steady diet of detective stories, crime and murder mysteries and law and order dramas. We are pretty literate when it comes to burden of proof, evidential requirements and what constitutes a thorough investigation of a crime. So why do the mass media treat this story as if it's case closed, when the 9/11 Report clearly failed to ask many basic questions and avoided any evidence that suggested the funders, beneficiaries, accomplices, and plotters might be more than the 19 hijackers and a few zealots, that by the way, defied all odds in succeeding to outsmart the world's greatest defense systems in the world's most heavily protected airspace? This thing smells so rotten I just can't understand why no major news agency has begun to take the conspicuous evidence already in the public domain (Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline, for example) and follow up some of the numerous leads indicating a much wider conspiracy than a couple dozen jihadis who managed to completely destroy a couple of the world's largest buildings. I mean, really!!!!WTF?

Sep. 15 2009 08:27 PM
DJP from Raleigh NC

Interesting to note when Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon "..cannot track $2.3 Trillion.."

Sept 10, 2001 -- the day before 9/11.
" On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said. "

This otherwise devastating story was of course buried under the events of 9/11. In fact, the Pentagon's budget was quickly jacked up--rather than heavily audited and reduced due to extensive fraud.

btw, $2.3 Trillion is equal to approx $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Sep. 15 2009 05:01 PM
Ariel from Oregon

I accept the fact that Bush & Co. were totally surprised by the attack, but then knew immediately afterward who had done it and why – “They hate us for our freedom.” What I don’t understand is the psychology of the attackers. They were obviously foreigners because any American knows that if you want to “send a message” against freedom then you destroy the Statue of Liberty – a small but isolated and easy to locate landmark – or the White House or the Capitol. Or if you do go for the Pentagon, you get maximum effect by hitting the part that houses the command center of the US Armed forces or the Office of the Secretary of Defense, whose locations were public knowledge. These would have been a lot easier to hit than the side they went for, which only housed the Office of Naval Intelligence, where 39 of the 40 employees died. I mean, come on, all that ONI was doing was investigating evidence of massive financial fraud. Those silly Arabs.

Sep. 15 2009 03:57 PM
Richard from NY

Bob & Mark,

I had never considered there was any alternative explanation to what happened on 9/11 UNTIL I happed to catch a news report in early December 2001 that infrared satellite photographs revealed pools of molten steel under the debris pile at the WTC.

This finding struck me as very odd, since jet fuel cannot melt steel under normal combustion parameters. Once this became apparent, I began to investigate the reason(s) why molten steel could have pooled under the debris pile, and the lack of a “physical” explanation (according to the known Laws of Physics) started me looking into the entire story provided by the government.

The more I looked at the official version of the events on 9/11, the more inconsistencies turned up. You can draw your own conclusions about whether or not the government played a role in the 911 attacks, but it is impossible to deny that the official story cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Sep. 15 2009 11:29 AM
DJP from Raleigh NC

Why is it so hard for some to consider the Bush administration may have lied about some aspects of 9/11?

Did they lie about any or all of the following?

--was Saddam at least partially behind 9/11?

--was Iraq behind 9/11 or in any way linked?

--did Iraq possess WMD?

--did Iraq have any serious nuclear or bio-chem development?

--was deposing Saddam & then securing Iraq a cakewalk?

--did Iraq pose a clear & present danger to the U.S.?

--did the FBI (tasked with building a case) find evidence of Osama Bin Laden being behind 9/11?

--the number of Iraqis killed related to the U.S. invasion?
(Bush admin consistently acknowledged only about 1/10th of actual Iraqi deaths, according to 3 scientific surveys)

--how Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan?

--the story of 'heroic' rescue of Jessica Lynch?

the list could go on a long time..

All these lies do not prove the admin also lied about 9/11, but clearly show a pattern of deception that should make any reasonable person question the 'official' conspiracy story of 9/11.

Sep. 15 2009 07:05 AM
Mark Richard from Columbus, Ohio

Good for OTM in finally noting this phenomenon after the media frenzy devoted to batting down "birthers".

Now, when it can work up the cojones to point out the political affiliation of most "truthers" - a far more affluent and influential, if kooky, deomographic, and to tie them more explicitly to the party that claims to have a lien on reality in American politics - a measure of reality will itself have been introduced into OTM`s generally narrow political-cultural outlook. The nqame "Van Jones" might have been a useful tool with which to acknowledge that political partisans of both parties tend to be a bit "out there" quite often.

Sep. 15 2009 06:50 AM
C from USA

A relevant article worth reading is this one, the cover story for the 9/9/09 issue of Metro Silicon Valley:
Physics doesn't lie. Do your own physics. Get a friend who took physics in high school and knows F=ma (Newton's second law) to watch the two hour video on Richard Gage's website, and listen to what he or she says afterward. Falling at the acceleration of gravity means that the upward force that had held the towers up against gravity for 30 years suddenly disappeared to zero. That's very odd! Worth seriously investigating.

Sep. 15 2009 02:39 AM
Anthony from MN

As someone already mentioned, it is true someone confessed, but that hardly proves anything. Also, many saw a crime committed, they did not see the hijackers or anyone else who may have committed the crime, so what does that prove? No serious person is suggesting planes didn't crash into the buildings, but planes hitting buildings doesn't eliminated the other or larger crimes where committed at the same time. Just because person collects insurance money when they're boat goes down in a storm doesn't mean divers wont find a hole drilled in the bottom of the boat if they care to look for it.

So in light of what I have just written, who else might be accused of being "suckers for the fallacy of favorable enumeration (collect the data that supports your premise and discard everything else), (as) they spread lies in the name of truth."

Sep. 14 2009 07:28 PM
Anthony from MN

Thanks for your response Mr. Garfield.

"Putting aside for a moment that the engineering and physics question have all been litigated elsewhere"

I guess we can put it aside, although I'm not sure where it has been "litigated", and it seems odd to put aside the physical evidence of a crime scene. But, moving on:

"the world of conspiracy wingnuttery fails to come to grips with the most salient fact of all: For these bizarre allegations to be true, scores of depraved people would have to have been involved in the original mass murder, and many more during the cover-up."

How is this a "fact" Bob? Just be cause you are guessing that scores of people would have to know about the plot does not mean that it is a fact. I think one of the main contentions of the "truthers" is that no serious investigation has been done to find out who or how many were involved. But there many scenarios in which only a tiny group of people would be required to know of the whole operation. Indeed it would make the plot more feasible. And how can we say how many would be involved in the cover up? In "fact" the official story in which you are an adherent tells of far fewer than "scores" of conspirators, who after committing the crime, are eliminated by the crime itself making it impossible for them to talk about it or cover it up. This explanation seems to make sense to you in at least one context.

"Not to mention that the surviving ACTUAL conspirators confessed. Not to mention the thousands of live eyewitnesses and the billions of tele-witnesses."

Sep. 14 2009 07:28 PM
Richard from United States

I was extremely disappointed with your shallow evaluation of the 9/11 “conspiracy myth” put forth by the government, and your failure to do any due diligence on the merits of the counter-argument that burning jet fuel did NOT bring down the Twin Towers.

While relying solely on eye witness reports may have certain shortcomings, nonetheless there is a great deal of information available from the numerous eye witness reports from the three crime scenes. One eye witness account that has obviously escaped your attention is that of William Rodriguez, who was supervisor of maintenance at the WTC. He reported an explosion BELOW his office (in the sub-basement) moments before the first aircraft struck the building, and that several of his coworkers were injured by the blast. Interestingly, there is a strange, unexplained seismic event recorded just across the Hudson River at Lamont-Doherty seismic monitoring center that precedes the first plane’s impact by 7 seconds. Is this a coincidence? Have you looked into it? Have you ever bothered to interview William Rodriguez?

The crash site for Flight 93 stretches over about 8 square miles, demonstrating that the plane did not come down intact. If the plane did not come down in one piece, as it presumably would have according to the story we have been told (passenger mutiny in the cockpit), what caused Flight 93 to break apart before impacting the ground?

If you wish to look at the “facts” surrounding 911, please visit which is a peer-reviewed on-line journal comprised of articles from engineers and scientists who are highly skeptical of the official story that you apparently have bought hook, line and sinker.

Sep. 14 2009 05:52 PM
DJP from Raleigh NC

JP, excellent point and proportional comparison (and btw, the only 3 scientific statistical surveys have indicated more than a million Iraqis killed as a result of US invasion/war), but for many of us, the two things (9/11 & aggressive wars, etc) are inextricably linked.

All those terrible things you referenced are sadly considered 'justified' by enough people--due to 9/11--that some feel we must help expose falsehoods in the official conspiracy story of 9/11.

Interesting to note how nearly all mainstream media accepted the Bush admin's lies hook, line, and sinker--right up to each war's start & on & on. Only after the execution of the wars became so miserably pathetic did some of the media gradually begin to shift and finally do their job and begin posing questions to authority.

So the media has finally questioned some aspects of the wars, and yet is perhaps too embarrassed to redress clear inconsistencies related to events of 9/11. I know it was really hard for me to finally admit I was wrong about several core assertions re: jet fuel, temperatures, etc.

Sep. 14 2009 01:55 PM

Again, this is the REAL CRIME commited against America and the world due to 9-11, and it was committed by Dick Cheney and his neo-con cabal.

The post 9-11 opportunistic fear mongering and manipulation by Cheney was THE SIGNIFICANT CONSPIRACY, and no one can argue it did not happen!!!

Now we have to continue on with lost freedoms, paranoia, xenophobia, a cruddier reputation in the world, two wars, massive war debt and expenditure, a very secretive and all too powerful executive branch, secret renditions, secret prisons, survellance and abuse of privacy, etc., etc…

Sep. 14 2009 01:19 PM

Good Grief!

All of you are missing the point!

Presumably, a conspirator would have had an end goal.

If the perpetrators were in U.S. government, then the goals would likely have been those I enumerated in the first post of this thread.

Those nefarious goals WERE accomplished regardless of who was invloved in committing the initial act of violence.

Therefore, either way, government conspiracy or not, Cheney and his cabal used the episode to further nefarious ends. Tom Ridge recently admitted that even the Terror Alerts were used to further political ends and get Bush re-elected.

This is the REAL CRIME against America!

If you think that the worst that came from 9-11 was 2976 people being killed, you have no sense of proportion. Nearly double the number of coalition forces have been killed in the two resulting wars, not to mention the millions (depending on who you believe) of dead Iraqis and Afghanis, and the inumerable wounded. On top of that, America has ceased to be America as per the merely partial list of casulaties I enumerated in the first post.

Sep. 14 2009 01:19 PM
DJP from Raleigh NC

Seems any good reporter would want to know why 847 Professional Architects and Engineers would sign a career-risking petition asking for an independent investigation.


Their list of well-vetted signatories is growing daily. Are we to dismiss nearly a thousand professionals by calling them conspiracy theorists or truthers?

See also
for many more professionals from the gov't, military, intelligence services, aviation/pilots, lawyers, professors, doctors, etc.

Sep. 14 2009 06:34 AM
Ariel from Oregon

As a service to their listeners, NPR should push for open hearings in which anyone with questions or observations based on their area of expertise can testify under oath and be questioned. Too many things about the official story don’t add up. If you can go along with attacking two countries and shredding our Bill of Rights, you can at least humor those of us who inhabit the “world of conspiracy wingnuttery” by carrying out an honest, in-depth investigation.

Sep. 14 2009 03:40 AM
grant from USA

STEVE says it best, you bob garfield are guilt of the "hit piece" , bob garfield hasn't even presented any FACTS to prove his statement.
it was two minutes of one-sided rants with no contribution to the factual questions left open by the WTC1,2 AND 7 collapse, please explain tower 7 to me MR. Garfield. Even if you totally believe in the government conspiracy of 19 hijackers (4 of which were alive sept 12, 2001-A.P. reported sept 20,2001).
No one can see what MR. Garfield has done as ANYTHING CLOSE TO JOURNALISM, as by his own measure he isn't pursuing the facts, only his own deeply held preconceived notions about what is possible.
test this by asking yourself, what facts does he use?
a woman's word and his own bee stung imagination. imagination?
dispute the last man out of tower one credited with saving 15 lives from the basement. william rodriguez has his own site to publicize what the public and private media wont. william 911 dot com is the website for you mr. bob garfield. maybe you should do some journalistic RESEARCH before beginning a story.

thank you for saving me lots of money, i'm never donating to public radio EVER AGIAN IN MY LIFE>

Sep. 14 2009 02:59 AM
DJP from Raleigh NC

Whoever was behind the multiple & highly synchronized attacks on 9/11, it seems clear there were indeed 'scores of depraved people' involved--whether all operating from caves in Afghanistan and/or elsewhere.

So how does that point support any particular theory?

Not to mention that most experts from the FBI & military intelligence say that torture does not elicit appropriate confessions, because human beings will say anything to make extreme pain stop.

Sep. 14 2009 02:34 AM
Bob Garfield

Putting aside for a moment that the engineering and physics question have all been litigated elsewhere, the world of conspiracy wingnuttery fails to come to grips with the most salient fact of all:

For these bizarre allegations to be true, scores of depraved people would have to have been involved in the original mass murder, and many more during the cover-up. Boy, they sure are mean, and they sure are good at keeping a secret.

Not to mention that the surviving ACTUAL conspirators confessed. Not to mention the thousands of live eyewitnesses and the billions of tele-witnesses.

That's why I snidely referred to "truthers." They are not only suckers for the fallacy of favorable enumeration (collect the data that supports your premise and discard everything else), they spread lies in the name of truth.

Sep. 14 2009 01:50 AM
Anthony from MN

A lot of my points have been made by others here already. It is obvious that you have not done YOUR research. You obviously know very little about what happened that day or what those who doubt the official explanation believe. I would bet that very little, if any research was done by you regarding the compelling physical evidence that has been analyzed by numerous architects and engineers that points to the buildings being destroyed by controlled demolition. The slant of your reporting was evidenced by the snide and mocking way the the "truthers" were referred to. This is yet another reason for me to believe that public radio is not as different from commercial news outlets as I would like to believe. Very poor and disappointing reporting.

Sep. 13 2009 05:17 PM
Engineer from Bird in Hand, PA

The official report defies physics. If the LAWS of physics are applied, some type of explosive HAD to be used to take down the 3 buildings in NY.

Sep. 13 2009 05:04 PM

Ariel, its actually reached over 800 architects and engineers(and growing all the time), but your point stands. NPR should be ashamed. Such a lazy and dishonest story.

Sep. 13 2009 03:50 PM
Julian from Ohio

It's not like that reporter's observation is the sole evidence for the bombs in building theory. I mean, she's describing exactly what so many other reporters have described. It means nothing if she believes it or not, so long as she was making an accurate description of what she heard. And they call this taking things out of context? I think they are placing too much emphasis on her remark as if this is the ONLY REASON why people think there were bombs in the building. How about the fact that nano thermite was found in the dust of WTC? Why is NPR, "all things considered" not talking about this?

Sep. 13 2009 12:50 PM
DJP from Raleigh NC

Is it not reasonable to ask questions and want better answers to how and why the events of 9/11 took place?

How all our defenses were compromised? How the Pentagon of all places was able to be hit with a commercial plane (not a tiny super-fast + agile missile) even though the military was tracking the plane—according to testimony by Sec'y of Transportation Norman Mineta & others?

How 3 well-designed skyscrapers could spontaneously & utterly collapse at nearly free-fall speed? (free-fall would require zero resistance) Each leaving pools of molten metal in the rubble piles for months. Where did the temperatures come from to generate those incredible levels of heat? -Not the limited jet-fuel which even NIST admits burned off in mere minutes. And no jet-fuel at all in WTC 7.

How does random/asymmetrical damage to 3 different buildings cause all 3 to fall straight down?

Sep. 13 2009 12:06 PM
Robert from NYC

For Beth Fertig to even have thought that "they" were going to officially bring down the towers of WTC is pretty stupid. Would not have there been prior to the event publication in the media itself that the WTC will be demolished on such and such a date and preparations would have been made well in advance of the event to clear the area, etc, etc, etc. How stupid for even a fleeting thought of such a kind.

Sep. 13 2009 10:46 AM
Ariel from Oregon

I can't believe you are still rehashing the old game of Bash The Conspiracy Theorists. It would have been a lot more interesting if you had interviewed some of the 700+ architects and engineers who are calling for another investigation into the collapse of the WTC buildings on the grounds that, for numerous reasons, the official explanation is an impossibility.

Sep. 13 2009 12:28 AM
DJP from Raleigh NC

Understand Beth's feelings about having her comments used to support a position she doesn't agree with, but when I've heard similar comments used, it's to show people's instinctive comparisons to controlled demolitions--not necessarily to claim the person believes there were controlled demolitions of the 3 towers (including 47-story WTC 7 which spontaneously collapsed later in the day on 9/11).

If you believe more than one person was behind the events of 9/11, then you are a 'conspiracy theorist'. So why use that label unless to undermine those who hold a different perspective?

Many of us make no claims regarding who did what, but are simply asking questions and wanting a more independent & thorough investigation.

One gentleman, Senator Max Cleland, resigned in protest from the official 9/11 Commission, and the two tacitly in charge (Kean & Hamilton) wrote a book saying they were underfunded, misled, and not given sufficient time or access in order to have done a proper job. Are we to dismiss them?

After 8 years, 9/11 is still not listed on the FBI's Most Wanted poster of Osama Bin Laden. That should make us all question the official conspiracy theory.

FBI's official site:

Sep. 12 2009 10:12 PM
David from Lawrenceville, NJ

Oy. I expect Van Jones to comment here any second...

Sep. 12 2009 07:21 PM
Brett Greisen from Astoria NY

However, there are some basic questions. Why were USAF interceptors diverted into exercises that posited the real life actions occurring? Why did it take so long to go real-world in the command posts? Why was a long-standing SOP when a transponder "disappears" from radar changed and directed up thru 2 bureaucracies (FAA & USAF/Air Defense Command)? This is more time-consuming than just having the FAA controller notify his regional ADC command post.

Then there are the questions re: why then-Mayor Giuliani insisted on his Emergency "bunker" was on the 7th or so floor of 7 WTC. This also entailed loading the building with lots of fuel to keep the bunker independent of the power grid. + The bad radios that the FDNY had vs. the more reliable NYPD radios + no coordination of radio frequencies in disaster areas.

These are the basics.

Sep. 12 2009 06:15 PM

What a lame hit piece. This was the most ironic "news" story I've heard in a long time. Don't you see that the host of this story was horribly guilty exactly of what they were accusing the 9/11 truthers ? They took one item and exploited it (some women's explanation of her statement 8 years prior) instead of analyzing the whole of Charlie Sheen's argument and and judging it fairly on the facts available. You even played the quote where Mr. Sheen invited you to analyze ALL of the facts - which you miserably failed to do!

Go back and redo - report back next week with your homework done correctly!

Sep. 12 2009 05:50 PM

Regardless of whether or not 9/11 was a government conspiracy in its execution, Cheney and his neo-con cabal certainly milked it for all it was worth.

Now we have to continue on with lost freedoms, paranoia, xenophobia, a cruddier reputation in the world, two wars, massive war debt and expenditure, a very secretive and all too powerful executive branch, etc., etc…

Thanks Bush, for being a puppet of the far-right pea-brained insanos!

Sep. 12 2009 12:33 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.