Bill Maher on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6GWIyMx_D4]

New Rule: Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I’m the one that’s being naïve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think, “Well, if you believe that was the cause?” Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on this show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you.

28 Comments

  1. 1
    Big Hugh says:

    How about the third building (World Trade Center 7), the one that went down just a few hours later? This collapse was shown on news broadcasts at the time (I saw it on the live news), but no official talks about it much now. This 3rd building was not hit by any jet. There were some auxiliary files. And for the first time in history, fire was able to collapse a modern skyscraper. Not only that, it collapsed following the same neat vertical trajectory (rather than a diagonal toppling), that the two big towers did. How big a lunatic do you have to be to believe the government’s official story on this one?

    Check out http://www.wtc7.net

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    This has all been repeatedly debunked by multiple sources such as:

    Debunking the 9/11 Myths

    The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective

    Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories

    911 Conspiracy Theories

    Scientific American

    As Bill Maher treats this as a mental illness (even if he confuses an SSRI with antipsychotics) this review from Time might be more applicable:

    There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. “We tend to associate major events–a President or princess dying–with major causes,” says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. “If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us.” In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting.

    You would have thought the age of conspiracy theories might have declined with the rise of digital media. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a private, intimate affair compared with the attack on the World Trade Center, which was witnessed by millions of bystanders and television viewers and documented by hundreds of Zapruders. You would think there was enough footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus reality, a single version of the truth, a single world we can all live in together.

    But there is no event so plain and clear that a determined human being can’t find ambiguity in it. And as divisive as they are, conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events like Sept. 11. Conspiracy theories form around them like scar tissue. In a curious way, they’re an American form of national mourning. They’ll be with us as long as we fear lone gunmen, and feel the pain of losses like the one we suffered on Sept. 11, and as long as the past, even the immediate past, is ultimately unknowable. That is to say, forever.

  3. 3
    rtard says:

    building 7 would seem to be the weak spot of debunkers. in everything else about 9/11, the towers, AA 93, the pentagon, there is way more evidence the official story is right. I dont buy the gov. did it theories, but buildign 7 makes me suspicios.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Some of the references above explain Building 7.

    Beyond such explanations, I never found arguments based on Building 7 to be a very compelling starting point to argue for a conspiracy. If the conspiracy theorists are right and they staged air planes crashing into the two towers to “cover up” soemthing like controlled demolition, they could have just as easily staged something to provide such an obvious explanation for Building 7. Such ambiguity is far more characteristic of the real world than of planned events. Fortunately there is also ample explanation for Building 7, such as:

    Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA’s preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. “The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,” NIST’s Sunder tells PM. “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.” NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7’s upper stories and its southwest corner.

    NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse,” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or “kinks,” in the building’s facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

    According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building’s failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.”

    There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building’s other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

    Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: “Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.”

    WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building’s unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

  5. 5
    Liberal Journal says:

    “they could have just as easily staged something to provide such an obvious explanation for Building 7”

    Not necessarily, they could have thought that people wouldn’t notice. And they haven’t for the most part.

    When was the last time we saw WTC 7’s collapse on television? In fact, when Dr. Steven Jones went on Tucker Carlson to discuss his view of events, Tucker’s superiors didn’t allow him to show the video of WTC 7 falling after Tucker led Jones to believe he would show it on air.

    Could you provide us with the specific information that repeatedly debunks rather than simply links? Similarly, I can provide links to show global warming has been repeatedly debunked:

    http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401374.html

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board/messages/4651.shtml

    Maher’s brilliant and throrough analysis ignores the eyewitness accounts of bombings:

    “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse”.

    – Van Romero, Vice President For Research At New Mexico Institute Of Mining And Technology

    “I spoke with some police officials moments ago … and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it.”

    – Rick Sanchez, MSNBC – 9/11/2001

    “Apparently what appears to happen, that at the same time two planes hit the buildings, that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”

    – Jack Kelley, USA Today Foreign Correspondent – 9/11/2001

    “Just moments ago I spoke to the chief of safety for the New York City fire department, he received word of the possibility of a secondary device – that is another bomb going off … according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”

    – Pat Dawson, MSNBC – 9/11/2001

    “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn’t know where to run.”

    – Teresa Veliz, WTC 1 Employee, 47th Floor

    John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal described the collapse of the South Tower thusly:

    “I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.”

    A reporter gives the following account:

    “The chief of safety of the fire department of New York City told me he received word of the possibility of a secondary device: that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted within the building.”

    Louis Cacchioli, firefighter:

    “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.”

  6. 6
    Liberal Journal says:

    From the NIST website: “NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete.”

    In other words, the government employed researchers are theorizing. Their theory doesn’t match any other steel structured building in world history.

    “they could have just as easily staged something to provide such an obvious explanation for Building 7.”

    That’s unnecessary. The media hasn’t covered it and most people still don’t know about it.

    When Dr. Steven Jones was invited to Tucker to discuss his theory of what happened on 9/11, he was told he would be able to have it on air, then after discussing it with his superiors, Tucker refused to show the collapse of WTC 7. If it’s so debunkable why not show it? How often have we seen the collapse of WTC 7 discussed/mentioned/seen on television?

    Please provide specific claims that you’re willing to back up, rather than simply links. I can provide links to global warming debunking sites as well:

    http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401374.html

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board/messages/4651.shtml

    And Maher’s analysis ignores the following:

    A 9/11 first responder has gone on the record to describe how he heard a demolition-style countdown precede the collapse of WTC 7, eyewitness testimony that dovetails with other EMT’s and rescue personnel who were also told that Building 7 was going to be “brought down”. Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden says that he and onlookers clearly heard “three, two, one” from the radio before [WTC 7] collapsed.

    “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse”.
    – Van Romero, Vice President For Research At New Mexico Institute Of Mining And Technology

    “I spoke with some police officials moments ago … and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it.”
    – Rick Sanchez, MSNBC – 9/11/2001

    “Apparently what appears to happen, that at the same time two planes hit the buildings, that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”
    – Jack Kelley, USA Today Foreign Correspondent – 9/11/2001

    “Just moments ago I spoke to the chief of safety for the New York City fire department, he received word of the possibility of a secondary device – that is another bomb going off … according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”
    – Pat Dawson, MSNBC – 9/11/2001

    “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn’t know where to run.”
    – Teresa Veliz, WTC 1 Employee, 47th Floor

    “There is an explosion at the base of the building … white smoke from the bottom … something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.”
    – WNYW Fox 5 Anchor Describing First Seconds Of The Collapse Of WTC 2 , 9/11/2001.

    “William Rodriguez … worked at the World Trade Center … As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion … “When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking.” said Rodriguez”

    Louie Cacchioli, was one of the first firefighters to enter the South Tower as it burned. A 20-year veteran of the fire department, Cacchioli told People Weekly:

    “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.”

    John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal described the collapse of the South Tower thusly:
    I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.’

    Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman’s Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower:

    “How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we’d been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual.”

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    This kind of argument is only going to be compelling to those with no conception as to how to analyze data and who are easily susciptible to conspiracy theories.

    Sure, people believe there may have been a bomb. Considering the situation at the time, they were hardly in a position to make an accurate assessment. There were also many claims of bombs going off all over Washington, D.C. on the morning of September 11, but that does not mean the reports were correct. However conspiracy theorists have no standard for accuracy. You are happy to pass on any quote, regardless of whether credible, which appears to back up your claims. That assumes that the quotes are even real. Often one conspiracy theory site will make a claim, and it gets passed around in the echo chamber with everyone assuming that invented “quotes” and “facts” are legitimate. There have been cases of people quoted as saying that they heard what sounded like a bomb but go on to say that they weren’t sure what was happening and other explanations were possible for what they heard. The conspiracy theorists take these quotes out of context to claim someone was saying there was a bomb when that was not what they were actually even saying.

    The fact remains that you have present zero credible evidence to accept a wild conspiracy theory to replace a highly plausibe mechanism.

    I have provided considerable evidence both here and elsewhere while you have yet to provide anything except the wild ravings of conspiracy theorists who reject all information which does not fit into their theories. As long as you have a circular theory where all legitimate evidence is ignored but any claims made by conspiracy theorists are accepted as fact there is obviously no “proof” by your standards. This leaves you free to continue your fantasies and believe they have some credibility when in reality these fantasies have absolutely no credibility.

  8. 8
    Liberal Journal says:

    It is simply denial to categorize *all* of the accounts contradicting the official story as not credible.

    Your proof is more than vague. You only provide a theory which hasn’t been confirmed yet and links which repeat the most outrageous ‘conspiracy theories’ because to lump them all together allows one to skirt any contradictory evidence.

    You’re telling me I’m assuming these facts are legitimate–I’m not–they should be examined in a thorough investigation, which the 9/11 Commission admittedly did not.

    (I did not mean to post two times, I thought it didn’t register the first time)

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    (For some reason your two posts got eaten by the Akismet filter. Normally it works well, but it is a nuisance the rare times it eats real posts as it doesn’t provide the same notifications as the main spam filter. Fortunately I skimmed thru Akismet a little while ago.)

    The various accounts are lumped together for the sake of brevity as they generally use the same types of faulty evidence and make the same types of claims. You haven’t provided any evidence for any althernative theory different from those widely debunked.

    I’m not providing any unproven theories. We have ample evidence of a terrorist plot, including a confesion. We have well documented evidence of the planes hitting the two towers. From time to time I have had posts which have demonstrated various mechanisms by which this could have caused the collapse of the buildings. We might never know for sure between various proposed mechanisms (although there is a fair degree of overlap between them) but that is not very important. As long as there is a plausible mechanism to explain the collapse of the WTC based upon the terrorist attacks there is no reason to entertain any of the conspiracy theories which lack any meaningful evidence.

    Conspiracy theorists are doing far more than calling for a more detailed investigation than was conducted by the 9/11 Commission as they also propose consipiracy theories of an inside job and controlled demolition.

    Actually all these conspiracy theories really help out the Bush administration by distracting attention from the more mundane areas where criticism of the 9/11 Comission is warranted as they had their hands tied in reporting on the poor manner in which the Bush administration responded to the attacks and to prior warnings of an attack.

  10. 10
    Skeptic says:

    The logic of the conspiracy theories is so one sided. Imagine turning it around to question their claims.

    What about all the evidence of a terrorist plot?
    What about the warnings that OSB planned to attack with planes?
    What about OSB taking credit for the attacks?
    What about the evidence of seeing two planes hit the buildings?

    If having questions would discount a theory, there are many simple questions to throw out their theory. The biggest questions of all are how could the US government be this competent, and how could they keep such a thing a secret.

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    Skeptic,

    Good points. As I’ve said, they use a totally different standard to judge proof of their claims as opposed to any other arguments.

  12. 12
    Liberal Journal says:

    The fact is you use no standard at all to look at the alternate claims, because you de facto refuse to look at them.

    “Conspiracy theorists are doing far more than calling for a more detailed investigation than was conducted by the 9/11 Commission as they also propose consipiracy theories of an inside job and controlled demolition.”

    The 9/11 Commission looked primarily at intelligence/inter-agency communication failures, etc. For a new investigation to be more detailed, it would naturally have to look at Rumsfeld and Cheney’s activities on the events of that day–and just so you know, they are part of the government.

    Now onto the questions:

    What about all the evidence of a terrorist plot?

    A terrorist attack happened. Did Osama make NORAD stand down or was that within Cheney and Rumsfeld’s responsibility. Was this resolved during the 9/11 Commission–No.

    What about the warnings that OSB planned to attack with planes?

    Where do you get this idea that Osama bin Laden’s aspirations have to be completely separate from government officials who wish to implement a radical geopolitical agenda?

    What about OSB taking credit for the attacks?

    Are you saying that OSB is taking credit for making NORAD stand down? Was it his idea to have a hijacking exercise going on at the exact same time?

    What about the evidence of seeing two planes hit the buildings?

    When has a conspiracy theorist claimed otherwise? Red herring.

    Now that I’ve addressed your questions, are you prepared to explain away mine? Of course not, the deniers’ standard is that government involvement is like believing in martians, ipso facto. You’re doing the nation an enormous disservice because you wish to appear more mentally stable than people questioning our leaders’ intent.

  13. 13
    Ron Chusid says:

    As usual it isn’t worth the time to debunk all this nonsnese, but to hit on a couple points:

    “The fact is you use no standard at all to look at the alternate claims, because you de facto refuse to look at them.”

    I’ve looked at them. I found them to be nonsense without any evidnece whatsoever to support them. I’m not going to waste the time to repeat the same arguments endlessly.

    You try to distinguish yourself form all the other conspiracy theories but you continue to repeat the same claims which every other conspiracy theorist has made and which has been repeatedly found to be untrue.. For example the fake claim of a NORAD standdown:

    On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. “They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,” says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

    “What about the evidence of seeing two planes hit the buildings?
    When has a conspiracy theorist claimed otherwise? Red herring.”

    You sure destroyed your argument on this if you don’t see that this is the central issue. You can’t expect to make a statement this off the wall and have any credibility left at all.

  14. 14
    Liberal Journal says:

    That report is entirely accurate but it neglects to mention that: They weren’t alerted because there was a hijacking exercise going on, completely outside of the responsiblity of OBL, and completely within the responsibility of our government.

    The only way I have credibility in *your eyes* is if I ignore the eyewitness evidence and believe that the collapse of these two buildings, caused by these two planes, caused enough damage to make a steel structured building collapse at free fall speed, which has never happened prior to or since 9/11. This time you quote an NIST report that isn’t final, and is disputed by engineers and scientists, not because they believe in martians, but because they seriously dispute the claims on scientific grounds. And last time you quoted an official sounding Popular Mechanics article penned by Michael Chertoff’s 25 year old cousin.

    Shouldn’t there be mountains of evidence you can present me written by people outside of the government and older than 25 years old? Why must all the engineers and scientists who support an opposite view be wrong, and you and your fly by night websites right? These websites give the same cursory examination that you yourself have given the issue.

  15. 15
    Liberal Journal says:

    I should also note that excerpt’s accuracy is questionable. Why? NORAD released two 9/11 timelines. Even after both, the FAA claimed communications were continuous:

    Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies. The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD on a separate line. The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77. Other parties on the phone bridges, in turn, shared information about actions they were taking. NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:

    I’ve already debunked the bogus claims about the Popular Mechanics article in another thread. This was a joint effort, not something by one author. The Chertoff from Popular Mechanics is a distant relative of Michael Chertoff who didn’t now him.

    The fact that the NIST report isn’t final provides zero justificatoin for the various conspiracy theories. The claim that it is dsputed on scientific grounds is also nonsense. Besides, even if the report were to have scientific errors, this still proves nothing about the conspiracy theories.

    This is pointless. You continue to present false claims commonly spread by conspiracy theorists which have been debunked.. Raising such bogus criticism, even if there was some validity to the criticism, and even if the criticism hasn’t been throughly debunked, would still prove zero about the claims made by conspiracy theorists. It is you who are basing things on fly by night sites which provide zero evidence to back up thier claims.

  17. 17
    Liberal Journal says:

    I have addressed every claim or question I have been confronted with, Ron. I can’t say that I’ve ever received the same level of consideration from those on the other side. That you explain away this willful ignorance by attacking us, well shows the weakness of your side. You say my evidence is zero but I hear scant reasons why. I challenge your readers to attempt to glean where you get this zero evidence rationale from.

    One of the comments in our last exchange involved the psychoanalysis of 9/11 truthers. Delving into Pseudo-analysis without confronting all of the claims indicates a certain level of arrogance to me. And arrogance is blinding.

    Why don’t you understand that **I am not trying to indoctrinate you.** It is just foolish to completely rule out government complicity when doubts, even scientific ones as you acknowledge, remain.

  18. 18
    Ron Chusid says:

    “You say my evidence is zero but I hear scant reasons why.”

    That is pretty self explanatory. You create a conspiracy theory of government complicity but offer no evidence to support such a conspiracy. There are no scientific doubts. Having more than one possible scientific model does not create doubt or provide evidence of government complicity.

    The claims have all been confronted and repeatedly have been shown to be baseless and without evidence.

    You suffer from a delusion lacking any evidence and ignore all evidence against your belief. So yes, I think there is a distinct possibility that you do suffer from a psychological problem in holding on to these delusions and showing an inability to separate fantasy from reality. It also says something that you feel a compulsion to persistently argue these points.

  19. 19
    Liberal Journal says:

    Answer one simple question: How are multiple eyewitness accounts of bombs zero evidence?

  20. 20
    Ron Chusid says:

    There are no verified eyewitness accounts of bombs.

    On September 11 there were supposedly eye witness reports of bombs all over Washington, D.C. These accounts were found to be untrue, created by the hysteria of the day.

    Conspiracy theorists have taken accounts out of context to claim eye witness accounts of bombs in the WTC. Some people interpreted things they saw in a burning building as an explosion as a bomb, but that does not mean there was a bomb. Some times people compared what they saw to bombs but went on to say it could have been something else. The conspiracy theorists then misquote their testimony to falsely claim that people were saying there was a bomb when that is not what they said. There were also known to be explosions of diesel fuel tanks which would certainly appear like a bomb. There were also steel bolts snapping in the heat, transformers blowing, and concrete falling. There could have been plenty of other things which could appear like a bomb.

    When the Titanic was sinking some people reported what they believed were bombs going off. From this would you conclude that the Titanic sunk due to a government conspiracy as opposed to hitting an ice berg? Some of the eye witnesses compared what they felt and heard to a train in the building, but this no more proves that there were trains going thru the upper floors of the WTC than other eye witness accounts prove that there were bombs going off.

  21. 21
    Liberal Journal says:

    I like how you threw in the word verified, well no investigation has verified it yet. You are arguing against attempting to verify these claims!

    What fantasy do I believe in? That we need a new investigation. Wow, such an extreme view. Wait, you’re going to tell me to go the mental hospital again–I know I should just ignore them, like you.

    This is my last comment on this thread. You make the jump of saying there is zero evidence, even though there is some evidence, which you admittedly can not prove is wrong (you can only theorize as to why they did) because you envision yourself sitting on an elite throne of reason. You love to trash certain segments of society because deep down you derive some benefit from doing so. Conspiracy theorists, once you label them so, are in the exact same class global warming deniers, religious fanatics, or right-wingers in general. You then create the extreme caricature of what a 9/11 truther looks like. You may pick out one sentence of a five paragraph and claim that I have no credibility, again not because you have proven that that one sentence was wrong, but because that was your own interpretation. You have contested specific claims with the most vague generalities.

    I know you have not given this a fair shake. A reasonable mind would conclude in this situation that more must be investigated and certain officials to be NOT immune from scrutiny. This is not extreme. One day you may realize this.

  22. 22
    Ron Chusid says:

    “I like how you threw in the word verified, well no investigation has verified it yet. You are arguing against attempting to verify these claims!”

    Not at all. Your claims have been investigated and found to be untrue. Most of those who you claim say there were explosions have had their testimony taken out of context. There is also ample evidence that what appeared to be bombs was not actually bombs.

    “What fantasy do I believe in? That we need a new investigation. Wow, such an extreme view.”

    You’re not being very honest here. You are not simply calling for a new investigation. You are claiming that 9/11 was an inside job by the US government as opposed to a terrorist act.

    “You make the jump of saying there is zero evidence, even though there is some evidence, which you admittedly can not prove is wrong”

    Untrue and this is far from the first time you have made such false claims as to what I have said. I also can’t “prove” that 9/11 wasn’t caused by aliens who staged it all, but that doesn’t mean this would be a credible view worth considering. There is zero evidence to support your claims.

    “You love to trash certain segments of society because deep down you derive some benefit from doing so”

    No, I trash ideas which are idiotic, not segments of society.

    “You may pick out one sentence of a five paragraph and claim that I have no credibility, again not because you have proven that that one sentence was wrong, but because that was your own interpretation.”

    No, all you claims have been disproved. I’ve concentrated on a few to demonstrate the holes in your argument, but all the claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists have been thoroughly debunked.

    “I know you have not given this a fair shake”

    You just believe that as I did not come to the same conclusion as you after investigating the issue.

    ” A reasonable mind would conclude in this situation that more must be investigated and certain officials to be NOT immune from scrutiny. This is not extreme”

    Again you are being dishonest in mischaracterizing my arguments and moving the goal posts. I have supported further investigation and placing the Bush administration under increased scrutiny. The disagreement is over the claim that there is any evidence that this was an inside job as opposed to a terrorist act. That is an extreme view which has already been debunked.

  23. 23
    mc2010 says:

    To those that believe the “official” conspiracy theory that 19 Arab terrorist under the leadership of OBL carried this off, you need to start at square one. You may not like links but this is a very good place to begin your research – If you want to believe the official conspiracy theory, you will. But you are deluding yourself.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911-beginners.php

  24. 24
    JulieAnna says:

    I admit to only skimming some of this thread, but I have read much of it and would like to address this statement from Ron:

    “The claims have all been confronted and repeatedly have been shown to be baseless and without evidence.”

    This is entirely untrue. To say that ALL claims have been confronted implies that they have been thoroughly investigated; they have not. There are still many questions unanswered, including those regarding the puddles of molten steel under the debris of all three towers. I’m not an expert in this area, but have looked into and read enough on the subject to know that what has been proven is that there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for why pools of molten steel were present for many weeks after the towers were brought down.

    I would like to bring up a few more points, all of which are established fact:

    1) Osama bin Laden has never been charged with the attacks of 9/11. His FBI “Most Wanted” page does not list any 9/11 related charges, and when asked about this particular point, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, said that there “is no hard evidence” directly linking bin Laden to the attacks. This raises the question of why the bin Laden “confession video,” which was released by the Department of Defense and made the rounds in the media, is not considered to be hard evidence by the FBI.

    2) Not one of the the alleged “19 hijackers” has ever been linked to bin Laden. Not one. Which also goes a long way towards explaining why the FBI has no “hard evidence” linking bin Laden to the attacks.

    3) At least five of the alleged “19 hijackers” are alive and well and living in the Middle East. This was uncovered by the press in the weeks following the attacks, and yet the 9/11 Commission Report still listed the same 19 hijackers and the FBI has never updated their list of the 19 responsible for the attacks. No, this is not a case of men with the same name — the FBI has always included pictures with their list of the 19 men, and because of the photos, it has been proven that these are not cases of mistaken identity.

    These three points, alone, raise questions about the “official story” of the attacks.

  25. 25
    Ron Chusid says:

    None of these claims raise any meaningful questions as to the story that the WTC collapsed as a result of airplanes flown by al Qaeda terrorists. The lack of a direct tie by the hijackers to bin Laden personally (as opposed to al Qaeda) is simply a result of the decentralized nature of such groups). The heat of the fire easily accounts for the molten steel found. None of this provides any evidence that the attack was an inside job or that the buildings collapsed due to a controlled demolition.

    The real world is a messy place. There often are possible questions and loose ends, especially in this case where the Republicans wanted to distract attention from the Bush administration’s incompetence in ignoring warnings about the attack. If this was a planned conspiracy I’d actually expect to see less loose ends, as they could be accounted for in the attack, as well as planting evidence to back up their subsequent attempts to tie the attack to Saddam.

  26. 26
    Odonnol says:

    John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal described the collapse of the South Tower thusly:

    “I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.”

    Anyway, thank God the demolition went well, and the building collapsed on itself, without toppling off to the side.

    ‘According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building’s failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.’

    It is an odd sort of physics where if you knock out the foot of one column on the south side, the whole thing crashes STRAIGHT down without toppling south. I have two observations: 1) That sounds like extrordiarily efficient use of materials, but it also sounds a bit unstable. 2) NIST does a hell of an analysis. Are they on Paxil? Is that what Bill Maher is trying to say?

  27. 27
    Odonnol says:

    In my commment, no 28, please make that “extraordinarily,” as in “That sounds like extraordinarily efficient use of materials, but it also sounds a bit unstable.”

  28. 28
    Rich says:

    Bill Maher on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories – http://t.co/s9grFjhN

3 Trackbacks

Leave a comment