NEW YORK MAGAZINE RUNS HIT PIECE ON THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB

Isn't it interesting, and perhaps revelatory, how the believers of the official fiction like to utilise such insultive language in preference to logic and reason?

Oh well, I guess that everyone has a right to express themselves.

I will not be accepting the burden of explaining how and why 9/11 was an inside job-there are plenty of websites on the net offering relevant, and not so relevant information on this event. Rather, I will offer a retort to some of the more untenable positions that I have read in both this article and some of the responses.

1."FIVE RIDICULOUS THINGS YOU HAVE TO THINK IN ORDER TO BELIEVE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB:"

Matthew really allows his personal feelings to be illustrated by the use of the word "ridiculous"; whilst the usage of the phrase-"have to think" demonstrates a condescending attitude that implies an immature group think mentality.
The biggest problem with this premise is that every one of the 5 points are incorrect.

EVERY ONE OF THE FIVE POINTS AMOUNTS TO A BIASED SLUR AGAINST THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROMULGATING THE REALITY THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

"I would hesitate to conclude much from the BBC probably confusing a warning of the immanent collapse of WTC 7 with its actual collapse"
There is no confusion here Maczenwes. The BBC ran a live bulletin advising us that WTC 7 had just collapsed and crossed to a journalist who confirmed the story whilst the building in question was standing upright behind her.

WTC 7 collapsed 20 minutes later.

"How about this, the buildings collapsed starting at the upper floors right where the planes hit, not from the bottom of the building like all controlled demolitions are."

Your premise is incorrect Egilmore, it doesn't account for the fact that a) the WTC collapsed at free-fall speed, and that as a consequence, 'the top down' collapse theory encounters too much resistance from the the floors below it to sustain your belief, and b) no plane hit WTC 7, yet it collapsed just as quickly as the other WTC buildings.

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE FROM THE NEW YORKER;

September 1, 2009

The First Five Steps Toward Believing 9/11 Was an Inside Job

I watched a program last night on the National Geographic Channel called “9/11: Science and Conspiracy.” I learned at least three things. One: people believe what they want to believe and it’s very hard to change their minds. Two: The National Geographic Channel’s definition of “science” is suspiciously loose and mostly involves blowing stuff up and filming it. And three: thirty-three per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. government carried out 9/11, or at least allowed it to happen.

That last one’s shocking to me. That’s one in every three people. That means that one of the Jonas Brothers believes that the U.S. government blew up the World Trade Center towers with super thermite explosives, shot the Pentagon with one of its own cruise missiles, and used an F-16 to shoot down a Boeing 757 full of innocent people in order to achieve a financial or political advantage. My money’s on Nick.

I’ll just say right here that I think the conspiracy idea is ludicrous. In order to believe something like this, you have to start with at least five equally ridiculous beliefs. Here they are:

FIVE RIDICULOUS THINGS YOU HAVE TO THINK IN ORDER TO BELIEVE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB:

1. The way those buildings came down looked a lot more like the footage I’ve seen of planned demolitions than the footage from all those other times when buildings were hit by jumbo jets.


2. From January 20, 2001, until January 20, 2009, whenever something bad happened, Bush was somehow behind it.


3. You have to be a really accomplished pilot to crash an airplane good.


4. Anyone who denies that the government operates according to secret, evil, greedy motives is secret, evil, and greedy.


5. Boy, I sure wish my life were more like the movies.

Posted by

I find myself astonished at how many people buy into crazy theories like this and the birthers. Honestly, it's embarrassing. egilmore - excellent point! I'm always collecting good explanations like that so I can try and counter the craziness and I hadn't heard that mentioned before.

Posted 9/3/2009, 12:07:58am by thorswitch

Good Questions SF. Here are some possible answers. There was a real difference between the classic "steel framed" skyscraper and WTC 1 & 2. The towers were supported not by an internal frame of steel but by an exoskeleton running full height of the outside of the building (in other words, the stripes down the sides were not decorative). This was to conserve weight, increase interior space and reduce footprint. For a conventional skyscraper to reach that height it would have meant a much smaller amount of floor space due to the supports, a base covering many many more city blocks at the bottom and it would have probably sunk into the Hudson from the weight. So the fact that it didn't act like a normal skyscraper when it "disintegrated" was not surprising. It was by design something of a house of cards. When the integrity of cross supports failed (caused by the fire) the exoskeleton buckled (probably why it looked like an explosion) and once that happened structurally all bets were off. As for the confusion around WTC 7, I don't know if you remember the craziness and confusion coming out of the news agencies that day (I was downtown that day and heard reports on the radio of everything from more bombs in Stuyvesant HIgh School to an attack by aliens). I would hesitate to conclude much from the BBC probably confusing a warning of the immanent collapse of WTC 7 with its actual collapse. "Pull" can mean a lot of things, including pulling out the firefighters and evacuating the rest of the building because the building is about to collapse. Keep asking questions though.

Posted 9/2/2009, 2:53:55pm by maczenwes

NatGeo's presentation was weak, but these "Truthers" are absolute fools. How about this, the buildings collapsed starting at the upper floors right where the planes hit, not from the bottom of the building like all controlled demolitions are. So I guess the conspirators got into the elevator shaft, hung themselves at the 93rd floor long enough to plant mysterious explosives, then the planes hit exactly where explosives were placed without damaging the methods of detonation (also mysterious). What a bunch of idiots.

Posted 9/2/2009, 1:20:38pm by egilmore

I see even the crazies read the New Yorker, too. How many steel-framed building have even been crashed into by a giant airliner and had their superstructures soaked in hundreds of thousands of flaming jet fuel? Why don't you answer that, take you meds, and get back to us.

Posted 9/2/2009, 12:47:26pm by Shriekback68

I agree that to blame our government for involvement in the events that day is an act of serious fruitiness. On the other hand, something very strange happened. I have no theories to explain any of it. It simply frustrates me more than I can express to observe a residue of unanswered questions, and have them brushed aside as prison planet paranoia. Of course it is outrageous to implicate the government, but why does that have to be the exercise in the first place? At any rate, here is some of the residual strangeness. A steel frame skyscraper has never collapsed because of fire---never in the history of humankind, even after being engulfed in major fires for several days. Three collapsed that day, after short fires. One of the buildings has the entire top section fall off to one side. The top section disintegrated in mid-air, for no apparent reason. The rest of the building then followed suit (fell down and violently disintegrated), although there was no visible mechanism to make this happen. No problem? OK. But they were hit by jet planes you say. They behaved in ways that could not be foreseen, because we are not used to seeing buildings getting hit by planes. Fair enough. But two were, one wasn't. The leaseholder of the whole complex, Larry Silverstein, goes on television and tells the world that he and the fire chief had decided that day, on 9/11, to "pull" (or demolish) WTC Building Seven, a decision you could not possibly carry out without days of preparation and rigging. Everyone is told to leave the building and evacuate the neighborhood. The building then comes down in a classic demolition. Twenty minutes before the building comes down, a BBC television reporter reads a news bulletin that says that WTC building 7 has just collapsed. WTC Building 7 can be seen behind her in the camera shot as she reads the news. This is a correctly rendered chain of events as far as I can tell. In the end Mr. Silverstein collects a $7 billion insurance payout for two separate acts of terrorism. No problem? OK, no problem.

Posted 9/1/2009, 11:12:34pm by SF

Me too.

Posted 9/1/2009, 11:05:32pm by neworleanians