RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Astronomer Carl Sagan was fond of saying this when talking about the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also used the expression in his own portrayal of intelligent life on this planet, in reference to his inability to find Saddam Hussein's WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) that didn't exist."

Artifacts on display from the attack at the Pentagon. (photo: John Makely/NBC News)
Artifacts on display from the attack at the Pentagon. (photo: John Makely/NBC News)


9/11 Museum World Trade Center Evidence: No Plane Hit Pentagon?

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

31 May 14

 

bsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Astronomer Carl Sagan was fond of saying this when talking about the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also used the expression in his own portrayal of intelligent life on this planet, in reference to his inability to find Saddam Hussein’s WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) that didn’t exist.

It’s a basically useful mindset that has both useful and useless applications, as in Rumsfeld’s using it to mean, apparently, something like: “We don’t need no stinking evidence, we know his WMDs used to exist, we believe they still exist, and that’s good enough – trust us.”

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” applies as well to the events of September 11, 2001, and it’s still not clear which usage applies best to which argument from any perspective. The assumption here is that, at a minimum, the official 9/11 story is false in some of its essentials. The official 9/11 story has too many elements to assume they’re all false, or even that they’re mostly false. On the contrary, whether one assumes official honesty or an official cover-up, the motive is the same: to get as much right as possible and/or necessary. The best lies are embedded in truth.

The 9/11 Museum is full of contradictions, acknowledged and ignored

The National September 11 Memorial Museum (cost: $700 million) opened ceremonially in New York City on May 15, 2014. The museum (operating budget: $60 million a year) opened publicly six days later (admission: $24). The openings were characterized by both reverence (President Obama called the museum a ”sacred place of healing and hope”) and controversy (over the gift shop, and especially its Darkness Hoodie ($39) and its United-States-shaped cheese platter with hearts marking 9/11 death sites (price unavailable), as well as serious censorship (no charge) and the CEO’s salary ($378,000)).

A “Museum Review” in The New York Times pondered the museum’s “trifurcated identity:”

Was it going to be primarily a historical document, a monument to the dead or a theme-park-style tourist attraction? How many historical museums are built around an active repository of human remains, still being added to? How many cemeteries have a $24 entrance fee and sell souvenir T-shirts? How many theme parks bring you, repeatedly, to tears?

Because that’s what the museum does. The first thing to say about it, and maybe the last, is that it’s emotionally overwhelming….

Despite that overwhelming ad hominem character, emphasizing the emotional impact of the lives of the living and dead, the museum defines itself with a contradictory pose of academic detachment: “The National September 11 Memorial Museum serves as the country's principal institution concerned with exploring the implications of the events of 9/11, documenting the impact of those events and exploring 9/11's continuing significance.” More credibly, the museum defines its mission as bearing witness to the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 and 2001. Most compellingly, the 9/11 Museum seems to be a guardian of the official 9/11 story.

Omission can also be a form of bearing witness

Among the 9/11 Museum's artifacts on display (its collection numbers more than 10,000 items, mostly small and personal), there are parts of the Boeing 767 airliners that hit the twin towers. The larger artifacts include a charred piece of fuselage with a missing window and the “World Trade Center Cross” (which a federal judge has ruled an “artifact,” not a violation of the First Amendment separation of church and state). The museum also has a collection of unidentified or unclaimed human body parts, some 14,000 of them, stored in an underground repository not open to the public.

Without apparently intending to do so, the 9/11 Museum’s body of evidence that tends to reinforce the official 9/11 story in New York, also tends to reinforce longstanding questions about the official 9/11 story at the Pentagon. That story is that the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757 carrying 58 passengers and 6 crew) flew into the Pentagon at almost ground level, killing all aboard as well as 125 in the building (all but five of whom were, eventually, officially identified).

From the beginning, the official 9/11 Pentagon story caused cognitive dissonance, since the visual evidence suggests that nothing as big as a 757 could have hit the outside wall of the Pentagon and disappeared even more completely than the planes that hit the World Trade Center, where they burned until the WTC collapsed around them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The alternative stories posit a missile or specially rigged small plane hitting the Pentagon. There is no known physical evidence to support such stories. According to Snopes.com (as of April 2008), these stories are false. Much of the evidence collected by government investigators remains secret. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Even a determined debunker of 9/11 skeptics, while laying out a coherent argument that the official 9/11 Pentagon story is true (and conflating physical evidence with photography), ends up concluding:

In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence – primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.

The 9/11 Museum, for all its claims to being the principal institution for exploring the events of 9/11, has next to nothing to say about the Pentagon or about the other 757 that crashed in Pennsylvania. New York has shown more respect for the dead than the Pentagon, where higher officials overruled subordinates and dumped human remains in a landfill.

The first step in learning the truth is choosing to look for it

At best, the events of 9/11 represent the catastrophic failure of numerous American agencies, including airport security, air traffic controllers, national air defense command, and the U.S. Air Force. That reality alone is enough to raise suspicions of a cover-up, if only to avoid accountability for lethal incompetence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

At worst, the events of 9/11 were the result of an almost unimaginable criminal conspiracy designed to produce the “new Pearl Harbor” that would enable fans of the New American Century (many of them members of the Bush administration) to take the United States in new, warlike, world-dominating directions (maybe something like a Global War on Terror).

In any event, the Bush administration fought long and hard to prevent any investigation of 9/11 and continued to work to undermine the 9/11 Commission until it produced its flawed report in August 2004. That final report omits any mention, much less explanation, of what Vice President Dick Cheney knew and when he knew it regarding the attack on the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission knew full well – and chose not to confront – the serious implications of the testimony to the commission by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (May 23, 2003):

During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out … the plane is 30 miles out … and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”

Conspiracies are by their nature hard to discover and hard to prove. All the same, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Even now, still in the shadows of 9/11, it might be instructive to hear President Bush and members of his administration vigorously questioned, under oath, as to why they decided to pay no attention – none at all (Bush is said to have told a CIA officer “you’ve covered your ass,” which sounds in retrospect almost like foreknowledge) – to the CIA briefing paper with the title: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” Long after the facts of 9/11, the Bush people defended their absolute inattention and inaction based on the absence of evidence.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-57 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-05-31 11:11
What bullshit. Where did the plane go if it didn't hit the Pentagon? Did the hijackers just crash it in the ocean? Or did they land in the Bahamas and now all the passengers live in comfort with William Casey? Read the testimony from the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.
 
 
-27 # Seadog 2014-05-31 11:31
Where do these people come from? I hear the same nonsense from people at these sites about the two planes that hundreds of eye witnesses saw hitting the buildings in NYC and the one that crashed in PA. If none of them actually did this then where are they? In the Arab world the story is that Israel did it, no shit. That no Muslims were involved and that Mossad and the CIA planned the whole thing crashed the planes etc. Talk about wanting to believe. We same the same denial with the climate deniers , holocaust deniers and people that don't believe in science like Evolution etc.
 
 
+85 # WBoardman 2014-05-31 12:26
Pablo Diablo and Seadog raise valid questions, of course.

And the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
whether its passengers or thermite or any of the other
anomalies of the official 9/11 story.

Pablo Diablo and Seadog also make the same intellectual
mistake apparently assuming it's an all-or-nothing deal
as far as the official story goes.

As I tried to make clear, there's enough controversy, withheld
evidence, obstructionist behavior, sloppy investigative
procedures, etc etc to support the conclusion that the
True Believers are at least as crazy as Conspiracy Extremists.

A link to the Moussaoui trial's relevant testimony
would be a token of arguing in good faith.

Seadog's expansion of my exploration of the Pentagon to
all the 9/11 sites is disingenuous and irrelevant.
Witnesses in Shanksville? Really? link, please
The Mossad meme has been around practically since
day one, but it's good to discredit it (on what evidence?
(either way)?) since I didn't mention it. ;-)))

Seems to me the real 9/11 deniers are the people
who have no questions despite more than enough
physical and circumstantial evidence to discredit
what we're supposed to believe – even though that doesn't
get us to what's real (provably, with some certainty).
 
 
+73 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 14:02
#

I wish that I could say that you couldn't be anymore wrong, Bill. You need to come out of apparently being stuck in the middle. There is almost no truth whatsoever to the 9-11 official fairy tale / real conspiracy theory. In fact, the 9-11 official story is one of the biggest, most outrageous conspiracy theories of them all.

http://www.form-legal.com/wordpress/

#
 
 
+45 # Doubter 2014-05-31 23:28
The videos of those three buildings coming down make it 'obviously obvious,' even to a brain damaged individual, such as myself that it was a controlled demolition; carefully planned and executed by high level individuals. Their only mistake, as far as I can see, was to make the fall so clean and perfect; or maybe they wanted to intimidate and terrorize and cow us into submission and passive acquiescence by shoving the facts in our faces.
On the other hand, maybe they were more interested in avoiding "collateral damage" as they didn't want to damage their buddies' buildings. The whole operation stinks to high heaven. You'd have to be brain dead to accept the official story.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2014-06-01 00:48
These "high level individuals"--g ot any names?
 
 
-3 # RobertMStahl 2014-06-01 09:29
The names change to protect the guilty. Blackwater is not Blackwater anymore, but they are around (like, in the Ukraine, you know, Greenwald's y Omidyar's backyard?)

Where is Indira Singh?
 
 
+12 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-01 19:07
Quoting Caliban:
These "high level individuals"--got any names?

Larry Silverman, for one, Caliban. He is on tape as saying "JUST BRING IT DOWN",referring to building "C", the third tower. Larry apparently owned all three towers and collected millions and millions of dollars in insurance money. I'm "brain dead", too, but even I know you you can't just "Bring down" a giant building like that with just a phone call. Remember Ed Asner? He makes it very clear right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hZEvA8BCoBw
 
 
+17 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 20:15
#

Okay, "ChickenBoo", you need to get it all correct; otherwise, you harm the credibility of all 9/11 Truth(ers):

* It's Larry SilverSTEIN.

* He said, "...just pull it", a term for controlled demolition.

* It was Building 7, not 'C'.

* He collected BILLIONS of dollars in the insurance settlement.

Ed Asner is great! He is one of the greatest 9/11 Truthers of them all! Another was Colonel Bob Bowman of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, formerly of NASA, who passed away a few months ago.

#
 
 
+13 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-01 20:19
Quoting John S. Browne:
#

Okay, "ChickenBoo", you need to get it all correct; otherwise, you harm the credibility of all 9/11 Truthers:

* It's Larry SilverSTEIN.

* He said, "...just pull it", a term for controlled demolition.

* It was Building 7, not 'C'.

* He collected BILLIONS in the insurance settlement.

Ed Asner is great! He one of the greatest 9/11 Truthers of them all!

#

Ooops! I DO apologise, John! Thank you for catching that!!! I did warn you I was "brain dead"!
 
 
+4 # intheEPZ 2014-06-03 10:19
Marvin Bush.
 
 
+1 # PatG 2014-06-03 14:35
To Caliban: "high level individuals" Those in charge of security- would be a grand place to start. Care to take a guess who was in charge of security? Was close family member of W.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2014-06-03 14:59
I agree. Didn't know about Marvin until now.

But there is still no evidence that the three towers were brought down by the huge amount of internally planted explosives that would be required to achieve such a task.
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2014-06-03 15:28
#

Yes there is, liar. There is a GREAT DEAL of physical evidence that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition (and you know it---if you've truly investigated 9/11 Truth like you claim).

#
 
 
+4 # tonywicher 2014-06-03 18:22
There is a huge, overwhelming amount of evidence, from the fact that the towers fell through what should have been the path of greatest resistance, with 80,000 tons of cold structural steel to fall through, at free-fall acceleration, or close, meaning there was zero resistance, which is physically impossible unless the vertical columns were cut simultaneously and instantaneously with explosives. And then there is the fact that thermite residue was to be found all over the place. But it was not "found", because NIST's job was not to find out what really happened but to cover up what really happened. Please go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, ae911truth.org where there are many highly qualified experts not paid by the government or the CIA who will explain these things to you.
 
 
-13 # RobertMStahl 2014-06-01 08:41
Considering that all degrees in engineering are degrees in physics, it might be 'true to oneself' if the laws of physics applied to physics, itself. But, our species has trouble living with itself when self-evidence is held, and casts blame on the messenger, instead. Since GUTCP is 100% an application of physical laws in all circumstances, where quantum mechanics heretofore is anything but, there is something so fundamental about our species historical relationship to ecological thought (i.e. non-existent) that one has to consider if the entire PARADIGM to which we are subject to is wrong, or just this 50/50 proposition. Rudolf Steiner, really one of the best ecological minds of our time (d. 1926) said that 'evil' would become less Luciferic (100%), and more Ahrimanic (i.e. 50/50) in these times. The allopoietic implications continue to trump the autopoietic (from F.J. Varela, Principles of Biological Autonomy...) This might require an intelligence that, even in hindsight, recognized an 'opposing thumb' as opposed to a monkey wrench (sitting in the drawer, nonetheless).
 
 
+19 # reiverpacific 2014-06-01 09:35
Quoting RobertMStahl:
Considering that all degrees in engineering are degrees in physics, it might be 'true to oneself' if the laws of physics applied to physics, itself. But, our species has trouble living with itself when self-evidence is held, and casts blame on the messenger, instead. Since GUTCP is 100% an application of physical laws in all circumstances, where quantum mechanics heretofore is anything but, there is something so fundamental about our species historical relationship to ecological thought (i.e. non-existent) that one has to consider if the entire PARADIGM to which we are subject to is wrong, or just this 50/50 proposition. Rudolf Steiner, really one of the best ecological minds of our time (d. 1926) said that 'evil' would become less Luciferic (100%), and more Ahrimanic (i.e. 50/50) in these times. The allopoietic implications continue to trump the autopoietic (from F.J. Varela, Principles of Biological Autonomy...) This might require an intelligence that, even in hindsight, recognized an 'opposing thumb' as opposed to a monkey wrench (sitting in the drawer, nonetheless).

Eh? I English please---??
 
 
+20 # AndreM5 2014-05-31 14:10
You are being too generous with Seadog. I can't follow his points at all.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2014-06-01 00:54
Seadog's main thought is really a very straight forward question: "the two planes that hundreds of eye witnesses saw hitting the buildings in NYC and the one that crashed in PA. If none of them actually did this then where are they?". So, where, in fact, are they?
 
 
-3 # jojo5056 2014-06-02 18:36
Same place "Malaysian airline flight 377 is parked--Israel?
 
 
-1 # PatG 2014-06-03 14:38
This is part of the "known unknowns" of the crafty plot. We need a REAL investigation.
 
 
+89 # lorenbliss 2014-05-31 15:06
What matters most about 9/11 is the use to which it has been put.

Just as the Reichstag Fire enabled Hitler to nullify the Weimar constitution and turn Germany into a Nazi dictatorship, so did 9/11 enable the One Percent and their political servants to nullify the U.S. Constitution and turn the United States into a plutocratic dictatorship.

In other words, just as the Reichstag Fire was the birth of the Third Reich, so was 9/11 the birth of the de facto Fourth Reich, the zero-tolerance global empire of the USian plutocracy.

Moreover, just as the truth of the Reichstag Fire is lost due to Nazi secrecy, so is the truth of 9/11 lost by USian secrecy. In either case, public knowledge of what truly happened will never be allowed.

But the debate is allowed because it serves two purposes. It distracts us from the use of 9/11 – the permanent nullification of our constitution (and our reduction to powerlessness thereby) – and it helps preserve the Big Lie of USian democracy.

Indeed, the fact the debate is tolerated tells us it can never unearth the truth. Were it otherwise, it would be suppressed as quickly and violently as the Occupy Movement was suppressed.

Given the influence of Nazi war criminals on the U.S. government after World War II, the Reichstag-Fire pattern is itself suggestive. So is the fact the Department of Homeland Security structurally duplicates the dread SS Reichssicherhei tshauptamt.
 
 
+39 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 15:19
#

Loren, so much of what you say in this comment is right on the money; but you're very wrong about the truth of 9-11, and you show that you evidently haven't really, significantly studied it; because there is a great deal of physical and circumstantial evidence about the truth of 9-11 that has already come out, much if not most of it long ago; and it's to be found on the many expert, professional websites of 9/11 Truth, full of professionals and experts, and "tons" of evidence of the truth of what really happened on 9-11. The truth of how 9-11 happened, and who was truly responsible for it, DOES matter; and we ARE already getting to the bottom, and to the top, of it. Additionally, we HAVE already done so to a great extent. Please study 9/11 Truth thoroughly, and the truth about it WILL set you free, no doubt about it at all!

For links to many of the best 9/11 Truth websites:

http://www.form-legal.com/wordpress/

#
 
 
+28 # lorenbliss 2014-05-31 16:44
While I surely appreciate the supportive tone of your response, John S. Browne -- and I indeed agree "a great deal...has already come out," the same can be said of the assassinations -- JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, RFK -- that were the gateway to the road that ended at 9/11.

Again taking the Reichstag Fire example, Soviet intelligence (and the worldwide Communist Party) knew the truth within hours -- that the Nazis set the fire and framed the halfwitted Marinus van der Lubbe and the Communists for the crime -- but the official German version was never refuted, even after the war.

Much the same is true of 9/11: no matter how much contrary evidence is ferreted out, the official version will remain unchanged until the USian Empire is no more – which, given the givens – will probably not occur until our species itself is extinct.

To believe otherwise is to be in denial about not only about our own powerlessness but about the absolute determination of those who oppress us.
 
 
+9 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 17:31
#

(Excuse me, I meant to "thumbs-down" that comment/reply of yours, not "thumbs-it-up".)

And they call me a cynic. In truth, I am quite a cynic, but I believe your cynicism far underestimates 9/11 Truth.

Yes, the official story might officially stand "forever", but it has already been, and will be ever more so, shot full of holes and completely discredited. Further, there is FAR MORE evidence of what much of the truth is about 9-11, and who was responsible for it, than there is about the truth of what really happened to JFK, etc., and who was responsible for it. Only those who refuse to go study 9/11 Truth, and who choose to instead continue to live in avoidance and denial of the truth about 9-11, will continue to believe the 9-11 official LIE(S). Granted, that will probably continue to be the majority of "Amerikans", but most people in the rest of the world who have any knowledge of the real facts about 9-11 at all, and even misconceptions about what occurred, know that the official fairy tale and conspiracy theory is just that, and that shadow government factions of the U.S. and global government, including "al CIAduh(!)", the Saudis, the ISI and the Mossad, were responsible for 9-11. Only "Amerikans" and those others who know little or nothing about it, believe the official lie(s), if they even know anything at all or enough about it to be able to even believe that.

(Continued)
 
 
+19 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 17:33
#

I may be wrong, but I choose to believe, and/or to greatly hope, that 9/11 Truth will win out, and that the entire world, including all or most Americans, will come to know without any doubt(s) whatsoever what really happened on 9-11 and who was truly responsible for it. So, I hope you're wrong on this point. Millions of Americans and others have already woken up to the real truth of what truly happened and who is really responsible on and for 9-11, so we can hope that millions, if not billions, more will. But perhaps I'm just in an overly-optimist ic mood right now?

#
 
 
0 # jojo5056 2014-06-02 18:49
John--never will happen. Take a look at 6 major media outlets,their take on Sept 11 2001 attacks--all push the line--Muslims did it. A lot has to do with them being Jewish owned. On the nite of Sept 11 2001 over 200 supposed to have been Israel students--were flown to Israel. But instead the scam was Saudis family members took flight :^(
 
 
-2 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-03 13:08
Quoting jojo5056:
John--never will happen. Take a look at 6 major media outlets,their take on Sept 11 2001 attacks--all push the line--Muslims did it. A lot has to do with them being Jewish owned. On the nite of Sept 11 2001 over 200 supposed to have been Israel students--were flown to Israel. But instead the scam was Saudis family members took flight :^(


jojo, I remember in the early days of 9-11, when Osama Bin Laden was still communicating. He said he didn't do it, but that ISREAL was the one. Everyone scoffed of course...why would Isreal attack us? But he added that there were no Jews in those towers when they went down. How in the world he'd know that I don't know, but it IS interesting that the center was/is Jewish owned. Just follow the money, as I always say.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2014-06-03 15:04
ChickenBoo, do you really believe there were no Jews in the WTC buildings on 9/11?
 
 
-2 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-04 10:01
Quoting Caliban:
ChickenBoo, do you really believe there were no Jews in the WTC buildings on 9/11?

I have no idea if there were no Jews in the Trade Center when it went down. But knowing now that Larry Silverstein (a Jew) owned those buildings, it makes it plausible that he wouldn't have wanted to kill any of his own. And for the record, I have nothing against Jews. Thugs come in all walks of life. But that might have been something worth looking into at the time.
 
 
+10 # lorenbliss 2014-06-01 03:56
JSB, your thumbs-down prompts my blunt response:

To paraphrase Thomas Paine, these are indeed times that try our souls, infinitely more so than in 1776, when we had a seemingly endless future, while today the core truth of our lives is that we live on a dying planet.

In this context I see my own duty as mandated by the genocidal malevolence of the One Percent, which is transforming the survival of the 99 Percent into revolutionary defiance. My obligation is to aid that survival as best I can -- never mind I'm a crippled, impoverished old man.

That's why I give several hours each week to 15 Now Tacoma, the purpose of which is to make workers' lives a bit less wretched. It's why I edit and produce two journals, a local tenants' newsletter and my internationally read blog.

For the record, since early 2005 I have assumed 9/11 was either a Reichstag-Fire re-run or was deliberately allowed to happen.

After all, Nazi war criminals were the primary tactical and strategic influence in the postwar USian Empire, and false-flag aggression – Google “Operation Himmler” (no quotes) – was a standard Nazi tactic.

Given the morally imbecilic nature of capitalism, such atrocities are inevitable – and the tyranny of capitalist governance leaves us powerless to avenge them.

Hence I do not waste my time on causes – like the hunt for 9/11 truth – that offer no hope of easing the fear and misery in which we 99 Percenters increasingly live.
 
 
+12 # ganymede 2014-05-31 17:28
Thank you Mr. Boardman for airing so much of the 9/11 controversy. I saw first hand much of the fire, smoke and collapse, and have tried to follow the endless discussions about plots, thermite, weaknesses in the structure of the two towers, etc. I actually met a retired Port Authority engineer who was involved with the construction of the World Trade Center and he said there were a number of cost-cutting measures taken during construction and one of them was to leave out certain parts of the internal floor supports to save money, and because the buildings, like many others in New York City were over-engineered .

My bottom line is whether everything was pre-planned or not, the Bush/Cheney neocon mob allowed it to happen and they were in cahoots with the Saudi-Arabian monsters. It was a brilliant plan, they thought, to take over our country, and it's almost working! It's treasonous enough, that they were well aware that planes were going to fly into buildings and did absolutely nothing about it.

The reason I can't buy whole hog into the various conspiracy theories is because it would have taken hundreds of people to pull this off, and there hasn't been one shred of evidence that this guy or that, poured thermite around hundreds of steel beams, and what happened to the people on the Pentagon plane...? etc.

Our leaders deliberately lied and turned a blind eye to what was happening in their lust for more power and money, and eventually justice will be done.
 
 
+32 # geraldom 2014-05-31 18:13
Mr. Boardman, the absolute worst airplane crash in the history of airplane crashes is the one that took place on March 27, 1977 on the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands when two 747s collided on the airport runway. Not one of them disintegrated into nothingness. There were huge chunks of debris everywhere, including their huge titanium engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

The following is just one image of many of what the Pentagon looked like for the first 30 to 40 minutes before the wall and the roof actually collapsed:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/aerial1.html

For the first 30 to 40 minutes after impact of the Pentagon, the only major physical damage to the Pentagon outside of the cracks on the face of the wall was a 16 foot diameter hole at ground level. The wall and the roof had held for that long. Therefore, if a 757 did hit the Pentagon, what is absolutely certain is that the wings, the tail section and the solid titanium engines did not penetrate the building at all.

From the above image, which shows absolutely nothing in terms of debris from a 757 anywhere on the front lawn, where are the humongous wings and tail section, and where are the two 8ft diameter solid titanium engines? They didn’t disappear into nothingness!!

(continued)
 
 
+24 # geraldom 2014-05-31 18:18
(continued)

The following URL links you to the site with all of the Pentagon attack photos:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html


The following URL shows you Footage From Two Pentagon Security Cameras Showing Moments of Attack. Where is the 757?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html

Enough of the foolishness that the Pentagon was hit by a 757!!

The planes that attacked the twin towers in N.Y. were not the alleged passenger planes that were hijacked. I’m not going to deal with the passenger planes since I have no idea what happened to them. I can only deal with the hard evidence at hand.

After the first plane crashed into the North Tower and before the second hit the South Tower, virtually everyone with a camera came out of the woodwork. When the second plane came in, every shutterbug was taking pictures. The second plane showed a distinct object attached to the right side of the fuselage just in front of the wings, a pod, something that wouldn’t be found on a commercial airliner. It is clearly indicated on all the front pages of the magazines that came out that fateful day.

In the DVD documentary entitled “9-11 Ripple Effect,” a film that you need to watch, someone was able to take a video shot of the second plane flying into the South Tower from a very high vantage point.

Just give me a P.O. Box, and I'd be more than happy to send you a copy of “9-11 Ripple Effect."

(continued)
 
 
+23 # geraldom 2014-05-31 18:19
(continued)

He began taking this video when it was a quarter or a half mile away from impact. In the DVD, at about the 12 minute mark, you can clearly see flames beginning to emanate from underneath the plane where the pod is located and expand as the plane got closer and closer to the South Tower. If you pause the film at the 12 minute mark, you can use the Chapter-Skip button on your remote to see what’s happening on a frame-by-frame basis. Again, this is something that one wouldn’t see on a commercial jetliner. This was not a commercial jetliner and neither was the first plane!!

Each of the twin towers was supported by an inner core and the outer frame of the building. The inner core was the strongest of the two and it used 47 massive vertical steel beams from the very bottom of the building to the very top. None of the two planes hit the center of either of the buildings, especially the second plane which hit the South Tower which came down first. The second plane hit the South Tower at a skewed angle.

The odds that all 47 of these massive inner support beams would fail at the very same time due to the fire and the heat on a single floor is almost impossible. The odds that all 47 of these massive inner support beams would fail at the very same time on all of the floors that had collapsed and in the perfect floor order is close to infinite for just one tower. The odds of this happening with both towers, I leave that up to you, Mr. Boardman.

(continued)
 
 
+31 # geraldom 2014-05-31 18:19
(continued)

Let’s add Bldg 7 into the mix. Bldg 7 was rectangular and only half as tall as the twin towers, and it wasn't even hit by a plane. The odds of all the vertical beams failing at the same time and in the perfect floor order in Bldg 7, forget it. Never happened!!

Mr. Boardman, one can’t simply say that the official Bush admin story is pure BS. One has to give hard evidence , or to show very strong doubt as to its veracity, and what I just gave you does exactly that.

9/11 was a successful false-flag event to justify every bad thing that Bush had done over his 8 years as an illegitimate president, and which has been continued by the Obama admin, and, some ways, made worse by Obama, the NDAA and the illegal drone attacks just being some examples.

I give you the following URL which will take you to the “Operations Northwood” document:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

This was an official false flag plan submitted to JFK in the early 1960s by Gen L.L. Lemnitzer, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, to justify an invasion of Cuba. Unlike G.W. Bush, who totally lacked a soul and a conscience, JFK not only rejected this plan out of hand, he fired General Lemnitzer.

Another successful false flag event which didn’t initially cost any lives was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution under pres Johnson. It did, in the end, cost the lives of over 55000 U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians.
 
 
+4 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 11:22
geraldom, thanks for your offer

RR2, Box 550
Woodstock, Vermont 05091
 
 
+6 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 12:35
#

I apologize, I should have checked this yesterday (or it would have mattered if not for the following). I thought perhaps I recalled that Netflix had 9-11 Ripple Effect available; but, if they did, they don't right now [but that doesn't mean it won't be (back?) on Netflix at a later date]; so, it's good that Gerald is sending it to you.

At present, Netflix does have a couple of excellent 9/11 Truth documentaries available for immediate viewing [if you have a Netflix account (sorry to shill for them, but it's only $9.99 per month; and then, even if you don't have a device such as a Blu-ray, Roku or game player, etc., to watch it, you can watch it on your computer by simply going to the Netflix website in your browser, logging in to your account, and viewing from there, including in large and/or full screen mode).] What Netflix has right now is, 911: In Plane Site; and Loose Change 9/11. They have had more in the past, and they will undoubtedly have more in the future, but the lineup constantly changes; and, often, films are temporarily removed only to return at a later date.

Anyway, those two documentaries are excellent; and many of the other excellent ones, which everyone should watch, including the two on Netflix now, are available in full-length through YouTube, many of them even in HD (just do a YouTube or Google search for "911" and/or "September 11th", etc.).

#
 
 
+1 # geraldom 2014-06-01 23:44
Just read your message, Mr. Boardman. Will send it out to you within the next couple of days.
 
 
+3 # geraldom 2014-06-02 16:38
Since I don't like wasting envelope space, in addition to "9-11 Ripple Effect," I will also be sending you a copy of "911 Press for Truth" which is the story of the three New Jersey women who lost their husbands at the World Trade Center and were the driving force behind forcing George Bush into forming what turned out to be a big farce, the 9/11 Commission hearings.

I don't know if you've heard of this documentary or perhaps watched it, but it shows how George Bush screwed these ladies over.

I am also sending you a DVD where Kevin Ryan, one of the main members of 9/11 Truth, gives a honest and straightforward technical lecture on why the official story put out by Bush on what happened to the World Trade Center buildings is pure hogwash.
 
 
+2 # WBoardman 2014-06-03 09:42
geraldom, thank you –
looking forward to all of it.

Knowing only the rough outline of the Jersey Girls story,
I've thought they were some of the real heroes in all this struggle to know the truth and achieve accountability.
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-06-03 16:54
Quoting WBoardman:
geraldom, thank you –
looking forward to all of it.

Knowing only the rough outline of the Jersey Girls story,
I've thought they were some of the real heroes in all this struggle to know the truth and achieve accountability.


Mr. Boardman, your package is on the way. It was mailed out today, Tuesday, June 3rd. The Post Office says you should get it by Friday.
 
 
-24 # Caliban 2014-06-01 02:07
To William Boardman: The fact that the (9/11 Commission contains some gaps and errors does not mean that the Truther sites actually contain any truth--despite the fact that your piece has elicited a huge amount of speculations pretending to be truths, as you can see below.

My own reading of the Truther sites--and their "true believers" here today--has persuaded me of two things. First, they rely almost totally on unverifiable and meaningless negative assertions, like Doubter's: "The planes that attacked the twin towers in N.Y. were not the alleged passenger planes that were hijacked". And, second, having made such assertions, they have no answer to obvious potential critiques of their assertions, as with Doubter again:" I’m not going to deal with the passenger planes since I have no idea what happened to them". Frankly, I'll put the 9/11 Commission's hard won content and real evidence against this typical "Truther" lameness any day.

Nor, by the way, have the Truthers released convincing evidence of the guilt of a single individual who may have committed any of the "true" misdeeds they so confidently claim occurred. So while I agree with you that there is much that is yet unknown about the 9/11 attacks--and much that is devious and reprehensible about the uses the Bush crowd made of them--there appears to be no truth to be found among the Truthers comparable to the solid work done by the 9/11 Commission investigators.
 
 
+11 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 11:57
Caliban shouldn't get to have it both ways,
since neither the 9/11 True Believers
(like Caliban, by default)
nor the Truthers/doubte rs have a slam dunk case
(apologies for any echo of George Tenet, but
he IS a useful reminder of the reliability of experts).

Partly that's because the two sides are talking about
different things at different times with often different evidence, and both tend to dismiss hard questions out of hand. [generalization , yes, pace exceptors]

Explain the planes and passengers.
Explain the thermite and debris fields.
Explain the pancaking of an unhit building.
Explain the security holiday.
Explain the Saudi immunity.
Explain the continuing secrecy.
Explain the opportune stock trading.
[AND MUCH MORE]

My intent, starting this list, was to show some "balance"
of anomalies citer by both official believers and doubters.
Now I'm looking at a list in which the ONLY thing(s) I can
find that doubters have no convincing explanation for
is what the planes and passengers were, if they were not
what they've been represented officially to be.

Presumably I'm missing something, for which I apologize
in advance – but what, exactly?
 
 
-13 # Caliban 2014-06-01 16:00
A "true believer"? The only things I truly believe in are (a) that the attacks on 9/11 were conceived of and executed by the jihadist soldiers that the 9/11 Commission identifies and (b) that the planes that crashed that day and the passengers that died (including the highjackers) were the planes and passengers identified by the 9/11 Commission.

I have opinions about other issues on your list but few certainties. However, here are some opinions:

I trade stocks on a small scale and know there are "opportune" stock--and option-trades every day, though not many by me.

I think the Saudis were whisked out of the country because some were Bush oil buddies and that there was a reasonable fear of a citizen backlash against Arabs.

I am not chemist enough to comment on "thermite" issues, but I feel pretty confident that WTC security--or even building residents--woul d have noticed and reported dozens of workers (as Jim Hoffman speculates) busily replacing nearly 2 million of the original large ceiling tiles with an equal number of explosive new ones --plus detonators and detonator charges--in WTC offices.

I don't know what "security holiday" you refer to--other than that the Bushies seemed always to be on holiday. And I have no opinion on Building 7 beyond the difficulty of planting explosives un-noticed. And the "secrecy"? It is Pentagon based--and when are they NOT secretive?

So call me a "true opinionator".
 
 
+11 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 17:53
Caliban seems to be a True Believer in the sense
that he falls in the category of accepting the official 9/11
story in its essentials. I did not mean to sound derogatory. Maybe I should have used "Acceptors" and "Rejectors"

As to the other points:

* as I understand it, the stock trading in American Airlines
was way off scale 9.10/9.11

* that's the official story for the Saudi release, but
it doesn't seem adequate to excuse ALL the Saudis
from FBI questioning when the majority of the hijackers
were Saudis (that breaks basic investigatory rules,
looks like coerced incompetence or, more darkly,
accomplice after the fact

* seems like the thermite was there, which needs
explanation; also there was, apparently, significant
WTC maintenance (elevator shafts) during the weeks
prior to 9/11, when the security cameras were also down
* the "security holiday" I had in mind was shutting down
NORAD for 9/11 so there was no air defense system,
which had been in place for decades

* Building 7 housed a CIA station

* it's not just Pentagon secrecy, evidence continues to be
kept secret by the FBI, Transportation Dept, and probably
other federal and city agencies – 13 years later, what
credible national security (or other) justification is there?

So, dear "true opinionator," for the record let's note that
all your opinions tend to or do defend the official story.
 
 
+2 # geraldom 2014-06-03 21:08
Mr. Boardman, my absolute belief that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration, a false-flag event as it were, has to do with the hard evidence at hand, what can obviously be seen in the pictures and the videos that were taken that fateful day, the fact that there exists absolutely no debris from a 757 outside the Pentagon on the front lawn, most especially the humongous wings, the very large tail section, and the two 8ft diameter solid titanium engines.

I cannot accept hearsay by the very government that is guilty of perpetrating this heinous crime. Check out the following image:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/aerial1.html

Where is the plane?

If you closely watch the documentary "9-11 Ripple Effect," the plane that hit the South Tower cannot be a commercial airliner carrying passengers. Between the pod underneath the fuselage, which you would never find on a commercial jetliner and what looked like flames or something emanating from it just before the plane impacted the building, there is no way in hell that it was one of the alleged hijacked airliners.

The so-called air crash site in Shanksville, Pa., showed absolutely no debris from a large jetliner. Nothing of what can actually be seen makes any sense when compared to the official story put out by the Bush administration
 
 
+10 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 20:40
Scott Forbes had to shut down the computer servers for his employer due to a 'power down' scheduled for the week-end just before 9/11...during that week-end Mr. Forbes noted that all the security was turned off and many strange workers were in the building running cable...officia l explanation was new computer cables...also Mr. Forbes reported that in the weeks leading up to 9/11 there was dust all over the interior of the buildings as if the cleaners were not cleaning at all.
 
 
+9 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 20:28
You might try doing the math...Newton's Law of Falling Bodies. This will demonstrate that the buildings fell at free-fall speed, an impossibility for the narrative of the 'Official History.' You should also read Webster Griffen Tarpley's 'Synthetic Terror Made In USA' DVDs of interest are '911 mysteries' and 'Zero'
 
 
+9 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 13:01
#

You are one extremely brainwashed person. The 9-11 Commission Report is shot full of errors and lies, as well as many intentional lies-by-omissio n. They purposely didn't interview many very important witnesses; and, where they did interview a couple of them, they blatantly ignored their extremely important testimony. And, for much of the Commission's allegations, they provide no proof to support their (unwarranted and false) conclusions.

So, you and your ilk can of course continue to put your faith in such a typical "Warren-Commiss ion-like" cover-up if you wish, but most of it has already been thoroughly debunked by the experts and professionals of 9/11 Truth, including whistleblowers about what did and did not happen.

What I suggest to those not in-the-know who are reading these comments here, is that you don't let yourselves be influenced by such brainwashed (aka, "washed-of-brai ns") naysayers such as "Caliban", and go research the matter for yourselves. Yes, there are some real 9-11 conspiracy theorists out there, not least of which are the 9/11 Truth deniers like "Caliban"; but the "9/11 Truthers" who are real conspiracy theorists are, rather than the "conspiracy FACTUALISTS" that most of them are, few and far between; whereas most 9/11 Truthers are NOT conspiracy theorists AT ALL.

(Continued)
 
 
+4 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 13:03
#

The best place(s) to start in researching the real truth about 9-11, are some of the many excellent, highly professional websites devoted to the cause, which are filled with MANY experts.

I further suggest that you start by going to my blog, not to "toot my own horn", but in order to find the links to the several websites of which I speak, via the following link:

http://www.form-legal.com/wordpress/

#
 
 
+5 # Pikewich 2014-06-02 17:38
Caliban, nothing falls through a path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed unless that resistance has been removed.

The 2 trade towers fell at roughly 10 seconds from beginning to final resting. If a golf ball had been dropped from the top of either of those buildings at the same time, it would take roughly 9 seconds.

The dust has been chemically analyzed and contains traces of explosive demolition. These elements do not exist in planes of in office buildings.

If you want a scientific analysis, done by licensed architects and engineers, look into ae911truth.

Leave off with the blame game and do the research.
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2014-06-02 23:00
No "blame" from me, Pikewich. I am just interested in the truth like most commenters on this site. And I have researched both sides and still don't find sufficient evidence on the Truther side either to reject the work of the 9/11 Commission or to place the blame for the attacks on the Bush/Cheyney administration- -though I despise them as much as anyone here.

I will even admit that I have learned some things I didn't know before and even that I may learn enough some day to change my mind. However, disagreement is not "blaming", and I don't blame anybody either for searching for the truth or having a different vision of than I do.
 
 
+9 # lewagner 2014-06-01 00:48
Where did the plane and passengers go if it DID hit the Pentagon??
 
 
0 # Pikewich 2014-06-02 17:40
very good question, what happened to the passengers after the planes went into zones that were not covered by radar. Remember, all those flights took very indirect routes to NY and DC.
 
 
+3 # jojo5056 2014-06-02 19:08
Just after the hit--Rumsfeld and 50 FBI agents were photo graphed, picking up various plane parts from the Pentagon lawns.Just happened--empty dumpster was provided. Notice--all the plane parts have disappeared? New 911 museum--not a trace of plane parts. did you folks see the photo of one plane engine neatly settled on the sidewalk under a awning and no damage to the sidewalk?
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2014-06-03 00:38
The Wikipedia article on Flight 77 is pretty thorough and seems to be well documented. If it is accurate, the plane drove through the walls deep into the inner rings of the building where it burned for quite a long time. The passengers--all torn to barely identifiable pieces--were eventually buried at Arlington National Cemetery in a group grave.
 
 
+12 # Capn Canard 2014-06-01 09:10
Take a peak at these architects, engineers and pilots ask you to question:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

and

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

Tragically, where the plane and it's passengers ended up is secondary. The only explanation of how the collapse of two 1100' towers(WTC-1 and 2) fell in under 11 seconds, and the additional collapse of 450' high WTC-7 fell without being hit by a projectile/plan e is magical with the cover of the shock we were all in at the time. In my opinion, that is what "shock and awe" is all about.

I suggest that we employ intense impartial investigation to pursue those avenues or we can continue to live in a world of magical thinking.
 
 
+4 # Pikewich 2014-06-02 17:43
Don't leave out that the area around WTC7 was cleared out and people were told to get away the building is coming down. These videos are on youtube for all to see. There is even one with a guy walking away from WTC7 and you can hear "10, 9, 8, 7..." coming out of his communicator.
 
 
+17 # Capn Canard 2014-06-01 09:12
Might I recommend the work of AE 9/11 Truth or Pilots for 9/11 Truth?

No... it doesn't match the Bush Admin's story. Too many people profited from the events to change their story now. They're all in, and questioning their story is like kryptonite to them. They will use every trick in the book to keep the sheeple from pulling back the curtain.
 
 
-4 # jojo5056 2014-06-02 18:29
Pablo-I suggest you watch the movie called "Eating Raoul"' All planes left the runways and into hangers. All planes gassed and crew dead and shipped into Canada Quebec. Bodies transported to a Montreal Rendering dead animal plant. No joke!
Recall Boston airport's manager admitted all the videos of the watch towers--he personally destroyed the and dumped them in pieces through out the airport's waste bins. He was Jewish. Never got arrested or taken to task at 911 commission. :^(
 
 
+71 # QueenBee62 2014-05-31 11:24
There is also speculation that 7 World Trade Center, which was not hit by a plane but was the only other building in the area to collapse, was a controlled demolition. 7 WTC housed, among other things, NYC's emergency command center and a secret CIA office. Conspiracy theorists believe that the the WTC towers were destroyed, not because they were hit by planes, but because they were imploded from 7 WTC. In fact, the video of the towers falling looks like a demolition.

That said, and given that other evidence has been omitted from the 9/11 Commission's report, it is no surprise that the 9/11 Museum gives only the official version of the history of this momentous tragedy. Many Americans find it unbearable to consider that our government might have orchestrated or allowed such a thing to happen.

In addition, Obama, wishing to let the past be the past, adamantly refused to charge or even to question Bush and his New American Century cohorts about this or the illegality of the Iraq War or anything else the Bush administration should have been held accountable for.

We will probably never know the whole truth.
 
 
-59 # Caliban 2014-05-31 12:21
"The whole truth? No, we will never know the whole truth of an event as complicated and influential as the 9/11 attacks were and still are. However, the core truths of the events on 9/11 itself are described clearly, accurately, and without fantasy by the official 9/11 Commission Report. Study that first.
 
 
+16 # Robineagle 2014-06-01 01:20
This is complete nonsense. I have read the official report. It is full of omissions, things not looked into, failure to question high level officials under oath, etc. While I don't believe it was a coverup it might as well have been and I am pretty sure that Zelikov tried his best to make it one.
 
 
+5 # jojo5056 2014-06-02 19:16
Caliban--would you like to write back--how long it took GW Bush to allow 911 Commission and who pushed for it.
What money was allowed for the Commission and compare that to what was allowed for Bill Clinton's Blow Job commission.
 
 
-5 # Caliban 2014-06-02 23:15
To Robineagle and jojo5056: I never said the Commission Report was complete or without error--only that the "core truths" were to be found there--i.e. that the jihadists--not the Bush government--kid napped and crashed the aircraft involved.

And I completely agree that the Bush administration did its best to obstruct the Commission Report, but they did so to cover up their national security incompetence and not their guilt for an act of mass murder.
 
 
0 # AndreM5 2014-05-31 14:13
Apparently 7 WTC also stored the diesel fuel for the emergency generators on its roof and somewhere (I can't find it tho) there is photographic "evidence" that flaming debris from the aircraft that hit 7's roof. I have a long list of questions about the 9/11 report, but I only offer this tidbit FYI.
 
 
+7 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 20:51
If diesel fuel can melt steel, why did we need to use Blast furnaces all this time? Why don't my steel pots melt on the stove? If kerosene can melt steel in an uncontrolled 'dirty' (open air) burn, certainly a gas stove which is a 'controlled' burn, and which burns hotter should destroy any steel cooking pot. The 'Official History' is the real Conspiracy Theory...or hypothesis, since a theory must take into account and explain every facet of an event.
 
 
0 # jojo5056 2014-06-02 19:24
Building codes DO NOT ALLOW combustible liquids to be stored above ground. WTC7 was vacant for over 5 years.Unless--w ere purposely installed for the planned fireworks to happen.
Larry Silverstein approved the design and structure. I'll bet $10 that the WTC 7 was pre wired for demo in it's construction phase. Building housed various government offices and FBI files--gone gone.
 
 
+8 # Vardoz 2014-05-31 17:34
Obama has been castrated by our shadow govt.
 
 
+6 # futhark 2014-05-31 22:45
My opinion is that Mr. Obama is very much a willing instrument of the shadow government. He is their tool to continue the policies of the Bush Administration under cover of "hope" and "change". Far too many people took him at his word rather than examining his voting record in the Senate in service of state surveillance apparatus.
 
 
+5 # indian weaver 2014-06-01 06:11
I'd say rather that Obama castrated himself, and it is likely when he was born. He is responsible for his behavior (words, thoughts, actions), no one else. If he's too cowardly to be honest, then that is what we get: a coward, but, still, making his own decisions, due to cowardice.
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2014-06-03 09:59
I see the anti-Obama bigots are out again, but I don't see why.
 
 
+93 # reiverpacific 2014-05-31 11:59
I'm just one member of "Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth" -hardly a collection of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists, and all efforts to request verifiable and accurate engineering/ scientific evidence that the Twin Towers were NOT designed demolitions INCLUDING BUILDING 7, not touched on in this article, have been stonewalled or ignored by "official" sources in the manner of critics of the former Warren report post-JFK's Murder.
And several demolition contractors have added their voices.
I actually have no argument that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were indeed hit by hijacked planes but that this alone was insufficient to topple them in the way that they fell.
What IS an undeniable fact is that 9-11 culminated in providing the excuse to ultimately make the US the surveillance state it has become, the rationale to go to war on the wrong countries by the Dimwits crowd, whose approval rating was headed into the basement before the incident, that it was the spawning ground of "Shock and awe", the destruction, looting and anarchy of one of the cradles of civilization, the longest war in US history, the squandering of billions of our dollars on no-bid contracts for "Torquemada" Cheney's cronies in KBR/Haliburton, the era of torture and Guantanamo, the buzz-word, blanket term "Terrorist" and the weekly targeted killings of anybody who displeased big bro'.
There's more but consider -what's NOT to love about it all, as if by design even- if you are a confirmed neocon.
 
 
-101 # skylinefirepest 2014-05-31 12:46
Reiver my man...why don't you just simply pack your shit and go to a country that you can live with without ignorance and hatred??
 
 
+37 # shagar 2014-05-31 13:35
there are hundreds of ways to rebut your ignorance, but lets try this one : do you know that the temperature of airplane fuel from a jets fuel tank will never heat steel enough to melt it? ( Kinda like trying to boil water beyond 100 C ) so? even if you allow for the weakened steel idea which is well debated, how do you account for all the pools of molten metal that persisted for weeks after the collapse. what fuelled their molten state for so long. Or put another way: how'd that sumbitch building go boom, dummy? better yet , how dat sumbitch building go boom what got no enough fuel no how? Get the idea? (sorry for the dummy crack, I meant willfully blind and easily led)
 
 
+4 # WBoardman 2014-05-31 14:06
reliable source on jet fuel temps and steel?
 
 
+13 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 15:02
#

Bill, if you'd studied 9/11 Truth like you should have long before now, you would already know the answer to that question. Please COMPLETELY pull your head out of the ground, and go completely study 9/11 Truth. It's long overdue for you and most "Amerikans" (who are quite brainwashed into blindly trusting the U.S. government).

#
 
 
+20 # AlexBrown 2014-05-31 19:52
Quoting WBoardman:
reliable source on jet fuel temps and steel?

This is standard engineering reference book information. Also: UL certified the specific ratings of the WTC1/2 steel; a UL test lab director responsible for the certification wrote to deputy chief of NIST's metallurgy division questioning jet fuel fire weakening, and was fired for his trouble -- one of many "whistleblowers " enforcing the laws of physics. (http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired) There is ample physical evidence -- see ae911truth.org and others -- please read it.
 
 
+9 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 21:07
Quoting WBoardman:
reliable source on jet fuel temps and steel?

Tarpley's book in a section called 'Fact check' (pg 239) notes: 'the melting point of steel is 1,538 degrees Celsius, equal to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, although it will weaken and buckle at somewhat lower temperatures. the absolute maximum that can be achieved with hydrocarbons, such as the kerosene-like mixture used for jet fuel, is 825 degrees C or 1517 F-unless the mixture is pressurized or pre-heated through an admixture of fuel and air...'
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2014-06-03 10:03
But the steel beams were weakened not by the simple burning power of jet fuel but by the much larger and hotter fire the jet fuel started in the building itself--a fire in which many different kinds of combustibles were burning furiously enough to drive trapped tenants to leap from the windows to their deaths many stories below..
 
 
+3 # PatG 2014-06-05 17:04
Wrong. Scores of high-rises have burned for hours and NEVER collapsed. These are cited in many 911truth websites. You just have to care enough to go look.
Also, regardless of how hot the fires may have burned- the smoke from those fires, prior to collapse, already were dark gray, indicating to ALL people who are not blind- that the fires were already burned out and did not have enough air or fuel to burn. And yet at that time, as you can see in multiple videos, the solidity of the structure was evident and the cooldown had already occurred, as victims inside the buildings were photographed, holding onto the shards of the open building- clearly not being burned by the heat, but able to stand and look for help. Explain those pictures and videos.
 
 
+16 # reiverpacific 2014-05-31 15:39
Quoting shagar:
there are hundreds of ways to rebut your ignorance, but lets try this one : do you know that the temperature of airplane fuel from a jets fuel tank will never heat steel enough to melt it? ( Kinda like trying to boil water beyond 100 C ) so? even if you allow for the weakened steel idea which is well debated, how do you account for all the pools of molten metal that persisted for weeks after the collapse. what fuelled their molten state for so long. Or put another way: how'd that sumbitch building go boom, dummy? better yet , how dat sumbitch building go boom what got no enough fuel no how? Get the idea? (sorry for the dummy crack, I meant willfully blind and easily led)

Try not to stretch the limit of this poor sod's atrophied mental scope too much -it might hurt! As I've discovered in the past, it has no capacity for debate -only humorless belligerence like all reactionaries.
Save y'r energies and blood pressure buddy.
 
 
+17 # geraldom 2014-05-31 21:23
Quoting shagar:
....even if you allow for the weakened steel idea which is well debated, how do you account for all the pools of molten metal that persisted for weeks after the collapse. what fuelled their molten state for so long.


If you watch the documentary entitled "9-11 Ripple Effect," somewhere near the end of the film you will see molten steel pouring out of one corner of the building before it collapsed. Airplane fuel will not burn hot enough to do that to steel, most especially the steel that supported the twin towers.
 
 
+25 # reiverpacific 2014-05-31 15:35
Quoting skylinefirepest:
Reiver my man...why don't you just simply pack your shit and go to a country that you can live with without ignorance and hatred??

yawwwwnnn !
Pestilence of the skyline, "My man". You are officially on my "Do not respond as is a hopeless and hate-filled, blinkered reactionary". As I respond to other "America, love it or leave it" predictable ignoramuses, I'll go when it's MY idea Bubba.
Rant on all you like and try to find some happiness if you know what that is, somewhere outside of y'r little blinkered world.
But keep yer knob-headed redneck rhetoric for those just like you -there are plenty. And BTW, your post contributed exactly nothing to the discussion as always.
By-ee; love and kisses -heh-heh!
 
 
+14 # CAMUS1111 2014-05-31 17:07
it's hard for him to hear you when his head, such that it is, is imbedded so far up his ass
 
 
+23 # Montana 2014-05-31 17:06
The mainstream news has done a marvelous job discrediting anyone who questions the honesty of the U.S. government. It's been so ridiculous over the last few years that I've concluded they have been either bought or threatened. I think there's more free and honest press in Russia now than we get. As a result, anyone who has half a brain and uses it to question matters gets branded a "conspiracy theorist." Oh, don't they love that term?? Translated in the public's naive mind -- "nutcase." Very sad indeed...
 
 
+61 # mgabriel 2014-05-31 12:05
Congratulations Mr. Boardman for having the courage to write these things given the certainty that you will be excoriated as a conspiracy theorist. Queenbee apparently is unaware of the fact that WTC 7 was not hit by any airplane. Yet it collapsed in its own footprint initially at free-fall speed, indicating clearly that it was brought down by controlled demolition as were the other two towers. This is also confirmed by the molten metal present at the base of the towers which impeded the clean up operation for days after 9-11. Also convincing were the news videos with audio of the security guard in the vicinity of WTC-7 warning bystanders to flee because "this building is coming down". All should check out Architects and Engineers for 911 truth on the web to get the complete set of evidence concerning the certainty that the towers were brought down with thermite explosive.
 
 
-13 # Wildcat 2014-05-31 12:12
I'm confused about these rumors of a plane hitting the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated:
"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center" on the DOD website (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845).
Former Secretary Rumsfeld was the man in charge at the scene and should be a credible source, so what evidence is this "plane" conspiracy theory. We are just lucky the missile hit the back side of the Pentagon where only the accounting records are kept and spared the top brass.
 
 
+42 # reiverpacific 2014-05-31 12:39
Quoting Wildcat:
I'm confused about these rumors of a plane hitting the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated:
"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center" on the DOD website (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845).
Former Secretary Rumsfeld was the man in charge at the scene and should be a credible source, so what evidence is this "plane" conspiracy theory. We are just lucky the missile hit the back side of the Pentagon where only the accounting records are kept and spared the top brass.


The "Top Brass" as you so kindly call them, are the main plotters of many of the reasons that so many nations are pissed-off enough at the US for invading, usurping and exploiting their lands in the first place, to become "terrorists" in combating a military Goliath -bigger than the next 26 countries combined, with the only means they possess- like David's little slingshot or even less, by comparison.
 
 
-26 # Misterioso 2014-05-31 13:14
One thing these conspiracy nut bars have in common is a lack of detailed knowledge of the history of US and/or Israel's monstrous crimes against the Palestinians and other Arabs, including installing and maintaining utterly corrupt, self-serving pro-US dictators, wholesale slaughter, mass dispossession, expulsion, occupation and oppression. Those of us who do know the truth were not at all surprised when 9/11 occurred and have no difficulty in accepting that it was in fact carried out by highly motivated, fearless, cold-blooded and very clever young Arabs who had had enough.
 
 
+24 # shagar 2014-05-31 13:46
and of whom, there were enough warnings that went unheeded; that were under regular surveillance ; and none of whom seemed able to pass but the barest minimum of flight training yet alone complicated flight manoeuvres; sure that idea makes sense if the world was as simple as you want to believe it is. look up the phrase "false flag" and see where that rabbit hole takes you. what we want to believe and what is there just below the surface are vastly different things. "But but but ...they found one of their passports in the debris at ground zero!" hahaha . hook line and sinker.
 
 
+13 # keenon the truth 2014-06-01 06:09
@Misterioso

Well, at least you got this bit right:
'Israel's monstrous crimes against the Palestinians and other Arabs'
 
 
+8 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 21:13
Certainly the peoples we have oppressed are angry and have had enough...but all the anomalies in the 'Official State History' such as the complete collapse of the buildings, the three big explosions heard by innumerable witnesses including firemen on that day, the total failure of NORAD, the free-fall speed of the collapse, the molten metal, the damage to the basements of the buildings pre-collapse, the huge chunks of metal blown across the street and embedded into World Financial 3, the large crater in WTC 6 (never mentioned!) and many,many others all argue against the official story, including the fact that at least 5 of the 'hijackers' are still alive! all this can be checked BTW!
 
 
0 # jojo5056 2014-06-02 19:34
Them Arabs must have been super heroes to have pulled it off. By the way--8 of the supposed hi jackers are found to be alive. 4 of them started a law suite in USA and never got day lite.
 
 
+40 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 12:19
#

For all of you deniers and/or "debunkers" (I put the latter in quotes because, in truth, the so-called "debunkers" haven't truly debunked 9/11 Truth AT ALL), concerning whether a HUGE Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, just look at the one video released by the government purporting to show the 757 hitting same: IT DOES *NOT* SHOW ANY SUCH THING! Watch it closely in slow motion. It shows (how do I describe it?) a "length" (for lack of a better word) of fire, AND NOTHING ELSE, just before WHATEVER IT WAS that hit the Pentagon; AND IT WASN'T LARGE ENOUGH TO BE A 757, PERIOD!

That is ALL the video shows, which was obviously taken from a stationary camera pointed in the direction of where the 757 allegedly hit the Pentagon. The video starts by showing nothing in the field of view of the camera, and then you see the "object", whatever it was, come through that field of view, looking like it was engulfed in fire; or, showing an object not big enough to be a 757, moving through the camera's field of view so fast, that all you see is the flame protruding from the back end of it. YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT THE OBJECT WAS, *AT ALL*.

(Continued)
 
 
-48 # skylinefirepest 2014-05-31 12:44
Ok, so I presume that you were an eyewitness to history?? Your bullshit only indicates ignorance of the day. Have you talked to any of the firemen who went into the towers that day? Did you talk to the film makers who were eyewitnesses to the event? You're just another conspiracy oriented dude!!
 
 
+23 # ReconFire 2014-05-31 19:59
Quoting skylinefirepest:
Ok, so I presume that you were an eyewitness to history?? Your bullshit only indicates ignorance of the day. Have you talked to any of the firemen who went into the towers that day? Did you talk to the film makers who were eyewitnesses to the event? You're just another conspiracy oriented dude!!


Have You? Because I can tell you that the FBI confiscated all of FDNY's emergency comm. on 9/11, but they forgot that Orange NJ. FD responded as mutual aid on that fateful day. Their tapes got out. Now let me be clear, I'm not talking about a small town Fire Dept. I'm talking about very experienced high-rise Firefighters who called their command post to report explosions going off all over the twin towers while they were in them. Also as a 15 yr. professional FF., I can tell you that a steel framed building has NEVER been brought down by fire, much less at free-fall speeds. The only ignorance here today is you with you're head buried where the sun doesn't shine. One more thing buildings that do collapse from fire don't collapse on their own footprint. Anyone who has been to a structural collapse class knows this was controlled demolition, plain and simple.
 
 
+9 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 21:14
The firemen on the tapes can be clearly heard talking about explosions inside the buildings.
 
 
0 # jojo5056 2014-06-02 19:40
Firepest--film makers--two brothers from Quebec--just happened to have their cameras pointed at WTC 1 and 2. And get this-copy writed. FYI: bad job in photo Shop.(plane piercing into a concrete steel building--throu gh concrete elevator shaft and oooops--plane's nose cone appears coming out the other end. Wake up fool. plane's cone is thin aluminum !
 
 
+37 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 12:56
#

Why then, if it was truly a 757 that hit the Pentagon, will the government not release the several other videos that were shot by cameras pointing at the Pentagon from various vantage points that morning? There is absolutely NO logical reason(s) for not releasing those videos... UNLESS THEY TOO DO *NOT* SHOW A BOEING 757 HITTING THE PENTAGON; and perhaps, in fact, show that something else hit that building.

Now, let's consider some of the other "evidence" that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon: None of that "evidence" shows enough plane debris to have been a 757. The pictures of the exterior of the Pentagon where the plane allegedly hit, *BEFORE* THAT PORTION OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, shows an entry hole THAT WAS *NOT* LARGE ENOUGH FOR IT TO HAVE BEEN A BOEING 757 THAT HIT THAT SPOT. Furthermore, either before or after that part of the Pentagon collapsed, the available pictures SHOW *NO* WING MARKS WHATSOEVER, where they WOULD HAVE hit the building, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CRASH POINT, if it indeed had been a quite large Boeing 757 which hit same.

(Continued)
 
 
+38 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 12:56
#

Even with the so-called "explanation" that the wings folded up and disappeared into the point of impact where everything supposedly disintegrated, the pictures of that section of the Pentagon, *BEFORE* IT COLLAPSED, quite tellingly DON'T SHOW *ANY* WING MARKS *WHATSOEVER* WHERE EITHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE PLANE ALLEGEDLY STRUCK WOULD HAVE, UNDER THAT SCENARIO, CAUSED THE WINGS TO FOLD BACK AND PROCEED TO ENTER THE IMPACT ZONE WITH THE REST OF THE PLANE, AND THEN DISAPPEAR AND DISINTEGRATE.

In addition, other pictures show UNMELTED plastic computer monitors where the rather large fire allegedly occurred; and, on top of all that, pictures also show the exit hole at the other side of the steel-reinforce d concrete sections of the Pentagon, and THAT HOLE IS *FAR* TOO *SMALL* TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BY THE NOSE OF A 757 AIRLINER (and, in fact, is the size of a missile, AS IS THE ORIGINAL ENTRY HOLE BEFORE THAT PART OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED).

In short, according to ALL of the publicly-availa ble evidence, a humungous Boeing 757 airplane did *NOT* hit the Pentagon! (There is more evidence that it did not happen, but I'll leave it at that, at least for now.)

Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

My blog for other 9/11 Truth websites:

http://www.form-legal.com/wordpress/

#
 
 
-15 # DaveM 2014-05-31 12:38
The Pentagon is an armored building designed to protect against enemy attack. The World Trade Center towers were not. I'm sure that made a difference in the damage both to the building and to the aircraft which struck it. The latter was of course tracked on radar by multiple sites until a few seconds before it hit the Pentagon, when it descended below radar coverage.

WTC7 was on fire for hours before collapsing. Structural steel loses nearly 90% of its strength at a temperature well below the heat generated by burning jet fuel and many building materials. A building is balanced on top of its structural base. If that base loses its strength, the building collapses. Yes, at the speed of gravity into its own footprint.

"Implosions" of buildings by explosive demolition are generally preceded by weeks of work in which most of the supporting structure of the building is cut away, leaving it unstable and barely standing (it does happen that buildings collapse during preparation). The actual "implosion" is merely a final "push" which completes a great deal of manual labor. None of which took place inside any of the World Trade Center buildings.
 
 
-13 # lnason@umassd.edu 2014-05-31 13:02
DaveM:

Excellent recital of the facts. As a construction engineer throughout my professional career, I confirm your observations regarding the yield point of steel and regarding the logic of the "implosions".

The "mysteries" are mostly (if not all) the result of technical ignorance regarding these issues.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+31 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 14:19
#

Lee, you need to go to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and get a correct education of the truth about 9-11. If you think that over two-thousand professional engineers and architects would put their professional credibility and reputations on the line if their truth were wrong, you are more part of the mass-insanity, and willful avoidance and denial of the truth, than you already appear to be.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

#
 
 
+29 # reiverpacific 2014-05-31 15:45
Quoting John S. Browne:
#

Lee, you need to go to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and get a correct education of the truth about 9-11. If you think that over two-thousand professional engineers and architects would put their professional credibility and reputations on the line if their truth were wrong, you are more part of the mass-insanity, and willful avoidance and denial of the truth, than you already appear.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

#

And as I noted -I'm one of those Architects, who actually does their own structural engineering -and NOT a conspiracy (Con's - piracy???) nut.
But anybody who meekly accepts the government's official line on ANYTHING major -especially the Dimwits crowd's- is a ready recipient of other lies from the top of the pyramid.
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 16:20
#

Brian, I'm the one who gave this comment of yours the very first "thumbs-up". But what's your point, if I might ask? Are you saying that on other things I allegedly accept the government's, and/or the neocon's, official line, and/or that I am supposedly a "conspiracy nut"? If so, I don't know where you got that idea, and/or those ideas, about me from, but I don't hold with the "Dimwits" crowd WHATSOEVER, and I am NOT "a ready recipient of other lies from the top of the pyramid". I, in fact, see right through all of, and am completely against, the lies from the top of the New World Order (NWO) pyramid.

Forgive me if you're talking about who I was originally responding to in this context; in which case, I stand corrected ahead of time. :)

#
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2014-05-31 19:48
Quoting John S. Browne:
#

Brian, I'm the one who gave this comment of yours the very first "thumbs-up". But what's your point, if I might ask? Are you saying that on other things I allegedly accept the government's, and/or the neocon's, official line, and/or that I am supposedly a "conspiracy nut"? If so, I don't know where you got that idea, and/or those ideas, about me from, but I don't hold with the "Dimwits" crowd WHATSOEVER, and I am NOT "a ready recipient of other lies from the top of the pyramid". I, in fact, see right through all of, and am completely against, the lies from the top of the New World Order (NWO) pyramid.

Forgive me if you're talking about who I was originally responding to in this context; in which case, I stand corrected ahead of time. :)

#


I was, as you suspected, responding, second-hand, to "lnason@umassd.edu", who seems to inhabit another "reality" from previous posts.
I've refuted, disproven and challenged this person several times in the past and had absolutely no response, so I piggybacked on your post as an option.
Sorry if you became confused. Carry on mate.
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2014-06-01 23:32
John--the "official" report was done--if my recollection is correct--by the American Society of Civil Engineers, a group of over 140,000 professionals with a far superior level of "credibility" and "reputation" than your group.
 
 
-14 # Caliban 2014-06-01 00:41
Thank you Dave and Lee for bringing some reality to this discussion. To Lee's point about "technical ignorance" as the source of the so-called mysteries, I would have add that the Truthers also have quite amazing imaginations--s o much so that I'm surprised they haven't argued (yet) that what most of us saw as airliners hitting the buildings in question were actually dragons.
 
 
+4 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 21:20
Yes, they were dragons...Musli m magicians are very clever..they can melt steel with kerosene, they don't need blast furnaces...so what appeared to be only planed with kerosene fuel were in actuality dragons because in this world kerosene/hydroc arbons in a dirty burn can't melt steel!And BTW, the buildings were hermetically sealed...oxygen had to be pumped into them and the designers also engineered the stairwells in the central core to be also sealed to there would not be a chimney effect. furthermore, black smoke is a sign of poor combustion; the fire is not burning well.
 
 
-1 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 21:43
#

...(A)fter the jet fuel / kerosene was quickly burned up completely, consuming much of the oxygen.

#
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2014-06-01 23:22
"Consuming much of the oxygen"? Come on--those buildings were huge and very open and airy, much more so than the average tall building in the city. There was plenty of oxygen for a very powerful fire to thrive and grow in.
 
 
+35 # Glen 2014-05-31 13:41
DaveM the Pentagon was not hit by a major weapon of war. Neither was the WTC. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to warp or melt beams of the type in the WTC. I do, in fact, have the original building plans for the WTC in a box in my basement, that some folks referred me to. The buildings were built to withstand an airplane hitting them due to their height. An airplane did hit the Empire State Building and it did not collapse. Right, it wasn't a 757, but that building is nothing close to as strong as the WTC was.

Also, there is no record of any building collapsing due to fire of any length of time, including hotels, business offices, etc., which would prove no reason for Building 7 to fall.

If it was a simple fire that took down the WTC why did the basement burn for weeks afterward?

Why did Cheney order all aircraft to participate exercises out west, unable to respond to any wayward aircraft? Had they been available, this would have never happened. They are normally on wayward aircraft in a heartbeat.

Employees in the buildings DID report odd bumping and footsteps on what were empty floors next to theirs. Who would even think to investigate under suspicion?

It is a lot of research to wade through, but in light of what this has done to the U.S., it is worth it.
 
 
+24 # Glen 2014-05-31 13:49
Also, the WTC had been condemned due to asbestos insulation and could not be sold. Interestingly, a Bush cousin bought it and insured it for a hell of a lot of money prior to the attack.
 
 
+15 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 14:24
#

Larry Silverstein is a Bush cousin? That's the first I've heard that one, and I thought I was pretty-well versed on 9/11 Truth. But I confirm everything else that you said.

#
 
 
+14 # Glen 2014-05-31 16:56
Distant cousin and family friend. All these people have close relations, including the building "security" and similar. But you know that, thanks to your research. It is all pretty nasty but the puzzle pieces have been put together.
 
 
+10 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 21:22
Marvin Bush the youngest brother and Wirth, the cousin were part of the firm, SecureCom, that was responsible for the security of the WTC and Reagan and Boston/Logan airports as well! No conspiracy here..no sir...nothing to see...move along now....
 
 
+4 # Anonymot 2014-05-31 16:09
Glen, Whoever you are, I think you've got it all wrong. I was trapped in the rubble and later had some of the "dust" analyzed by a specialized lab out of the country. There was no, zero, asbestos present. There WAS a substance as toxic as asbestos, but legal. Where did you get the idea that the WTC had an asbestos problem?
 
 
+8 # Glen 2014-05-31 16:49
One source:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html

Among others.
 
 
0 # Anonymot 2014-05-31 19:02
It's a web hosting site that gives me:
404 Error File Not Found

The page you are looking for might have been removed,
had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

I have had professional experience with asbestos and my first suspicion was that the "dust" included it. The government was lying about air safety which is why I had it tested outside the U.S. Asbestos was outlawed before the WTC went up or during its construction, I don't remember the dates. I checked at the time, even wrote the NYT, but no one was interested in the real story so I dropped. But I seem to be the only person around who knows why the firemen and workers are coming down with cancers and such.
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 19:15
#

I had no problem going to the URL.

#
 
 
+7 # Glen 2014-06-01 06:43
There are other sources you might check, Anonymot. You do already know about the air "quality" lies and asbestos, though, so there's little need to check further. I had forgotten those lies about the air safety until you mentioned it. The lies and cover-ups are astounding. Just the fact that the government would lie about the particles in the air is very telling and should have caused folks to question everything else.
 
 
+3 # Glen 2014-06-01 06:46
The WTC had been condemned due to asbestos. That is a fact.
 
 
+5 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 12:15
ASBESTOS

This seems a credible story:
asbestos was used in WTC in most early construction.
Builders stopped using it circa 1970 as ban seemed on way
Asbestos was no problem till it was dispersed.

http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/

If the WTC was "condemned" in any legal sense is not
easily confirmed – this 2010 video affirms at least
metaphorical condemnation of WTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7haUpsR3G6A

The video also raises the callous indifference to the lives
and health of rescue workers and other New Yorkers,
a callousness consistent with sacrificing airplane
passengers.

Fox News says asbestos dangers are junk science http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/09/14/asbestos-could-have-saved-wtc-lives/

What seems to be a fact is that the WTC was a money-losing
albatross which might have been prohibitively expensive
to retrofit or replace safely. Thanks, 9/11.

This was a New York Port Authority project –
given what Chris Christie has shown us about the
Port Authority now, has anyone looked into what
it was like in 2001?
 
 
+3 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 21:25
Also in the mix after the buildings were demolished (rather than just 'fell) were lead and cadmium from destroyed computers, mercury from fluorescent lights,pulveriz ed concrete, Americium from smoke detectors...a health worker said it had the acidity of 'Drano'
 
 
+2 # soularddave 2014-06-01 12:33
I have no reason to doubt your test results, but I have heard different. Now, about those asbestos ban dates..

I just Googled WTC construction dates and asbestos ban date. Wikipedia and the EPA websites suggest that the opening day of the 2 WTC buildings *and* the asbestos ban, were both in 1973.

I'd be interested in seeing any "dust test results" you might share. Also those from any other *known* source. Also, results identifying other toxins would be interesting, and might add to the discussion.

Details, details, details...
 
 
+1 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 13:07
soulardave – good questions

* I assume there's no dispute that there was no significant
asbestos danger while the WTC was standing

* I assume there's no dispute that the 9/11 WTC debris,
grey dust, etc was extremely, but not uniformly toxic

The asbestos video noted above says there were
some 40 identified toxins, without naming them.

At this link, some are mentioned, with links to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks:

Inhalable & ingestible toxins certainly included asbestos,
mercury, dioxins, and human body parts
 
 
+26 # WBoardman 2014-05-31 14:04
DaveM comparison of the Pentagon to the WTC
reinforces what seems to me a mystery:

The planes hitting the WTC disappeared like hot knives
into soft butter, leaving plane-shaped holes behind. OK. But there was still some sizable debris (on display at the
museum).

If a 757 (granted, a slightly smaller plane) hit a much
stronger, reinforced, fortress-like Pentagon,
how come it disappeared even more completely
than the planes that hit the softer targets?

Why isn't there a much more typical debris field?
 
 
+15 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 14:59
#

BINGO!... EXACTLY!

#
 
 
+8 # Glen 2014-06-01 11:42
WBoardman, what have you learned about the plane in Pennsylvania? It is my understanding that no debris was strewn about as would be expected and absolutely no one was allowed in that field. One fellow who reported on it all did get a photo from higher ground and saw only a crater.
 
 
-3 # allfive 2014-06-01 15:24
Please take a look at the photo in the link. Yes, it is an official Navy photo taken by a regular duty person, not a black-op sort enlisted for the Great 9/11Deception, unless you could tell me how this scene was staged:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg

Who placed all the debris pieces in the wide, visible field in the photo so soon after the incident? Who placed all the first responders in convincing positions and created the smoke? Who placed the obvious piece of plane debris in the foreground? Ever worked a movie set? This stuff takes time to orchestrate.

You suggest that if the plane really didn't create that conflagration, it might have crashed in the Atlantic to explain its disappearance. Don't you think ATC was tracking each of the planes involved with great certainty?!? If that flight was diverted to the Atlantic, how did those air traffic controllers and military radar trackers obfuscate that computer data, then immediately and unanimously agree that their observations were top secret, national security, lips-sealed-for-life?

I'm surprised the RSN readership can be so involved with these misdirected fictions.

BTW, the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to D.C. is nothing like the remote, unmapped Pacific region where the Malaysian flight disappeared. That area is as unknown as outer space, nothing like the ocean near Washington. Really, why do you keep baiting the commenters? :)
 
 
+3 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 17:24
allfive's photo shows a remarkably unscorched piece
of airplane fuselage (it seems) in a nicely framed picture
taken before the Pentagon partially collapsed.

It certainly looks like it means something and evidence
contrary to its obvious intended meaning is hard to come by
and mostly circumstantial. But there is no other purported
piece of Flight 77 anything like it in size or marking, as
far as I know (I've done some looking).

It needs an alternative explanation, if there is one.

As for ATC, that may not be the slam dunk it appears to be.
There was a system test that day which caused considerable
confusion about whether the WTC attacks were even real. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tapes-reveal-terror-in-air-traffic-control-as-911-attacks-unfolded-2351477.html

Was there enough confusion to allow for a credible
argument that ATC did NOT have a fix on Flight 77?
Needs a cogent answer.

The Atlantic is a big place and Flight 77 was headed for
Los Angeles, had been aloft about an hour, and so had several hours of potential flight left, right?

One person's bait is another person's attempt to keep
all possibilities open till persuasive evidence shuts them down. ;-))
 
 
+9 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 21:36
On 9/11 there was a hijack drill going on..there were many 'blips' inserted into the radar for this drill...the name of the drill was Amalgam Virgo...another drill going on the same day was an evacuation of the National Reconnaissance Center due to a simulated plane crash into that building.This is where people monitor our spy satellites...ob viously with these 'eyes' going dark, the meandering 'hijacked' planes were neither seen nor intercepted...a lso most of our fighter force was over Northern Canada participating in another drill called Northern Vigilance...coi ncidence? Ed Sulzback an FBI profiler said, in another context:"There really aren't many coincidences in life. And to call coincidence after coincidence after coincidence a coincidence, is just plain stupid."
 
 
+4 # Glen 2014-06-02 06:45
Allfive, readers are so involved because this particular event changed the U.S. forever. Forever. The majority of people eschew research in favor of trends and misinformation via mainstream sources and the government. They also do not believe their own government could be so conniving as governments in other countries. "They would never do that to US!"

Yes, they would and they have.

It takes a lot of time to do the research and I probably would not have except a fried sent one of the first DVDs on the subject, which caught my attention. As stated often in the past, there are boxes in my basement filled with research, which convinced me of the fact of government violence and the changes that will never be amended.
 
 
+2 # Glen 2014-06-02 06:47
A friend sent the DVD, not a fried!
 
 
+36 # WBoardman 2014-05-31 12:42
Thanks, QueenBee62!

WTC Building 7 is one of the larger elephants in the room,
which is probably why it's mostly ignored whenever possible.

Does the 9/11 Commission Report (with no index) talk
about Building 7 at all (I'm not finding it easily)?

There is no single master Conspiracy Theory, there
is a whole range of attempts to explain anomalies for
which there is no credible official explanation.

For example, there is no inherent contradiction in
accepting that the towers were hit by planes AND
that they were brought down by explosives.
That would provide a more compelling explanation
of why the Mayor shipped the evidence – the remaining steel –
overseas and out of American jurisdiction just as fast as
he could.

NOT saying this is the answer, but it does pose a pattern
that open minds would examine. And some have.

QueenBee62 says,
"We will probably never know the whole truth,"
which is true of anything, truth being effectively infinite.

It's even possible that we will never know the essential
truth of 9/11. But I don't think it's out of reach yet.
Because I'm a hopeless optimist.

[oxymoron intended]
 
 
+34 # Farafalla 2014-05-31 14:05
I for one am glad that questions are being asked on an official narrative that has so many holes in it that no rational person should accept it at face value. Asking questions is rational. Those who ask the questions are under no obligation to come up with competing explanations. This is not a science experiment. Those in power should be forced to reveal the actual explanations. We should water board Cheney.

The pentagon attack is the hardest to swallow. Fighter jets scrambled in the opposite direction, Rumsfeld tripping on his speech at a press conference and referring to a "missile" and correcting himself and saying airplane. Not one piece of luggage recovered. No huge jet engines in the wreckage. Trucks covering the crash site with dirt even while the fire is being put out. Deep penetration of iron and concrete almost to the middle of the concentric rings of the building, something no large airliner could do. Targeting the most empty part of the building that was under renovations. Flying a large fully fueled airliner at treetop level without ever having landed a Cessna and not missing the target. Scores of video cameras all around the parking lots and only one fuzzy four frame sequence of the hit. Video from a nearby convenience store with full view of the pentagon was confiscated never to be seen. Eye witnesses describing something small "like a business jet with small wings" as it flew over the freeway and into the Pentagon.

Waterboard Cheney!
 
 
-17 # BKnowswhitt 2014-06-01 00:13
So you are suggesting that Rudy Guliani was part of this and as mayor he took part in a mass slaughter of people in his own city? Now lets say this did happen. So then Bush knew too? And they planted explosives then timed that with the 24 terroists in the planes? As the planes hit the buildings then the explosives got triggered later to bring down the buildings and building 7 even later or last? And Bin Laden knew he winked when it all went down so he took the credit too even though he didnt really have any part of it (and oh yeah he never studied engineering like we were told and therefore had no expertise on what happened) .. now i'm one to admit that that particular administration lucked out big time .. but pulling this off would make David Copperfield look like a mere amateur ..
 
 
+3 # motamanx 2014-06-02 17:10
Then why wasn't Rudy G at his post? Oh yeah, his post was in Building 7.
 
 
+44 # unitedwestand 2014-05-31 12:45
Whenever I read articles on the 9/11 catastrophe, I can picture Cheney or Rumsfeld reading it too and chortling in amusement whether the information given is right or wrong. (I don't picture GW reading, because he's still trying to finish My Pet Goat). They will probably go to their deaths not letting anybody know all the facts.

Smedley Butler, in 1935 wrote a book called War is a Racket, he would have called the GWB administration world class racketeers.
 
 
+16 # Glen 2014-05-31 13:08
I've heard "racketeers" from a number of people who I would not have considered on top of it all. Yes. Racketeers.
 
 
+18 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 14:31
#

"Correction", GW is still trying to read My Pet Goat... UPSIDE DOWN! Lol! :op

#
 
 
+13 # Montana 2014-05-31 16:59
Rumsfeld was the real President at that time -- Bush was the "pet goat," so it was appropriate he was reading it that day -- and then made a major boo-boo when he admitted that he saw the first plane hit the first tower on live TV. That, of course, was impossible...
 
 
+13 # Montana 2014-05-31 17:09
Correction! I meant to say "Cheney was the real President." As for Rumsfeld, don't know why I mentioned his name except perhaps I tied that in with the term "pet goat?"
 
 
+22 # Anonymot 2014-05-31 12:46
"We will probably never know the whole truth."

Given that from 2008 a major part of Obama's Directors of Departments, Secretaries, and Ambassadors were also in similar positions in the Bush administration or are neocons in their own rights, we most certainly will all be long deceased before the truths are known about many events of this century's opening years.

That is a truth that is hard to understand.
 
 
-1 # Milarepa 2014-05-31 12:48
Well ...
 
 
+36 # Glen 2014-05-31 12:49
Also check on Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Their research is impeccable concerning the impossible maneuverings of the "airplane" that hit the Pentagon. No fuselage, no wings, no seats, no bodies. No pilot is allowed to contribute to the research without certification and plenty of flying time. They offer DVDs and plenty of research.

Every institution, school, engineer, etc., on this planet has studied that particular event due to the suspicious timing and type of destruction. If you have seen photos of the two planes that hit the WWT you will see unusual attachments underneath, which is not typical of these planes.

Conspiracy is not a bad word. It means a plan, and there is enough evidence now to show it is not a theory, including interviews with folks in the lobby of both buildings hearing explosions long before the buildings came down, and from folks in the street. And so much more.
 
 
+40 # Vardoz 2014-05-31 12:51
If the US was willing to kill almost a million Iraqis for oil, what's 3,000 Americans to change the game. I remember Bush saying "we won the tri-fecta." Chaney saying " Things will never be the same." I saw the buildings come down like a demolition - that never happened like that before and could never have happened to buildings like the WTC that were built to withstand such attacks. This in my opinion was planned and facilitated and the mother fuckers who did this don't give a rats ass about the loss of life or for anything but their agenda which has been to wipe out our Democracy, impoverish the 99% and destroy the planet for ignorant, myopic greed and corruption. Those who have planned the down fall of Democracy have built a predatory empire that threatens all our lives. Our battle is no longer out there or among us, it is against us and it was sealed on 911. Our rights were and still are taken away, we are becoming evermore impoverished as the 1% are now the richest in history and corporations are going in for the kill to obtain total power and control over our lives. There is a saying in New Hampshire- LIVE FREE OR DIE- so now is the time to make that decision. All those vets who want to kill themselves- the battle is here- so take your fight to DC and protest instead of killing yourselves. You were trained to fight. Don't take it out on yourselves! Your lives are worth more then that!

http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2014-05-30
 
 
-25 # Misterioso 2014-05-31 12:56
Sigh.

When is this 9/11 nonsense going to end? The truth is easily available.

"The Pentagon and the Missile"
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4354
 
 
+23 # WBoardman 2014-05-31 13:34
Misterioro's link goes to a short article making five points:

Three of them are irrelevant: the location of Rumsfeld's office,
the Pentagon's anti-aircraft defense (non existent?), and
the surveillance video showing something flying into the
Pentagon (inconclusive, as the article says).

Whether the approach path was impossible for a 757
is relevant to the official story, but not to a missile.

That leaves the 757 debris, which IS critical. Is is also
the only element of the article supported by links to other
sources. If these sources are credible, then it was a 757.

What's bothersome is the whereabouts of that physical
evidence now?

Why were these crime scenes treated the way they were?
 
 
+33 # Vincent L. Guarisco 2014-05-31 12:57
I think most of us who have an ounce of cognitive thinking left in us, have already solved enough of the 9/11 puzzle to know the official story is bogus. If anything, the elaborate cover-up should make the worst, shrewd used car salesman in the world, blush.

In terms of being a gullible lamb with a knife at it's throat at the alter of a grand lie:

"I'd rather get my brains blown out in the wild than wait in terror at the slaughterhouse. "
~~Craig Volk, Northern Exposure, A-Hunting We Will Go, 1991
 
 
+31 # Saberoff 2014-05-31 13:20
Quote from article:

"At worst, the events of 9/11 were the result of an almost unimaginable criminal conspiracy designed to produce the “new Pearl Harbor” that would enable fans of the New American Century (many of them members of the Bush administration) to take the United States in new, warlike, world-dominatin g directions (maybe something like a Global War on Terror)"

That about sums it up.
 
 
+7 # wdcarrier 2014-05-31 13:41
I guess I'm confused. If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, what happened to it and its 64 people on-board?
 
 
+14 # Glen 2014-05-31 13:44
That question has been asked a number of times, and not too many answers are available except the worst case scenario, which, in light of the death and destruction overall, is totally believable.
 
 
+3 # Anarchist 23 2014-06-01 21:47
Or maybe they just pulled a switch as was suggested and documented in the Northwoods memorandum in 1961 on plans to start a war with Castro's Cuba by having a dummy plane filled with 'college students' shot down...in reality the plane was to be detonated by remote control and the 'students' were government employees.
 
 
-11 # Caliban 2014-06-01 18:22
Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, and everybody with an ounce of sense knows it.
 
 
+18 # Blackjack 2014-05-31 13:49
It seems a recurring theme that what government sources have told us about 9/11 is, in total, not credible because the past has taught us that "cover up" is what we get when we ask for truth. The fact that Obama immediately shut the door on a follow-up of even remnants of truth, letting those who knew the most off the hook forevermore, has made us even more suspicious. . .not just of Bush and his allies, but of Obama himself. That, for me, was the first indicator that the current administration was likely to be as suspect in its motives as the past one. Is it that our government believes that we cannot handle the truth if it is finally told or is it that the truth will tarnish everything that we've been told (and mostly believe) about democracy itself? If either is the case, what are we to do? Maybe Edward Snowden is showing us the way, but what a heavy price to pay!
 
 
-18 # ericlipps 2014-05-31 13:53
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." True enough: it's not evidence of anything. One might just as well say the Pentagon was hit by a UFO, or a dragon.

Given what we know actually happened, the most likely scenario remains that the Pentagon was struck by a plane.
 
 
+23 # Nevetsj 2014-05-31 14:03
There are so many comments to Boardman's article that I will not bother to repeat points made by others. My conclusion about the 9/11 events is that the less a person researches the subject, the more likely that person will give an opinion suggesting that any opinion that disagrees with the official 9/11 Report is one made by "conspiracy theorists," who are generally mentally unsound and hysterical. Of course, we know that there are many unfounded and ludicrous conspiracies out there, like the one where they show a video of the American flag flapping in the wind (most likely videotaped with a large hidden fan on fresh sandy soil in the Nevada desert at night) "proving" that Americans never landed on the Moon. However, all the evidence with respect to 9/11 points toward pre-planned demolition and pre-staged events. Architect Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth is doing an excellent job steering folks away from arguing about WHO did this, and asking simply WAS THERE PLANNED DEMOLITION? The answer is yes and the best and clearest evidence is seen in the free-fall of WTC 7 into its own footprint at the speed of gravity. No airplane hit it. Look into it!
 
 
+18 # Montana 2014-05-31 14:06
An intelligent article. Thanks for sharing your insights. It seems to me that the inertia of the general public is due primarily to a general belief in good against evil -- that our governments in the West could never do something so horrific to its own people. Well, I stumbled across something shocking when researching my fifth novel. It pertained to documents that became declassified in 2001, and are now available for the public to see if they just take the time to look. But generally people don't. It was a plot called Operation Northwoods proposed to JFK in 1962 by the top brass at the Pentagon. This involved a 'false flag' whereby attacks would take place against American citizens and their cities, primarily Miami and Washington. It proposed that planes disguised as Cuban could be flown into buildings, shootings in the streets, explosions on ships -- generating enough American casualties to cause Americans and America's allies to support an invasion of Cuba. It got so bizarre that two of the suggestions in the plan were to blow up a fully occupied U.S. battleship in Guantanomo Bay, and even killing American hero astronaut, John Glenn, by exploding his rocket -- acts to be disguised as being by Cuba/Communists . Luckily JFK rejected the plan, then shortly thereafter fired the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Could this happen again? I think so ... and it might have already.
 
 
+14 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 14:52
#

No "might have" about it. It DID happen in reality this time, on 9-11. JFK, etc., was a setback of their plans for thirty-eight years, but they finally got their wish on 9-11; yet, for a much wider purpose, not simply starting WW4 (the warmongers believe the Cold War was WW3) with Cuba, and by extension Russia as well, but a global war OF(!) terrorism, taking down all True Liberty, Freedom, Privacy, Security and Dignity in the U.S., and much of the rest of the world too for that matter, intentionally destroying U.S. national sovereignty and independence, and bringing the U.S. and the world under global government enslavement. 9-11 is working quite successfully in bringing all of that about. "New Pearl Harbor" and "Project for a New (World Order) American Century" indeed.

#
 
 
+22 # Maani 2014-05-31 14:40
Physics 101. Jet diesel fuel burns, at its HOTTEST (in a "highly oxygenated atmosphere” - which this was not) at 1800-2000 degrees F. The “softening” point of galvanized steel is ABOVE 2000 degrees (its actual "melting" point is ~2900 degrees). Thus, it would defy the laws of physics for the fires to have softened much less melted the steel. The fires would have had to RAGE for HOURS to even come CLOSE. Yet, as we saw, the fires were dying within 30 minutes.

EVEN if we allow for the fires to have weakened the steel, the floors were built around a central vertical core of 47 double-wide steel beams. Thus, it is true that floors SHOULD have simply pancaked on top of one another. However, there were 110 floors. This means it should have taken 110 seconds for the towers to fall. Even at an accelerated rate of descent (based on weight), it should have taken 55 seconds, or even 40 seconds. Yet each tower collapsed in LESS THAN 20 seconds. As well, although there was significant damage to parts of the top 1/3 of each tower, the bottom 2/3 of each tower was COMPLETELY UNHARMED. This 2/3 SHOULD have provided SIGNIFICANT resistance to the initially collapsing 1/3 of each tower, thus DECREASING the speed of collapse. Yet this is not what we saw. As well, there should have been significant LARGE concrete debris from the collapses. Yet between 70% and 90% of ALL of the concrete was pulverized BEFORE it hit the ground.
 
 
+22 # Maani 2014-05-31 14:43
[Part 2]

Also, a falling object cannot move either laterally or upward without some "extra" force being applied. Yet as one can readily see on any video of the collapses, beams and debris are flying not only OUTWARD (in one case, almost 500 lateral feet), but also UPWARD.

Re the 9/11 Report, I HAVE read it - twice. And as far as I can see, it is rife with error, omission, and, yes, fantasy.

Re Flight 77, note that this was the only flight on which "Middle Eastern men" and "boxcutters" were allegedly mentioned. And they were ONLY allegedly mentioned by one person - Barbara Olson, the wife of then-Solicitor General Ted Olson. Olson claims that his wife called him from the plane – twice – and mentioned "Middle Eastern men" and "boxcutters." Yet this was debunked by, of all people, the FBI (who one would think would have a "vested interest" in validating the "official story"). They investigated and found that only one call was placed from Ms. Olson's cellphone - and that that call did NOT connect. They also verified that the "air phones" on the plane were not working, so the call could not have come from those phones. Thus, the ONLY call that claims that "Middle Eastern men" hijacked Flight 77 with "boxcutters" NEVER HAPPENED.

There are SO many other details, both direct (scientific) and circumstantial that point to the fact that the "official story" is as bogus as a $4 bill.
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2014-06-02 23:33
Has anybody simply asked Mrs. Olson about this seeming inconsistency?
 
 
-10 # venusman 2014-05-31 14:44
I'm not claiming to support one side or the other, but those who believe a missile hit the Pentagon must have an explanation for the fate of Flight 77. If it was not destroyed on impact then it landed somewhere. Where? Saying that the question has been raised before is quite unsatisfactory. If it can't be answered, then this whole discussion is senseless.
 
 
+8 # WBoardman 2014-05-31 15:29
Venusman asks a fair question –
to which there is an obvious alternative answer
which I posit here as conceptual and theoretical:

Flight 77 could have flown out to sea and vanished
in the Atlantic.

MH370 is a recent example of that possibility.

This raises lots of technical questions, to be sure,
but so does every other version of what happened,
so far as I can tell. It's not as though the official 9/11 story
isn't, quite literally, fantastic.

Presumably there are other, theoretical explanations
for the disappearance of Flight 77, but these two seem
the most straight forward.

The 757 has 189 seats, so this one was only one third full,
raising the possibility that putative plotters willing to
sacrifice 64 people (58 + 6 crew) actually deserve credit for
NOT sacrificing 131 (189 - 58).
 
 
0 # SageArtisan 2014-06-04 15:21
I want to thank you Mr. Boardman for writing and presenting this article. It is absolutely necessary that we discuss and investigate these tragedies until the truth may one day rise to the surface.

There are so many inconsistencies and lies presented by the previous administration and silence by the current administration that do not survive scrutiny.

That pilots, engineers and the families are protesting the official story is evidence of the absence of evidence.

I've borne witness to the government of this country in fabricating stories about crises and explanations since the assassination of President Kennedy so often I don't trust it worth a dime.

Again, thank you for bringing it up.
 
 
+9 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 15:38
#

How can we have an explanation for something that we can't possibly know for certain, at least at the present time? Duh! Sure, we can speculate about what could have happened, and/or probably did happen, to them; but most self-respecting and respectable 9/11 Truthers are seriously seeking to avoid speculation and to only go by and provide evidence.

On the contrary, not being able to say for certain what really happened to the passengers of Flight 77, or for that matter of the Pennsylvania flight as well (whether it was actually shot down by a fighter jet or blown up by a bomb or not, which all publicly-availa ble evidence points to it having been by one or the other), does NOT make the whole 9/11 Truth discussion worthless! Please stop stating totally nonsensical things as so-called "fact(s)".

#
 
 
+9 # chomper2 2014-05-31 15:04
And what does this "CEO" do to merit a $378,000 salary? Oversee a preponderance of "lack of evidence" for an event everyone knows actually occurred?
 
 
-33 # BostonPundit 2014-05-31 16:10
"Conspiracies are by their nature hard to discover and hard to prove. All the same, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Boardman

Never mind evidence, Boardman, you don't need evidence to write a piece like this.

What you actually missed is that WTC 1 and WTC 2 and the Pentagon and Shankland were all attacked by the same object. It was the spirit of HMS Titanic powered by iceberg alternative fuel that rose out of the depths of the ocean and forged its attack, leaving none of its spirit evidence.

I can't recall another occasion on which the author of an article posted on RSN lingered to self-flagellate .
 
 
+8 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 16:28
#

I confess that it is the spirit of me who gave you the very first "thumbs-down" of that extremely and willfully ignorant comment of yours (not the first, and no doubt not the last, of your ignorant comments, that's for sure); and I'm (VERY!) "proud" of it.

#
 
 
+9 # Montana 2014-05-31 16:56
I agree with that "thumbs down." Ignorant comment. This is what happens though when people question the party line - they risk ridicule from others who just want to believe blindly but aren't smart enough to either ask questions or research answers. There is clear evidence -- not conspiracy theory stuff -- from the declassified documents about Operation Northwoods, that some members of their gov't will indeed consider slaughtering their own people. Folks just have to google and learn -- that's all.
 
 
-23 # BostonPundit 2014-05-31 18:57
Ah Montana, you are probably correct that the 9/11 incidents didn't come from the spirit of HMS Titanic, but from the spirit of the Enterprise down from Big Sky.

Get a life.
 
 
-23 # BostonPundit 2014-05-31 18:56
Brownie, you're doing a great job!

Seriously, you need a therapist. Quick.
 
 
+6 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 12:35
ad hominem mockery carries no weight as argument
 
 
-6 # Caliban 2014-06-01 18:31
Come on, John, where's your sense of humor?. That Titanic stuff was satire--sort of like Borowitz, just not as funny.
 
 
+15 # fredboy 2014-05-31 17:21
Does the museum include a display explaining that the event:
1. had been forewarned by numerous, legitimate sources yet all warnings were ignored by the Bush administration?
2. has never been subject of a COMPLETE CRIME INVESTIGATION-- almost 3,000 homicides in NYC, and no police or crime investigation-- just a commission whitewash?
 
 
-7 # Servelan 2014-05-31 17:49
RE: temps of burning jet fuel: http://worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493


"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." S. Holmes
 
 
+9 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 18:19
#

What a bunch of bullpucky! If what the commenter says on that linked website were true, many more steel skyscrapers would have collapsed due to the many fires that have occurred in many of them. In addition, if what he says were true, the two WTC towers would have collapsed sideways and taken much more of downtown NYC down with them than they did. BUT, PRIOR TO 9-11, NO STEEL SKYSCRAPER HAD EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRES, INCLUDING QUITE SEVERE AND EXTENSIVE FIRES; YET IT ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED TO *THREE* OF THEM IN ONE DAY!! Come on!! What are the odds against that?! Kazillions to one?!

Jet fuel is nothing but glorified kerosene; it doesn't burn hot enough to melt, or even sufficiently weaken enough, steel in such extensively-rei nforced highrise buildings to cause them to collapse; and most of it burned up outside of the buildings; or, in the case of one of the two towers where some if not much of it burned within the building, it was completely consumed, or burned up entirely, quite rapidly!! Thus, all of this so-called "educated" supposition is nothing but total balderdash!!

#
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2014-06-02 23:38
And how often have three steel skyscrapers been brought down by secretly planted bombs in one day? And how many "kazillions" to one would it be if that should ever happen?
 
 
+6 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 12:39
from link posted by Servelan –

"I have checked a couple sources regarding the temp. for burning JET A fuel (standard in the US). The open air burning temp is less than 350 C. I think you would have to consider the WTC open air burning. Max temp is achieved only with an optimum mixture of air and fuel producing no smoke. Smoke is a sign of oxygen deprivation with results in lower temperatures. The WTC steel was tested by UL at 2000 C and retained it's specification. It is not likely that an open air burn for less than 50 minutes could have caused enough deformation to result in collapse.

"Not a pleasant conclusion I'm afraid, but hey science is science."
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2014-06-02 09:40
Let's get real, please. The loss of strength of the steel beams has much less to do with the temperature of jet fuel and much more to do with the full fire that the jet fuel started in the building itself and how long this much hotter and more wide-spread fire burned.
 
 
+3 # Dr. Mike 2014-06-02 12:23
The melting point of construction steel stands out as the biggest single discrepancy in pure physics that can't be brushed aside. It is on that point that the claim rests for the towers collapsing at dead-fall speed (however doubtful itself). Just as significant is the well-publicized mystery of the undersized hole in the Pentagon, along with missing holes for the 757 engines.

The same dead-fall of Building #7, however, lacks even the benefit of low-temperature jet fuel as a plausible cause for exactly the same type of collapse. Among the treasure trove of secrets lost in that building was the entire government (FBI) evidence fraud cache against Enron Inc. Just watch #7 fall in this video, and keep in mind that buildings #5 and #6, although shorter, were both IN BETWEEN the collapsing twin towers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F6QV6LK8j1Q#t=0

Believer's strawman questions about "where are the bodies and airplanes, and parts," as if questions alone prove a fact that truther questions are false, are themselves a waste of they bytes used to print & type such rhetorical "proof." The recent disappearance of an airplane into the Indian Ocean (maybe) certainly presents a case for some kind of disappearance is possible. If one is going to ask strawman questions, why not ask "how is it that other buildings around the twin towers did NOT collapse the same way?"
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2014-06-02 13:05
#

Excellent, Mike! "...(W)hy not ask 'how is it that other buildings around the twin towers did NOT collapse the same way'," even when there was at least one major explosion (and fires?) in Building 6?

Again, for those who haven't, please watch the documentary that "Radscal" recommended below, by going to the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=n_fp5kaVYhk

#
 
 
-10 # allfive 2014-05-31 18:06
Thank you for the article, Mr. Boardman, and you willingness to open these sores that will likely never heal. I feel there will never be satisfactory answers, and those responsible for what should be criminal negligence, at the least, will never be called to account. So thank you for raising the questions. However I have to take issue with the engineers who theorize about WTC explosive demolition. Apparently they've never worked in an operational building. IOW, how were these huge amounts of explosives able to pass by security, be installed and wired and triggered and tested while remaining completely invisible to building security and the maintenance staff - all of whom have a 24/7/365 presence in the innards of WTC. It would have taken months to accomplish the explosive installations and yet not one WTC employee ever had a clue? How were all those voices silenced if such a massive undertaking actually were witnessed ??? Has anyone considered the WTC structural steel might not have been manufactured to spec, thus failing more easily under the circumstances? That's much more plausible, given the history of real world NYC construction history.
 
 
+11 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 18:35
#

Yet more totally unfounded and/or baseless speculation. Jeb and Marvin Bush's security company and others were responsible for the WTC complex, and people WERE witnessed going in and out to perform unusual work in the Twin Towers (and perhaps even Building 7 as well) in the weeks prior to the attack(s).* So, please, stop with all of this completely unwarranted and ridiculous speculation. It doesn't prove ANYTHING; it is just doubts, and casts doubts; and it does nothing but reinforce the doubts, and willful avoidance and denial, of those like yourself who won't face the truth of what really happened. Obviously, you have either not studied 9/11 Truth at all, or you've done so at least somewhat and falsely convinced yourself that it was supposedly "false". Yah, right, and all of those MANY (over two thousand) experts and professionals all over the world are "wrong". Uh huh, and I've got the Brooklyn Bridge and some swampland in California to sell you. What are you going to come back with, more obfuscation? Probably. Please spare me and all of us any more of your prevarication, disingenuousnes s and any more of your being used to deceive, as well as all of your deceptions themselves, thank you very much.

* See the website address to the YouTube documentary provided by "Radscal" below.

#
 
 
0 # allfive 2014-06-01 11:45
Jeb Bush's security company? Really.? :) ha, ha. That's too perfect. And all the people in that company's chain of command have successfully been sworn to secrecy? :)

So "people" observed unusual activity. Where are they? Let me tell you, if you worked at low level enigineering maintenance or security jobs in any building, you would know that anything "unusual" would be investigated, just for the gossip factor alone. Maintenance engineers know every corner and crevice of the buildings they work in. These jobs are relatively monotonous and boring, and everyone is looking for gossip to chat about. Word of unusual activity would spread quickly. Everyone would be checking out the "suspicious" activity and it's location. It would make their day. I know. I've worked those jobs.

Nefarious activity is entirely possible regarding 9/11. Rumsfeld switched to flying charters instead of regular passenger flights in the months prior. They knew something was up. But successfully organizing, scheduling, hiring demo people, and wiring the towers in complete secrecy on such a massive scale using prior knowledge of where and when planes would hit to coordinate demolition is beyond human social capacity to suppress.

I'm not saying Truthers are nuts, just asking they do some reality checking so more useful investigations might possibly result from their observations.

And I will ignore your hysterical slurs. Bullying people who don't buy your story doesn't help your case at all :)
 
 
+5 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 16:59
allfive seems to make an assumption that
is fairly common among those who accept the
official 9/11 story –
and that assumption is that there was ONE ginormous
conspiracy comprising ALL the elements of the full
complex of events relating to 9/11.

That's certainly one possibility, just as the notion that
there was NO conspiracy (except the hijackers).

The almost universal consensus seems to be that there was
some conspiracy necessary to make 9/11 happen.
But what conspiracy or conspiracies there may have been
is what ties everyone in knots of various kinds.

Starting with motive, there's a host of logical suspects
of varying likelihood (and considerable overlap) –
the question is, who benefits:
Bush Admin/neocons (ideology/domin ance),
jihadis (ideology/venge ance)
Saudis (jihadis, Iran)
Israel (jihadis, Iran)
US security state (ideology, power)
US military ($$, expansion)
WTC owner ($$)
[who else?]

Means and opportunity are not out of the reach
of most if not all these entities.
 
 
+4 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 18:01
#

I'm not "tied in knots", and neither are most 9/11 Truthers. We've seen and completely faced the evidence of much of what really happened, we're not at all in avoidance and denial of it, conflicted about it, or stuck in the middle not quite willing to go all the way and face that the whole thing was obviously an inside job (with outside help as well), we've completely awakened to the whole, real truth, and we're quite comfortable with ourselves and our knowledge of the truth, which has set us quite free.

But to the avoiders and deniers of 9/11 Truth, all 9/11 Truthers are supposedly "crazy" because we're no longer part of the mass-insanity of the majority that passes for "sanity". In other words, those of us who completely face the truth are the truly sane ones; but, of course, to the still truly INSANE ones (or still part of the mass-insanity to a certain extent because of their refusal and/or resistance to coming all of the way into nothing but the truth and into true sanity), "We the Truthers" are supposedly the "bonkers" ones. And the black "pots calling the kettle(s) black" of course consider themselves to be some of the sanest ones (but that's a very sad, not-funny "laugh" and/or "joke"; for there's nothing funny about their being quite deceived).

#
 
 
-21 # Rick Levy 2014-05-31 19:37
So the passengers and crew who died in four 9/11 plane crashes which the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists claim never happened were all fictional characters with equally made-up families and others who mourned their deaths. Um, yeah.
 
 
-21 # BostonPundit 2014-05-31 20:18
Exactly Rick. It was all made up. And in fact the 3,000 who died at the WTC were all made up. Actually, the two towers never existed in the first place.

Ask Boardman, Browney, and Big Sky Montana, they'll tell ya.
 
 
+8 # John S. Browne 2014-05-31 20:20
#

There's only ONE person in this entire thread of a large amount of commenters, who said that all four planes were not the passenger planes that they were claimed to be. The other "non-plane" people, such as myself, only said and/or say that the Pentagon was not hit by a passenger jet, NOT that none of the passenger planes were real. Thus, your completely disingenuous naysaying has almost no basis in fact. Study what most of 9/11 Truth really says, instead of presuming things and jumping to conclusions that are false. Relatively few 9/11 Truthers believe and/or say that none of the passenger planes existed. In fact, the non-Pentagon-pl ane believers don't believe that there was necessarily no Flight 77 with passengers, but "simply" that it did NOT crash into the Pentagon. And we have no definite idea where it ended up. So, please stop all of your false naysaying.

#
 
 
-12 # Rick Levy 2014-06-01 00:10
"In fact, the non-Pentagon-pl ane believers don't believe that there was necessarily no Flight 77 with passengers, but "simply" that it did NOT crash into the Pentagon. And we have no definite idea where it ended up. "

That in itself says it all about you conspiricists. So you're saying that the plane's disappearance was a cover-up or maybe it was even deliberately programmed by the CIA to crash in some secret location?
 
 
+4 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 12:51
... as I mentioned, "almost unimaginable."
And for some, clearly unimaginable.

The first step in learning the truth is choosing to look for it

At best, the events of 9/11 represent the catastrophic failure of numerous American agencies, including airport security, air traffic controllers, national air defense command, and the U.S. Air Force. That reality alone is enough to raise suspicions of a cover-up, if only to avoid accountability for lethal incompetence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

At worst, the events of 9/11 were the result of an almost unimaginable criminal conspiracy designed to produce the “new Pearl Harbor” that would enable fans of the New American Century (many of them members of the Bush administration) to take the United States in new, warlike, world-dominatin g directions (maybe something like a Global War on Terror).
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2014-06-03 00:50
Check out the Wikipedia article on American Airlines Flight 77. It contains some information that anybody interested in this topic should read.
 
 
-9 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-06-01 09:19
Interesting that most of the red thumbs down went to people who investigate the evidence and most of the green thumbs up went for conspiracy theories. The closest truths I have seen are what Zacarias Moussaoui said in court. Interesting that the whole 9/11 plot was in his computer and he was tried as the "20th hijacker". But, of course, our government lied to us. That doesn't mean that the nutjobs who got green thumbs up are right.
 
 
+7 # WBoardman 2014-06-01 13:13
Pablo Diablo mischaracterize s the discussion,
as there is lots of evidence of all sorts, much
of impossible to square with much of the rest of it,
and as ever the diablo is in the details.

Looking forward to that Moussaoui link to specific
testimony (2nd request)

All governments lie,
probably no government lies all the time,
the problem lies in sorting the lies from the rest.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2014-06-01 09:25
There is much disinformation and misinformation about the evidence of the events of 9/11. This leads to people of good will bickering about details. And corporate media may then pick a handful of the obviously false claims to ridicule all who question the official conspiracy theory to keep a majority from demanding a full, independent investigation.

This video does an excellent job of simply looking at who we know were connected to the events of 9/11, what we know they did before, during and after 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=n_fp5kaVYhk
 
 
+3 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 15:07
#

Other than the part about the Pentagon crash of Flight 77 allegedly being true, that is an excellent documentary, and I watched the entire thing. There are just far too many so-called "coincidences" (which is what the creators of the documentary mean by using the word "coincidence", that they are only so-called coincidences), for 9-11 to not have been strategically carried out, with many "true believers" in corporate-fasci st control of the U.S. and the world, having no problem with keeping quiet about the truth of 9-11, including their deep involvement in it; for, they are part of an evil cabal.

All the major neocon players, as well as many so-called "non-major-play ers", who were in actuality major players, but are not known, or little known, to most Americans, were quite deeply involved; with some of them intentionally murdered in the destruction of the WTC complex. Therefore, all of the naysayer's claims of so many U.S. corporate and government players being involved in carrying out 9-11 supposedly being "absurd", etc., are also shot full of holes; because, clearly, many such people have been proven to have been involved in perpetrating 9-11, though it has now been covered up due to much of the evidence of same having been intentionally destroyed by way of the destruction of the WTC complex on 9-11, and the removal of many people who might have gotten to the bottom of what really happened on 9-11, who couldn't be, and were not, allowed to do so, etc.

(Continued)
 
 
+4 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 15:09
#

Thus, if people watch such documentaries with truly open minds, it is very clear that there are many "smoking guns" , and is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, pointing to conspiratorial involvement in the perpetration of 9-11 by U.S. corporate and government players; no doubt about it whatsoever. There is just far too much evidence of that fact, which was all very carefully and expertly sidetracked, covered up and/or whitewashed by the many "perpetra(i)tor s" of 9-11. But, in spite of all of that expertly and carefully orchestrated subterfuge, they have left many "footprints" of their involvement in their perpetration of 9-11, including many interconnected conspiracies. (If you haven't already watched the aforementioned documentary, and/or have up till now refused to do so, please watch said documentary for a great deal of the circumstantial evidence proving those facts.)

#
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2014-06-02 12:35
I'm glad you found that documentary helpful. I regret not having visited this article sooner, so that I could have introduced it to more readers.

The person who made it has done some other excellent work examining the "pod" under one airliner, the "directed energy weapon" and nuclear bomb theories, but I think this one is the best.

He's also done some weird stuff in other fields.

By focusing predominantly on well documented actions and connections of people known to have connections to the persons and places in the 9/11 events, he avoids the speculative arguments that divide those of us seeking the truth, and alienating those who currently accept the official conspiracy theory.
 
 
+1 # dascher 2014-06-01 14:38
While there is lots of fascinating speculation in these posts, and I would find it easy to believe that Cheney would be eager to pull off something like this, I find it impossible to believe, given all the complete incompetence he and his gang repeatedly demonstrated. The most compelling piece of evidence of this whole thing was a Cheney-led conspiracy is the simple fact that there was not a single Iraqi alleged to have been among the hijackers. This kind of stupid error could be the fingerprint that points at Cheney & his pals.

The completely successful silencing of the hundreds of co-conspirators such a conspiracy would require seems way beyond the reach of the clowns who are claimed to have been in charge of it.

Clearly, there are weird things about the claims of the government and the 911 report. It is likely that the government is trying to hide things about the events of that day. It is MOST likely that they are trying to hide their massive incompetence.
 
 
+6 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 15:29
#

As the immediately-pre vious above-reference d documentary clearly shows, the perpetra(i)tors you mention, and many of their partners-in-cri me, were intentionally made to look "incompetent"; when, in reality, they were anything but incompetent. The appointment, or (s)election, of the inept George W. Bush as president was certainly intentional in order to have a front-man for that very purpose, of making many if not most of those connected with him to look too incompetent to have engineered and orchestrated 9-11; but it was all obviously by design. We also need to take into account the fact that much of 9-11 was carried out by their "underlings", and not they themselves, thus giving them "plausible deniability" of involvement, and/or the appearance of "no involvement", in 9-11's perpetration. Don't continue to be fooled by the smoke and mirrors intentionally designed and engineered to succeed in quite successfully getting most "Amerikans" and others to believe the official coverup, and to supposedly "absolve" the actual perpetra(i)tors of any involvement in 9-11 due to fake "incompentence" , etc.

#
 
 
+10 # Floridatexan 2014-06-01 16:48
There is no way the 9/11 Commission story is the truth. Anyone who can't see that the events of 9/11 were planned in advance and included the collusion of our own government is either completely brain dead or in denial.
 
 
-6 # venusman 2014-06-01 17:06
I am trying to imagine the instructions given to the hijackers of Flight 77. Your mission - do not crash into the Pentagon. Do anything else, but no crashing into the Pentagon. What then could have been the point of hijacking the plane? And how do you stir the soul of a jihadist with such a non-goal?
 
 
-2 # JSRaleigh 2014-06-01 17:45
If it didn't hit the Pentagon, where did Flight 77 go? What happened to the 125 souls on board?

Why won't the "9/11 truthers" answer these questions?
 
 
+6 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 19:45
#

Duh, because the PTB haven't, and won't, let us know what really happened to them. As a result, how can we answer a question that we can't know the answer to (unless the truth of it is eventually leaked by someone). As I said above, we can speculate as to what happened to them; but, unless it comes out, which it hasn't thus far (as far as I know), we can't know for sure what really happened to them. All of that should be more than obvious.

#
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2014-06-03 01:00
From Wikipedia: "By October 2, 2001, the search for evidence and remains was complete and the site was turned over to Pentagon officials.[81] In 2002, the remains of 25 victims were buried collectively at Arlington National Cemetery, with a five-sided granite marker inscribed with the names of all the victims in the Pentagon.[85]"
 
 
-2 # John S. Browne 2014-06-03 17:45
#

"Wi(c)k(ed)pedia" has a lot of great info and other stuff on it (such as photographs, etc.), but it also has a great deal of falsehood(s) as well. If you or anyone else fully trusts it for 9-11 "facts", and/or the "facts" on other things where it also has them wrong, "you" are being willfully blind to those prevalent errors on, much too blindly trusting of, and not exercising the discernment that everyone should exercise (in other words, a very careful reading) when reading anything and everything on, "Wi(c)k(ed)pedi a". Just consider the fact alone that most people who write on Wikipedia believe the official conspiracy theory lie(s) of 9-11, particularly those who have written about 9-11; thus, their viewpoint, thinking and writing are highly influenced by, and they are completely incapable of being neutral on the subject of, the lies of the 9-11 official story (/fable/fairy tale/ actual conspiracy theory). They have absolutely no objectivity on the subject whatsoever; so, their writing(s) on the topic, and/or contributions to the presentations on same which appear on Wikipedia, are suspect and not to be trusted in any way whatsoever.

#
 
 
+4 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-01 20:32
Comming to grips with the fact that your very own government CAN and WILL kill you if they see money and power in it is devistating and down right frightening. "Nay-sayers" and name callers, fiercely clinging to the belief that their blessed Christian president would never harm them should just keep sleeping until they are ready to wake up. Of course...if the RECENT assigned 'leader' of this country was suspect of the 9-11 events, you can bet corporate news would be all over him. There is endless proof all over the internet, PROVING that 9-11 was a planned event. But our "leaders" will never allow it to surface since if the world were to see that "we" did this to ourselves, we would be scorned and shunned, and perhaps even attacked. People who believe in the innocence of America would be shattered and unstable. This country would be completely out of control and extreamily vulnerable. Our "leaders" won't let that happen. So the 'sleepers', continue to sleep, and the'truthers' continue to scream until we are scooped up and put in a concentration camp.
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 22:27
#

"ChickenBoo", much of what you say in this comment of yours is quite right-on, but you make it sound like seeking a truly independent investigation of 9-11 is supposedly "inadvisable", and that getting to the bottom of what really happened on 9-11, and "to the top" of who was truly responsible for it, would supposedly "dispirit" the country too much, and that the American people allegedly "wouldn't be able to handle it". Well, I have to call complete foul on all of that. Contrary to what you claim, the country would NOT, to quote you, "...be completely out of control and extremely vulnerable" as a result. That is complete bullshit. If anything the country is already completely out of control as a result of NOT having a truly independent investigation, and getting to the bottom and the top, of what really happened on and who is truly responsible for 9-11.

The primary goal of 9/11 Truth is to obtain a truly independent investigation of 9-11, and to ascertain who is really responsible for it and what truly happened on that awful, fateful day. Granted, "our 'leaders'" may never allow a truly independent investigation of 9-11 to take place, but it is our DUTY to continue to seek such a truly independent investigation of 9-11, even if it is never allowed to happen; and we must NEVER stop seeking to obtain such an investigation of 9-11, until we have it.

(Continued)
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2014-06-01 22:28
#

I'm sorry, I DO have compassion for you, but you are "brain dead" by your own admission, too much so, and 9/11 Truth would be much better off if you would cease making your comments on the subject altogether; because you are hurting 9/11 Truth as much if not more so by making them than you are contributing to the furtherance and benefit of 9/11 Truth and the conversation on the topic. So, for 9/11 Truth's sake, and for the sake of not continuing to inadvertantly discredit 9/11 Truth as you are by your comments, please bow out and leave it to those who can make nothing but accurate and correct comments on the subject, without truly discrediting 9/11 Truth, to further the promotion of 9/11 Truth and the conversation on the matter. Thank you for all of your consideration.

#
 
 
+4 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-02 11:06
Quoting John S. Browne:
#

cease making your comments on the subject altogether; because you are hurting 9/11 Truth as much if not more conversation on the topic. So, for 9/11 Truth's sake, and for the sake of not continuing to inadvertantly discredit 9/11 Truth as you are by your comments, please bow out and leave it to those who further the promotion of 9/11 Truth and the conversation on the matter. Thank you for all of your consideration.

#

John, I don't mean to bring harm to the 9-11 Truth. I'm a donating and contributing member to the cause and I enlighten folks every chance I get. I am entitled to my opinion, just as you enjoy yours. I absolutely want the truth to come out. I absolutely want the guilty bastards to be brought to justice. WHY in the wold Larry SilverSTEIN isn't being investigated is beyond me. But knowing people as I do, yes, some can handle the truth. PLEASE, bring it on. But for others....witho ut the artificial boundaries that keep them in check, they would be dangerous. I am a POSITIVE, John, not a negative, so concentrate on the sensible things I do say. I appreciate all your info, but you don't own this blog. Berating our "own" doesn't help. Rather then kicking at supporters of the truth, be glad they ARE there trying to do the best they can to help. If anything, YOU are making 9-11 Truth look bad by trying to discredit a member.United, we stand...divided , we fall. I am suprized by you!
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2014-06-02 12:14
#

You keep misstating the facts of 9/11 Truth. If you can't state all of those facts com- pletely correct, or at least do so most of the time, then obviously it would be best if you chose not to try and state them. Discouraging a truly independent 9-11 investigation is the worst yet, making FIVE (5), count them, FIVE (5) errors that you have made already in only two comments. I'm not trying to take away your freedom of speech. Feel free to comment away on other things; or, if you can come back to commenting on 9/11 Truth and get the facts straight most of the time at least, and not mislead people most of the time as you are doing now, then feel free to do so. But common sense should tell you that if you can't get the facts straight most of the time, it would be best if you left it to the 9/11 Truthers to do so who can get them straight.

#
 
 
0 # Caliban 2014-06-02 13:01
Keep standing up for yourself, ChickenBoo. I disagree with both of you on lot's of these matters, but nobody should have the right to bully and harass fellow commenters.
 
 
-3 # John S. Browne 2014-06-02 13:31
#

STFrackU, you evil liar and deceiver! I am NOT bullying him or her! I am simply stating facts and common sense! Naturally a 9/11 Truth naysayer and deceiver like yourself on the subject, and on many other things, jumps on my suggesting to a 9/11 Truther who gets most of the facts wrong to please bow out of habitually misstating those facts! Of course, you don't have any insidious and nefarious agenda, oh no! But, on the contrary, you are an intentional liar, detractor and attempted-under miner of 9/11 Truth; and, in response to the latter, that is your whole agenda, to shill-troll for evil and anti-9/11-Truth in order to falsely and fraudulently seek to supposedly "discredit" 9/11 Truth and discourage people from coming to believe the complete truth of it! Thus, you and all of your kind are extremely evil and disgusting!

#
 
 
+1 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-02 14:14
Quoting Caliban:
Keep standing up for yourself, ChickenBoo. I disagree with both of you on lot's of these matters, but nobody should have the right to bully and harass fellow commenters.

Same to you, Caliban. I don't agree with you either, but I think it's childish to call names and bully others on a public list. I don't care HOW smart you may think you are.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2014-06-03 13:12
ChickenBoo, I have never insulted anyone on this site the way John S. Browne has insulted you--and threatened me ("STFrackU, you evil liar and deceiver!"). In fact, it appears the editors have removed some of his comments about you because of their nastiness.

That said, I do believe in disagreement and debate when cause exists, but I don't call the folks I'm arguing with idiots or tell them to get out of the debate--as John did to you. Nor can you find anywhere that I have done so.
 
 
-4 # John S. Browne 2014-06-03 13:42
#

Oh, come now, liar. The comments of mine that were ILLEGALLY removed because it was illegal censorship and violation of my First Amendment rights, were QUITE tame. And I ONLY stated nothing but the truth, that an idiot who lied about me, was and is an idiot. I have every legal right to say that because, legally, free(dom of) speech includes unpopular AND so-called "offensive" speech.

And don't ANYONE give me that crap about RSN or any other site with open commenting supposedly not having any obligation(s) to fully obey the First Amendment. On the contrary, they do, COMPLETELY, because they opened the comments section up to the public; therefore, the First Amendment FULLY applies and they are violating the supreme law(s) of the U.S., as well as the free speech clauses of the state constitutions where they and myself are located (and where everyone else they've illegally censored and violated the free speech rights of live).

They cannot legally have TOS' and website rules that violate free speech rights, either; and/or enforce them above the First Amendment and the other free speech clauses of the law [though, of course, many websites do so and get away with it because there is little or no respect for, and correct and legal understanding and/or interpretation of, the supreme law(s) of the land, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, in the U.S. anymore].

(Now, watch, my registration on this site will likely be illegally removed because I spoke the truth.)

#
 
 
-4 # John S. Browne 2014-06-03 14:12
#

Watch, further, if they don't remove my registration on the site, that RSN and/or Boardman will totally ignore this, or come back at me with rationalization s about how they were supposedly "totally justified" in removing my comments, or having my comments removed, along with the contextual ones of "ChickenBoo"; even though they most-definitely WERE NOT legally so in any way whatsoever.

RSN: Fully respect and uphold the First Amendment and freedom of speech, as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and please restore "ChickenBoo's" and my comments in-full and/or in their entirety. Thank you.

#
 
 
-4 # John S. Browne 2014-06-03 14:31
#

Additionally, we, none of us, give up freedom of speech ANY- WHERE, including in private businesses that are open to the public. We either have human and civil rights, and/or human rights and civil liberties, EVERYWHERE; or we don't have any of them at all anywhere. [Human rights include civil liberties and/or rights as well (in other words, civil rights/libertie s are human rights, too); and human rights include freedom of speech (in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is international law).

I quote Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the pertinent free speech clause of international law, as follows:

"EVERYONE has the right to freedom of opinion and expression... to hold opinions WITHOUT INTERFERENCE and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas THROUGH ANY MEDIA AND REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS."

#
 
 
-2 # John S. Browne 2014-06-03 14:51
#

And, lest someone question my credentials, I am a human rights and civil liberties advocate, and have been for many years now. I am also a bona fide member in good standing of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) as a fully physically disabled former legal worker (paralegal and/or legal assistant); and of the ACLU.

#
 
 
+2 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-03 14:26
Quoting Caliban:
ChickenBoo, I have never insulted anyone on this site the way John S. Browne has insulted you--and threatened me ("STFrackU, you evil liar and deceiver!"). In fact, it appears the editors have removed some of his comments about you because of their nastiness.
That said, I do believe in disagreement and debate when cause exists, but I don't call the folks I'm arguing with idiots or tell them to get out of the debate--as John did to you. Nor can you find anywhere that I have done so.

Caliban, you misread my post. I was AGREEING with you. You have every right to your opinion. When I mentioned "being childish", that was in reference to Mr. Browne. Adult debate is just fine.....with ADULTS. Mr. Browne may or may not be an adult....he did make some great posts, but then dissolved into name calling and cyber-bullying. I hope RSN WILL remove him from their list as people like him "cheapen" a blog like this.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2014-06-03 15:22
Sorry, ChickenBoo, my mistake. Ranters like Mr. Browne make communications difficult for even the best intended.
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2014-06-04 18:30
For the record:

1. I have no authority over what anyone (except me)
posts here or anywhere

2. I oppose banning people, unless their offenses
are egregious, unpleasant, ad hominem, and
unresponsive to amelioration
[I have no authority over this, either]

3. John S. Browne has much to say that is useful but
it sometimes gets lost in the rhetoric of his
apparent absolute certainty and personal attacks
on others who disagree

4. It might be worth anyone's time to read the "concern"
at the top of the Comments section and ponder
whether the drift toward vitriol [yes, it can be fun]
adds anything to the dialogue
 
 
-3 # John S. Browne 2014-06-05 00:32
#

Of course, ignoring freedom of speech as well as, because you can no longer read "ChickenBoo's" personal attacks of me because he or she wrongly took offense and felt slighted because I simply requested that he or she not attempt to "promote" 9/11 Truth if he or she couldn't get the facts straight, since their comments have been deleted along with mine in that context, missing their personal attacks of me (or ignoring them if you read those comments before they were deleted).

I was very polite until "ChickenBoo" attacked me, falsely accusing me of a couple things, and then finally falsely accusing me of lying, with him- or her- self actually being the one guilty of lying, and then I defended myself and simply called him or her what they have made obvious that they are. I DID *NOT* SO-CALLED "PERSONALLY ATTACK" FIRST. But I don't take any crap from ANYONE, including RSN. Yet calling "ChickenBoo" the idiot and moron that they have admitted to being by admitting to being "brain dead", and proving themselves to be such by constantly misstating facts concerning 9-11, as I already said, was quite tame. I could have cussed them up one side and down the other, but I didn't.

(Continued)

#
 
 
-3 # John S. Browne 2014-06-05 00:34
#

Now I've also been falsely accused of needing to have my free speech further violated by my being banned; and falsely accused, by "Caliban", of threatening him, something I would NEVER do. Anyone with half a brain, of course, can see that the statement from me that he claims to be a "threat", is no such thing. I simply told him to "frack off" because of his myriad of lies, and his adding insult to injury by falsely accusing me of "bully(ing) and harass(ing)" 'ChickenBoo', which I did NOT do.

It is quite typical of shill-trolls like Caliban, to seek to get people banned in order to prevent any more of those they're seeking to get banned (which "ChickenBoo" is falsely seeking now too) from showing them up for what they really are, and what they're really up to. They strategically get the attention off themselves by making others falsely look like they're "worthy" of being banned, or having their comments deleted, etc.

"Caliban" has proven himself to be an extremely divisive commenter here, but to my knowledge no one has called for him to be banned. Whereas I can't even make polite suggestions to someone without being attacked, falsely accused, and people falsely seeking to get my comments deleted as well as falsely seeking to get me banned.

(Continued)

#
 
 
-2 # John S. Browne 2014-06-05 02:34
#

That "concern" at the top of the comments section is a violation of free speech. "Vitriol" is so-called "offensive" and unpopular speech, and is fully protected free speech under the law; thus, obviously making that "concern" and such clauses of most TOS' a violation of free speech.

#
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2014-06-09 11:04
John S. Browne seems to misunderstand "free speech."

Free speech" is not universally guaranteed, though
perhaps it should be.

The First Amendment prevents CONGRESS from making
any LAW "abridging the freedom of speech" which it does
anyway because of exigent circumstances, imminent danger,
copyright, and other generally accepted infringements
(including rules of order in Congress and zillions of
other organizations).

Contractual limitations on free speech are legion and
who knows how many (presumably millions) of employees
are contractually of their full free speech rights. Same
for those covered by certain court decisions. No doubt
other examples abound.

Arguably, the free speech on RSN is limited by a
contractual relationship: one's comments are welcome
as long as they meet a pretty low standard of civility.
Failing to meet that standard is a contractual violation
for which the remedy is de-posting and/or banning.
 
 
-1 # John S. Browne 2014-06-15 19:38
#

Those are typical lies that are promulgated and believed about freedom of speech. It's part of what most of us have been falsely propagandized, indoctrinated and conditioned to wrongly believe. To put it in a manner of speaking, freedom of speech IS universal, even if it (supposedly) "isn't". In other words, even though we are fraudulently led to believe, and falsely believe, as well as fraudulently treated as if it "is", that freedom of speech is supposedly "not" universal, it is universal regardless of that false "reality".

So, no, Bill Boardman, I do NOT misunderstand free(dom of) speech AT ALL; but, instead, under- stand, recognize, uphold and defend it against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, as it is suppos- ed to be understood. You and most "Amerikans" can of course, and undoubtedly will, continue to believe the lies that freedom of speech is allegedly "not" universal if you wish; but that does not alter the fact of its actual universality, no matter what.

Besides, we are born with all of the rights of human beings; they are God-given and innate; and they are inalienable and/or inseparable from us; therefore, how can they be anything but universal? It is only the violation(s) of them that supposedly make them "non-universal" . Even if you don't believe they're God-given, they're still an innate part of us from birth, and are therefore universal. How can something be an innate part of ourselves, but allegedly not be rights that we have at all times?

#
 
 
-4 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-06-02 04:51
Google the Moussaoui trial transcripts. Read what the FBI agent that arrested him testified and draw some reasonable conclusions yourself. Wake up. YES, George Tennant, Dick Cheney, and Tennant knew 9/11 was coming in July and they and the neocons used it for there own purposes. And, NO, they did NOT plant explosives in any buildings or hit the Pentagon with a missile. Most interesting was that Moussaoui testified that the fourth plane was planned to hit Three Mile Island. That would have left the East coast uninhabitable for thousands of years. That plane, of course, went of course/directio n and crashed in Pennsylvania. Draw your own conclusions as to how/why that happened. By the way, WTC 7 was full of diesel fuel. Any wonder it caught fire and collapsed with flaming debris falling on it.
 
 
+9 # SusanT136 2014-06-02 07:40
I have a big problem with the way the 911 museum has been set up. A gift shop? Really? With ticky tacky items? If you need to raise money, how about a "wall" of donor's names (giant computer screen with names scrolling by…) Any one can donate any amount and be on the wall.

$365,000/yr for its President? They claim to have $60 mil /yr operating costs. Well if that salary is any indication I can see how they choose to spend their money.

But - even worse - $24 required admission? Most NYC museums have suggested admission prices, but you can pay whatever you like, it's a donation. That is totally outrageous. If you bring a family of 4 to the museum, you're out $100 just walking in. How many families can afford that? (In contrast, admission to the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum is 200 yen - less than $2 - and they have no "gift shop").

Sen Gillibrand has drafted a proposal to have the National Parks System take over the running of the memorial portion of the site, which would reduce costs. Previous version of this proposal were objected to by Sen Coburn of OK, who never questions the cost of giving huge tax breaks to oil companies but wants to know what cuts will be made in order to fund anything for the 911 museum/memorial .
 
 
+3 # Dr. Mike 2014-06-02 13:17
Why not copy the practice at Arlington National Cemetery? Cute little made in China plastic white crosses & Stars of David in rows of plastic grass and plastic USA flags ... We are a capitalist nation, after all, perhaps all of these national monuments could be privatized.
 
 
+6 # Archie1954 2014-06-02 11:11
Then there were the dancing Israelis also the van full of Israeli art students etc., etc. There seem to be more Israelis in the area then Muslims. Of course no one ever asked Bush why the bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the US the day after the attack, when all other flights into and out of North America were grounded.
 
 
+2 # Glen 2014-06-02 13:56
Good one, Archie, often missed in the aftermath and in the discussion concerning this event. That fact is a reality and not a theory as so many would enjoy painting it. And don't forget the cigar smoking session of George W. and "Bandar Bush" on the balcony at the White House.
 
 
-2 # Jingze 2014-06-02 12:12
The bible contains more than just a few gaps, so it must be a fabrication wrought by people with a vested interest in the stories.
 
 
+4 # Questions, questions 2014-06-02 13:58
For anyone who has read down this far, I thought it was worth mentioning - as I don't believe anyone has here as yet - that whatever hit the Pentagon (I'm agnostic myself, pending release of criminally confiscated evidence), there is NO "official" or logical/commons ense reason why it should have hit the building where and as it did. The plane made a 270 degree turn, dropping thousands of feet to come in at treetop level, just to hit the most protected, least occupied and least important section of the building (unless you care about what happened to the $2 TRILLION that Rummy announced just the day before that DOD couldn't account for).

It's been well-documented that the "official version" hijacker pilot of flight 77 couldn't fly a cessna let alone a 767, so even if he did pull this off, what was he doing, showing off? (in the some of most restricted airspace on the planet...) Seems to me that's all you need to know that the official story regarding the Pentagon attack is pure BS, and the rest of the details are interesting speculation and good questions, but not necessary to make a plausible argument for a broader conspiracy.

So Mr. Boardman, I would add "the UA 77 flightline/targ eting" to your list of crucial things to explain about 9/11. While you are asking lots of good questions here, please make more effort to get off the fence and join the call for truth and accountability, before all the likely actors have died off/gone to hell and left us this mess we're in.
 
 
+3 # motamanx 2014-06-02 17:00
Once again, it really doesn't matter if the highjacker could fly a Cessna or not. The hole in the Pentagon wasn't big enough for a 757 to fit into. There were no seats, luggage, engines, tail section or wings. There was Cheney telling the radar guy that the "orders" had not been changed. What orders? There is film of Rumsfeld "helping" the responders outside the Pentagon (he was the fifth man helping to lift a four man stretcher). He was not, as should be noted, at his Defense Dept post trying to find out what really happened.
There are so many unanswered questions all through this blog to warrant a re-examination of the events of that horrible day.
 
 
+3 # intheEPZ 2014-06-03 10:58
Actually Cheney aid "of course the orders still stand".
WHO IS young man ? WHAT WERE THE ORDERS? IF CHENEY HASN'T INVITED HIM HUNTING AND ELIMINATED HIM YET, WHY HASN'T THAT "YOUNG MAN" BEEN ASKED TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY AND FULLY DISCLOSE WHAT ORDERS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT? I lost two friends in 9-11, one at the Windows on the World restaurant at the top of the North Tower, the other died on the plane flying to LA that crashed into one of the towers. These two men were friends who danced on the same Morris team. I believe they died in a terrorist attack. But I want to know who were the terrorists. I want answers. I want an independent, thorough, no-evidence-hel d-back investigation. The refusal of the Obama Admin. and Congress/Senate to demand the truth is outrageous and implies cover-up and complicity.
 
 
+2 # intheEPZ 2014-06-03 10:59
...I can believe nothing our gov't says or does in our name until the true conspiritors of this murder are outed. All of them. Until we have the truth, we damage ourselves and every person in every nation we intervene in in any way. The neocon agenda still stands. The AUMF has not been repealed. The NDAA gets renewed over and over with outrageous policy decisions, such as indefinite detention of American Citizens without due process. (NDAA 2012). This outrageous lack of accountability and intentional duplicity robs me of my country. "Murder though it hath no tongue will speak with most miraculous organ."--Wm Shakespeare. "America is not America to me, but she will be." --Langston Hughes. I hope so.
 
 
-7 # Caliban 2014-06-03 01:11
"Well documented? What about this from Wikipedia: "The hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 were led by Hani Hanjour, who piloted the aircraft into the Pentagon.[1]... Hanjour trained at the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Arizona, earning his FAA commercial pilot's certificate in April 1999.[3]
 
 
+4 # Questions, questions 2014-06-03 12:59
Well Caliban, that may be, but the instructors there told CBS that "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." and another told the NYTimes that Hanjour "could not fly at all."

In any case, numerous expert pilots affiliated with Pilots for 9/11 Truth have said that THEY could not have done that maneuver, and that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Hanjour could have. But more importantly, we have to ask why anyone would CHOOSE to conduct such a risky maneuver, when diving straight into the building would be much simpler and devastating. A sensible person could only conclude that whoever carried this out wanted to cause the least damage and kill the least number of people while still making a big scene (and possibly serve to destroy ALL the accounting documents related to that $2 trillion loss at DOD.)

You got a better explanation?
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2014-06-03 15:27
There is one fact in this matter--Hanjour 's commercial pilot's certificate. I have no opinion on anybody else's opinions.
 
 
+1 # tonywicher 2014-06-03 18:36
Including his teachers? How silly!
 
 
+5 # WBoardman 2014-06-03 10:26
Questions, questions – good stuff,
especially pointing out the fortuitous hit on the Pentagon.

For the record, I am not on the fence, and I really thought
my piece WAS a call for truth and accountability
(no, I didn't make that explicit, but where else can one go
after asking these and other unanswered questions?).
Also, it's not as though my voice carries very far

On the other hand, who can we trust to investigate
all this in a neutral, scientific way?

And is there too much missing evidence to settle
the most important questions?

But even if a new investigation is doomed to fail,
I'M FOR IT!

Does that take care of the fence for you? ;-)))
 
 
+4 # Questions, questions 2014-06-03 11:58
Thanks, Bill, that does clarify things more. (Sorry, some of us "truthers" are sticklers for straightforward admissions, for some reason...)

Regarding who to lead a real investigation - too bad we don't have Dr. Feynman around to appoint. Bill Moyers? How about Dr. Neil deGrasse-Tyson? He seems to have some appreciation of science and growing media clout. Anyway, we can dream...

And don't sell yourself short on media influence - your story is still the "most popular" on RSN four days later despite stiff competition, for what it's worth.
 
 
+5 # tonywicher 2014-06-03 18:33
I wish Feynman was still around. Now there was a great scientist and a man of integrity. But I find that architect Richard Gage, physicist Steven Jones, and chemists Kevin Ryan and Niels Harritt are also scientists and men of integrity who know what they are talking about. You can find them at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice or Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. You can also find good expert testimony from experienced pilots at Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
 
 
+5 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-03 13:20
I don't know why an official investigation can't start with "Smoking Gun", Lucky Larry Silverstien. He obviously knew his 3rd tower was prepared for demolition when he made the famous call to "Just Pull it". There he stood, his hands still sticky from the blood of 3,000 people from the collapse of his first 2 towers, saying...."just pull it". It makes me crazy that he hasn't been investigated. If it is proved (and I believe it HAS) that the third tower had been prepared for demolition months in advance, then the whole card-house of lies should crumble. And OMG, what a mess to unravel!
 
 
-2 # John S. Browne 2014-06-03 15:19
#

Concerning all of the comments of mine and others that this website removed, it was ILLEGAL for this site to remove them because it was illegal censorship and in violation of my and others First Amendment rights, as well as our free speech rights under international law, and my comments in question were QUITE tame. I ONLY stated nothing but the truth, that an idiot who lied about me, was and is an idiot. I have every legal right to say that because, legally, free(dom of) speech includes unpopular AND so-called "offensive" speech.

And don't ANYONE give me any of the lie(s) about RSN or any other sites with open commenting supposedly not having any obligation(s) to fully obey the First Amendment (and/or international law). On the contrary, they do, COMPLETELY, because they opened the comments section up to the public; therefore, the First Amendment [and the free speech clause(s) of international law] FULLY applies [/apply] and they are violating the supreme law(s) of the U.S., as well as the free speech clauses of the state constitutions where they and myself are located (and where everyone else they've illegally censored and violated the free speech rights of live).

(Continued)
 
 
-3 # John S. Browne 2014-06-03 15:20
#

They cannot legally have TOS' and website rules that violate free speech rights, either; and/or enforce them above the First Amendment and the other free speech clauses of the law [though, of course, many websites do so and get away with it because there is little or no respect for, and correct and legal understanding and/or interpretation of, the supreme law(s) of the land, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, in the U.S. anymore].

Now, watch, my registration on this site will likely be illegally removed because I spoke the truth.

Watch, further, if they don't remove my registration on the site, that RSN and/or Boardman will totally ignore this, or come back at me with rationalization s about how they were supposedly "totally justified" in removing my comments, or having my comments removed, along with the contextual ones of "ChickenBoo"; even though they most-definitely WERE NOT legally so in any way whatsoever.

RSN: Fully respect and uphold the First Amendment and freedom of speech, as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and please restore "ChickenBoo's" and my comments in-full and/or in their entirety. Thank you.

(Continued)
 
 
-2 # John S. Browne 2014-06-03 15:21
#

Additionally, we, none of us, give up freedom of speech ANYWHERE, including in private businesses that are open to the public. We either have human and civil rights, and/or human rights and civil liberties, EVERYWHERE; or we don't have any of them at all anywhere. [Human rights include civil liberties and/or rights as well (in other words, civil rights/libertie s are human rights, too); and human rights include freedom of speech (in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is international law).

I quote Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the pertinent and relevant free speech clause of international law, as follows:

"EVERYONE has the right to freedom of opinion and expression... to hold opinions WITHOUT INTERFERENCE and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas THROUGH ANY MEDIA AND REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS."

And, lest someone question my credentials, I am a human rights and civil liberties advocate, and have been for many years now. I am also a bona fide member in good standing of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) as a fully physically disabled former legal worker (paralegal and/or legal assistant); and of the ACLU.

Again, RSN, please fully respect and uphold the First Amendment and freedom of speech, as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and restore "ChickenBoo's" and my comments in-full and/or in their entirety. Thank you.

#
 
 
-1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2014-06-03 15:54
What happened to the Pentagon Plane.

The place was a top secret fortress. Construction secrets were seized off the internet.
 
 
+5 # tonywicher 2014-06-03 18:26
There is a huge, overwhelming amount of evidence that the Twin Towers and Building Seven were demolished with explosives, from the fact that the towers fell through what should have been the path of greatest resistance, with 80,000 tons of cold structural steel to fall through, at free-fall acceleration, or close, meaning there was zero resistance, which is physically impossible unless the vertical columns were cut simultaneously and instantaneously with explosives. And then there is the fact that thermite residue was to be found all over the place. But it was not "found", because NIST's job was not to find out what really happened but to cover up what really happened. Please go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, ae911truth.org where there are many highly qualified experts not paid by the government or the CIA who will explain these things to you. A decent grasp of high school physics would help.
 
 
-3 # tgemberl 2014-06-04 09:26
What I would like to ask is what you are gaining by entertaining these conspiracy theories. Whether there was a conspiracy by the Bush administration to blow up the Twin Towers, we know that America has been too militaristic and interventionist abroad. It seems to me that you are wasting a great deal of energy arguing about conspiracy theories.

I see two similar issues in recent American history. First the most recent. A lot of people say Al Gore was cheated in 2000. But while I was a Gore supporter, I see no evidence for that. As one of Gore's own staffers said the day after he conceded, if he had just won Tennessee (his home state) and Arkansas (Bill Clinton's home state), which were both fairly close, he would not have needed Florida. But though he was born in Tennessee, he wasn't comfortable campaigning in a red state like Tennessee. In the Supreme Court case, all the court said was that if you are going to count votes, all counties have to count them the same way. There's nothing outrageous about that. Gore was just less lucky than Bush. As a result, we got a bad president, but a lot of life is luck.

After 50 years, no solid evidence has ever emerged that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone. People who claim he couldn't have underestimate the element of idiosyncrasy in human personality. People do weird things sometimes. They're unpredictable. (continued)
 
 
-1 # tgemberl 2014-06-04 09:37
Continued

For example, people who know Jack Ruby say he would never have taken his dog with him in the car the day he shot Oswald if he had planned to shoot him. He was known to be a very impulsive person. No one would have chosen Jack Ruby to be part of a conspiracy, because he was a very undisciplined "loose cannon." He gave a believable explanation for why he shot Oswald: he was trying to save Mrs. Kennedy from having to go through a murder trial.

I can easily believe that the "just pull it," "do the orders still stand?" and "you've covered your ass" comments are unrelated statements taken out of context. They might not be. But like the Kennedy assassination, this is an issue that may take decades to resolve. It will become a matter for historians.

I'll admit I have a prejudice against conspiracy theories. The problem is that they assume the "evil ones" are almost omnipotent. I don't believe anyone has that much power.
 
 
+3 # Glen 2014-06-04 12:06
In truth, there is plenty of evidence for both the 9/11 attacks and the Kennedy assassination. whether someone will listen or read it is another story.

You would also be amazed if you truly knew just how much power people can wield over us and our country, but just how corrupt and deadly they can be.
 
 
-5 # tgemberl 2014-06-04 12:44
Glen,
I think focusing on conspiracies keeps us from really dealing with the issues that face us. We need to convince the American people to spend less on the military and take a humbler role in the world. We're not going to do that by convincing people that Bush planned the destruction of 9/11.
 
 
+4 # Glen 2014-06-04 15:25
Oh, I agree with you, but the subject at hand is the WTC attack and all things related. These issues are extremely important, not that the results are not.

Stopping military spending is impossible. Always has been. Most Americans have given it a pass out of fear due to that "conspiracy" of 9/11.
 
 
+2 # WBoardman 2014-06-04 18:46
Is it possible that someone would call it a "conspiracy"
in order to avoid confronting the potentially
earth-shaking of a straight-forwar d criminal investigation?

Then there's the question:
why was there no competent, straight-forwar d
criminal investigation?

In that sense, 9/11 is just like the 2000 election,
where the Supreme Court chose the President
rather than having Florida count the votes
(vote-counting being a functional equivalent of
investigation a crime).

You may make your own election=crime joke here.
 
 
-3 # tgemberl 2014-06-05 12:42
William,
No, I'm not saying that claims of conspiracies shouldn't be investigated. If you want to spend time doing that, fine. I just don't think it's a good use of most people's time to do it. The information that would be required to resolve the questions is very hard to get. Probably takes years, maybe decades, to get.

Let me respond to the point you made about the 2000 election. If you are going to count votes, you have to have a consistent way to do it. If one county counts everything that might possibly be a Gore vote and another county only counts certain Gore votes, that calls into question the result. The Supreme Court decision mostly said that the counties weren't counting consistently.

Now, that Gore staffer I quoted said Gore made another mistake. When Florida was close, he asked for a recount in only the counties where he was ahead. The staffer said that if he'd asked for a recount of the entire state, there's a good chance the Republicans wouldn't have challenged it. As it was, they said he was "fishing for votes."

I don't blame Gore much for his mistakes. They are things any of us might have done in the pressure of the moment. But unfortunately, though he won the popular vote, his luck ran out.
 
 
+1 # Questions, questions 2014-06-05 14:07
Quoting tgemberl:
William,
No, I'm not saying that claims of conspiracies shouldn't be investigated. If you want to spend time doing that, fine. I just don't think it's a good use of most people's time to do it.


So, it's not as if these supposed "official story" events caused major shifts in US foreign/war policy, or gave Bush and his gang cover to ignore/twist basic facts and basic human morality, cause unwarranted fear of "Arab terrorists" or belie basic rules of science and building engineering, right? Almost EVERY foreign and domestic security policy shifted dramatically after 9/11, not to mention giving excuse (exceedingly lame ones!) for TWO (maybe more...) wars causing tens of thousands of needless deaths. But hey, it's just a waste of time to investigate, huh?

What acceptance of a broader conspiracy here involves is a basic paradigm shift in one's sense of how our government can function (mostly unwittingly) to serve various criminal, world-dominatin g or simply self-aggrandizi ng interests. A whole lot of strange activities (on and since 9/11) start to make more sense once you make that shift. And then there's the small issue of defending basic scientific, not to mention criminal justice principles. (Notice that NOBODY has yet been prosecuted since Moussaoui - and he wasn't even directly involved, according to KSM/court transcripts.) But don't look behind that curtain - nothing to see, or care about, there...

It's EVERYBODY's problem!
 
 
-1 # tgemberl 2014-06-09 14:19
Once again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't investigate conspiracies if they want to. But I don't think it's worthwhile for most people. Barring a miracle, these questions will only be answered by historians.

I have a feeling those "basic rules of science and building engineering" you're talking about are not as solid as you claim.
 
 
-2 # tgemberl 2014-06-05 12:44
(continued)
I think the most gracious thing Gore did was to concede when he realized he couldn't get the Supreme Court to back the recount. In a lot of other countries, losing candidates will question the validity of the result. You can't have a democracy unless you're willing to lose elections.
 
 
+1 # Glen 2014-06-05 13:30
The 2000 election was a done deal long before even Clinton was installed. The entire reason for shoving George W. into office in Texas, after drying him out and getting him off cocaine, was in preparation for that 2000 election. The fraud and corruption infected even that Texas election and the choreographers, including Karl Rove left a trail of dead careers and literally dead people along the way. It was those same thugs who bullied their way down the hall during the recount to put a stop to it.

The voter interference, voting machine tampering, interference by the politicos in Florida and Jeb, made it all happen. But never forget the illegality of the Supreme Court interference.

Even Barack Obama was a planned personality and his election well choreographed.
 
 
-1 # tgemberl 2014-06-09 14:16
Glen,
In your focus on Florida, you're forgetting a very important point. If Gore had won in Tennessee (his home state) and Arkansas (Bill Clinton's home state) he would not have needed Florida.

How can the 2000 election be a "done deal" when the results of it so obviously depended on chance?
 
 
+1 # ChickenBoo 2014-06-04 20:00
It's extreamily important to me that the truth about 9-11 be brought to light and the guilty parties, all of them, be brought to justice. Larry Silverman turned his back on 3,000 Americans that were killed that day, not counting the thousands of lives of the families that were ruined, and slithered off to count his ill-gotten billions. But it didn't end there. We were immeadiately dragged into a "war" that has lasted nearly 16 years and has killed millions more innocent people. Absolutely, this is not OK with me.So many people just shrug and say..oh there's nothing that can be done about it, OR, worse, they close their hearts and accept the lies our government tells us. Indeed, facing up to the truth means being responsible with your decisions, and most folks can not handle the horror of knowing their beloved government is not who they think they are.
 
 
+1 # streetnamewiley 2014-07-18 22:44
What a crock that a plane hit the pentagon..All you have to do is look at the Malaysia plane crash that just happened a couple days ago! There is a huge wreck seats electrical equipment and burned bodies and parts body's all over..the ground and that plane was shot down couple thousand feet in the air. So Im suppose to believe that a plane full of passengers just evaporated into the pentagon with no seats bodies or body parts?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN