It also appears, however, that trutherism will still play a significant role; the DC Area 9/11 Truth Movement and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Movement are currently listed as partners. (HUFFPO)
After twenty years, conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11 are STILL running wild. So we’re attempted to take five of the biggest theories, and get them debunked FOREVER.
Millions of people believe that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives as part of a vast government conspiracy. One of the core pieces of evidence for this belief is the presence of millions of microscopic iron spheres in the WTC dust. It is falsely claimed these microspheres could only have come from the use of explosives, and so their presence proves controlled demolition. Why does this false belief persist after being debunked over a decade ago?I explain the misconceptions about iron microspheres that keep the belief alive, and how to discuss these misconceptions with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I’ll show where the WTC microspheres probably came from. There will be a live demonstration of one method of making iron microspheres using materials from the hotel gift shop, along with quick descriptions of ten other methods the fire marshal won’t let me show. This talk took place at the CSICon 2018 in Las Vegas on October 20, 2018
So it recently came to my attention that about 2 months ago Korey Rowe uploaded an HD remake of ‘Loose Change 2nd Edition’ on YouTube. A second edition of the second edition… This was rather fortunate, as in the last year or so I’ve noticed that there are no copies of ‘Screw Loose Change’ online anymore. I have a copy on my computer but the quality is so poor I was considering for a while of remaking it. But upon viewing this HD Loose Change I noticed that the film was completely redone. There was clearer pictures, footage and animations, and even Dylan was brought back in to narrate it all again. But what most surprised me is that the content of it was a little different too. Only a couple of very minor ‘new’ things, most of the changes was the removal of a fair amount of claims. Still, stunned that someone would remake a 2005 conspiracy film in 2018 and not include any of the massive quantity of previously unreleased 9/11 information now available to the public, I figured this would be a great opportunity for me to not only remake Screw Loose Change with HD footage, but also add to it with the plethora of new information which is now available to us compared to when Mark originally produced it in 2006. So without further ado I present: Screw Loose Change – Not Freakin’ Again Edition: Remastered
This was originally a printed booklet made for my sons then freshmen classmates/friends who thought Loose Change was legit (2006’ish). I printed three booklets — and all the editing and color photos and binding was $250 out of pocket. As I was paying for it, the guy at the counter said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. He was at his dads work (he was a federal agent), in his office, which had a view of the Pentagon. Right after it hit, the place (he said) turned into a war-zone… in that he said they were literally suiting up with body armor, he said it seemed like they were pulling guns out of the walls. A very interesting discussion to confirm what I was printing.
I updated this post today (9-4-2011) to reflect a recent challenge that there is no evidence a 757 hit the Pentagon. In order to bolster the claim that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon, I added some photos of human remains at the end (from the Pentagon). These are graphic, but unfortunately required to refute these nutters. So as you proceed, there is a warning that some of the images are graphic.
The conspiracies surrounding the Pentagon have come up in recent conversation so I figured I would add this to the liteny of responses I have give on my .com as well as at my older Blogspot site. For now this is almost a straight import (small changes added in this edition). I will add to this later and “spruce it up.” I originally spent $250 dollars on this project during the compilation of info met a young man who was in a federal building with his father and they both saw a passenger plane fly into the building. Personally. His story is an amazing memory for him because as soon as the plane hit, his father and many in the office building he was in went into emergency mode. Bullet proof vests went on and weapons were taken off the wall. Enjoy this critique.
The Loose Change guys say no plane hit the Pentagon. Take note of the very large piece boxed off in red (below). Hello, McFly. There is a worldwide movement against freedom, and it isn’t coming from Bush. It’s coming from Revolutionaries who use propaganda — like the PROOF I just showed you Loose Change used — to change a government they do not like.
Take note that bodies, luggage, and other parts of the plane were all calfdozered. In the above photo there is a red box which I enlarged to the right (click to increase in size). These guys are in hazard type suits because of the decomposing and burnt body parts that they meticulously had to find as rubble was moved. Another ingenuous insertion in Loose Change was this photo they say was the largest portion of the plane found. They make the piece look small by isolating it by itself with showing guys walking around picking up small pieces. Again, perspective is everything. Here is the piece pictured (the original is to the left) next to something else for comparison (right). Obviously one can see the wool [literally] being pulled over one’s eyes. But people gobble this stuff up like Pac-Man, to hell with the facts!
The question is, why did they choose this photo over the others? I will tell you why, they want the viewer to think only one way so they selectively used photos to make sure the viewer agrees with them. They say “look, this piece is small,” but fail to tell you it is as large as a fender on a truckThis is known as propaganda, and willingly and knowingly telling a lie by deselecting the truth. Loose Change also neglects to show how a semi-truck sized generator was struck (skimmed) by the engine of the plane right before it struck the Pentagon. The photo below shows where the generator was by marking where it should have been with a yellow outline. It was moved 45-degrees by the engine of the 757, which is evidenced by the huge gouge mark in the generator itself (caused by the engine of the plane).
Here is a picture of what these generators look like, intact:
Here is the view of the damaged trailers:
Here are the views and commentary on the damaged trailers fitting with an airliner flying close to the ground:
Another photo that irked me was one of the spools just sitting in front of the Pentagon nice and neat. The problem is that some of these spools had been stacked neatly by this fenced area. As you can see, one of the engines hanging closer to the ground ripped through this area and spread the spools you see pictured. I would be interested to know also if the firemen moved the spools out of the way later in the day fighting the fires.
One should take note that in the right hand side of this photo is the semi-truck sized generators and spools were located allowing more perspective (MOUSE OVER for highlighted area):
And finally, another thing that was so obviously a cover up by Loose Change to make the viewer sympathetic was the bit about the windows not being broken in the Pentagon right near where the wing of the plane hit. First of all, the only real strong part of a plane like the 757 is the underbelly, and the structures of the wings can be clearly seen in the following two pictures after that:
Of issue as well is the size of the hole a 757 would make in the Pentagon (again, see commentary above in the stripped down L1011). Conspirators say the hole is tiny. I agree! But many do not realize what the diameter of a 757 is. The question becomes then….
WHAT IS THE DIAMETER OF A 757?? ANSWER: 16.5 FEET
Here are some rendered photos often with outlines to show the impact are fitting well with an airliner hitting the Pentagon:
This footage is of a test conducted on April 19, 1988, at a rocket sled facility at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in which an actual F-4 Phantom aircraft was impacted at a nominal velocity of 500 miles per hour into a rigid block of concrete. This was accomplished by supporting the F-4 on four struts that were attached to the sled track by carriage shoes to direct the path of the aircraft. Propulsion was accomplished by two stages of rockets. The concrete target was ‘floated’ on a set of air bearings. Results: An atomized plane. Cool.
[MISSING PICS]
Another point of “conspiratorial contention” are the intact “windows” in the surrounding impact area of the impact zone. OBVIOUSLY if this wing hit our house the windows would shatter. But the Pentagon wouldn’t have windows like yours or my house.
Duh.
Click on the thumbnail below (you can click once more to zoom even further) and read for yourself about these windows… and then ask yourself: how was I ever duped by such easily falsifiable rhetoric? (Click to enlarge):
You see, they had already begun to retrofit and upgrade the Pentagon in various sections, this are being one:
Here I am going to ad (3-29-07) some simulation videos, it shows the planes thin shell and frame (built that way to make it light as possible for flight) reacting to a high-speed impact with the Pentagon:
Here I will add only one response from the original post, as all are included in my WTC-7 post for further reading. This small response by me should sum up my feeling and journey along the path of going from a conspiracy nut myself to actually dealing with the facts. I deal somewhat with this conspiratorial view of history and my change towards an accidental view of history in my chapter of my book. While most of this chapter I deal with theology, it starts out dealing with some other finite issues. The section worth focusing in on are around pages 7-10 in the section entitled “Learning Curves.”
PHOTOS TO REFUTE SOME CRITICS
This next shot is a hole where an engine entered the Pentagon
All these pieces had to of punch holes…
Below is a 757 wheel
And here are the same pieces at the Pentagon
Here is a landing gear and other parts
Why Weren’t more pieces found?
Here is a COMPLETELY destroyed fuselage
How bout this plane which was almost completely destroyed?
Here is almost no debris left when a A C-130
(a four-engine turboprop aircraft) hit as building
Caution, Pics Below are GRAPHIC!
…
…
…
…
Here are some photos of human remains (from the Pentagon)
DEBUNKING 9/11 CONSPIRACIES is a resource kept up by METABUNK. It is dated and many links are bad and almost no media appears on it any longer, but still good reading.
POPULAR MECHANICS has and excellent article dealing with some issues as well.
I also have a decent C-O-N-spiracy PAGE to start at for multiple conspiracy matters. (These posts are old, so media and/or links may be dead once you reach a post of mine.)
JUDGE NAPOLITANO AND GERALDO RIVERA (WTC-7)
(HOTAIRhat-tip) The Judge and Geraldo Rivera Truthers!? Building Seven’s collapse was explained then as it is now and below.
I was not surprised to find out the Judge is a truther… people cannot be convinced that mankind is finite and saturated with failure and stupidity to explain away our missteps. The would rather believe in a very complex set of steps to leading to irrationality than that. “There HAS to be something more… a grand conspiracy to fool the intellectual prowess we all possess.
This is a many years update and additional media and pictures added (2023-09-05) to keep this post alive and well. The debate on Tower 7 still rages, and I must say, it is fun to show how awkward the counter position is.
STEVE SPAK
Before starting this “funfest,” I will say that one of the best refutations of the truther movement was a video done by fireman and photographer, Steve Spak. I used his mini-documentary for a while, until it was removed from his video account.
I tracked him down and we talked over the phone (many years ago now). I asked him why he would pull such a great resource off the internet. He responded that these nutters would come by his work and interrupt his daily life… so he just didn’t want to deal with all the nonsense.
I did track down — finally — an interview with Steve where much of this pertinent information comes out. So this is the first time Steve (God Bless Him) is back on my site in what? Seven years (April 10, 2011) Enjoy:
STEVE SPAKwas partly in charge of the firefighting efforts around WTC-7, and was one of the main persons involved in the decision to let it burn. I had heard a previous interview years before this one, but Steve pulled it from the internet. His reason? 9/11 Truther crazies would show up at his station and interfear with every day work firefighters do around their station. They would yell at him, call him a liar, etc. He said he had had enough of these nuts and went silent. I believe this interview is after he retired.
I am starting to get some truther (e.g., 9/11 conspiracy theorists) traffic so I will post a Tower Seven resource blog for those who wish to come here and see for themselves (or to send a friend).
EDWARD CURRENT 1
The last word on the collapse of the original 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Running down the mainstream engineering explanation, debunking common Truther myths, and answering frequently asked questions. Comments may be intentionally demolished…make your own video if you want to spread misinformation about this engineering disaster, or about anything else.
The “truther” would have us believe that the building (WTC 7) received no structural damage. This is just not the case.
FUEL IN WTC-7
Nor do you hear them mention that there was diesel fuel throughout the building:
Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.
Below are some examples or the damage caused by the collapse of Tower 1 and 2 — that show some of the damage caused by falling debris. What the truthers don’t mention either is that the falling debris from the Twin Towers damaged many of the high-pressure water lines the fire department needed to fight the fires in WTC 7. (As already pointed out above by Steve Spak and Edward Current):
When it was completed in 1973, the World Trade Centre was the tallest building in the world, thanks to many of its revolutionary construction methods. But none of these methods was enough to survive the attacks on September 11th where jet fuel fires led to a weakening of the steel that held the structure together, and ultimately caused both buildings to collapse.
Now I want to show the debris ring and an example (Bankers Trust) of the destruction from the original two towers collapsing:
There are also video examples of some of this debris actually hitting WTC 7:
As an example of how persistent this idea of “demolition” is of WTC-7, here is a chap on X noting this idea as if it is sound. Think of the power tools (noise and lugging them in and out), the noise, the dust (have you fixed your own drywall at any point?) — all unnoticed:
Frankie, below, I think is speaking about the Twin Towers, while I am speaking about Building Seven. The demolition teams required for the Twin Towers would defiantly number 2 teams of 75 people [or more] and take many months of prep with all the associated “mess” noted below — compounded for a larger building and time needed.
My oldest son commented on the above in a series of texts:
The most top notch team in the world !
A clandestine multi point dark demolition mission synchronized with a plane hijacking….while having no correlation to the terrorist who also invested months in training themselves…. [in other words: There’s no evidence of anyone in the demo team coordinating the strike]
Literally be the wildest operation [in our countries history] ever
And no witnesses
You would have to use the Men In Black mind swipers
MY TEXT BACK: And while I was talking about building 7, he was talking about the Twin Towers. So larger teams (doubled), more time and waste n tools, etc
Like magically hiding all the Det cord
And explosives…. are very closely watched via the ATF for demolition people
A building like that takes quality materials
MY TEXT BACK: All under the nose of New York unions
Honestly…. Macro evolution is looking more likely
FREE-FALLING
The times that the truthers originally gave to WTC-7 free-falling [in Loose Change and other sources] did not hold up, as this next video clearly shows:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extensive three-year scientific and technical investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. This video describes the results of this study, which concluded that fires on multiple floors in WTC 7–which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings–caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
9/11 Debunked: Larry Silverstein’s “Pull It” Explained
I love the truth of a matter; it is the truth that shall set you free, not opinion. Be set free truther’s, be set free.
FIRES BURNED FOR HOURS!
I want to post some pictures and a video here that will curb some of the wild thoughts that the fire in the WTC-7 was small and contained. Often times this is the photo or scene shown on many of the conspiratorial “documentaries” or sites:
Then the Truther will say something like… “Wow! Such a rager of a fire.” HOWEVER, the fire burned for hours, and here are some accompanying pics that should be shared as well:
VIDEO OF FIRE – RPT’s RUMBLE:
Me hunting the WWW…
All Footage of WTC-7 from Steve Spak’s DVD:
“WTC 9-11-01 Day of Disaster”
It is easy to show the fact that there was a massive fire in WTC-7.
But people cannot be convinced easy… especially if they have thought this to be true for years.
MELTING STEEL?
Now I want to switch gears and repost an old blog on “MELTING STEEL,” another fallacy of the 9/11 truthers:
FUEL & STEEL
According to the 9/11 Truthers, gasoline doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. Remember that the type of heat experienced in the Twin Towers weakened the steel by more than 50%. This aside, what you see below is steel melted by gasoline. Apparently this can happen only in steel beams used in the construction of bridges, but not in buildings. (Watch your volume levels – static)
A newer edition to this “heat vs. bridges” is this one from BRETBART:
A section of Interstate 95 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, collapsed when a tanker truck went up in flames on Sunday, and officials warned drivers to stay clear of the area.
The truck was hauling a petroleum product when the blaze ignited, according to the Associated Press (AP).
Q & A
These are responses, positive and negative to this post. I am sharing a few over the years as they are me responding to some supposed challenges.
...Dayton Responds
very interesting indeed
...Luke Responds
Dayton introduced me to this blog of yours, and I gotta say, nice work.
...I Respond
Thanks Luke.
For many years I followed the New World Order stuff, reading many, many books on the subject, even going so far as to visit the local John Birch Society meeting once-in-awhile, and after many years I came to realize that if you critically looked into the evidences for this giant conspiracy to fool mankind knowingly, it is shown to be wanting.
Currently the conspiracy to fool mankind is backed by liberals, however, when Clinton was President, it was backed by conservatives. For a theory or model to explain every possible outcome and have completely different backers depending on who’s in office simply means that it is not a true theory or model because it is so elastic. And this is a conclusion that I came to a while back and had solidified by Michael Medved during his monthly Conspiracy Show (around the full moon). elastic.
Let me point something out though. The difference between the lib/con views of the giant conspiracy to fool mankind is that no leading political figure in the Republican Party accepted these crazy conspiracy myths as real. Today however, you have a huge chunk of the Democratic base accepting many of these wild stories and blame America first mentality, as well as many Democrat senators and representatives mentioning these crazy ideas.
Its funny, I can show someone proof that “X” didn’t happen, but “B” in fact did. They will simply respond that that too was a cover up meant to fool the general public, e.g., me. There is no debating such a person. In fact, this was the original reason for my creating a MySpace, was to challenge a few of my oldest sons friends on this exact matter.
As for us Christians . . . I use to think that this giant conspiracy would fool mankind into following the Anti-Christ. Now I think the delusion of this theory will drive many people to accept almost anything . . . even a messianic type figure. In other words, it’s the conspiracy theory ITSELF that breaks down the critical thinking and road to truth that makes accepting incredible claims without evidence, logic, history, and the like, more common place. Which is why having a healthy eschatology as a Christian is very important.
Sorry for the rant, again, glad you enjoyed.
PapaG
BUILDING .. NUMBER .. SEVEN
This was in response to a discussion about the Twin Towers:
...Mark Joins In
You’ve got me almost convinced. But three words still ring in my ear.
Building
number
seven.
Building number 7 of the wtc was not hit by a 747, jet fuel or falling debris (aside from the dust that covered most of NYC) but mysteriously caught fire and imploded.
What – magic?
POPULAR MECHANICS BOOK (DEBUNKING 9/11 MYTHS) | FUEL
...I Respond
Thank you Mark for your interaction here, it is welcomed.
Actually, building seven was hit by a massive amount of debris from Tower 1 or 2 (I will look into which tower when I get the National Geographic DVD, since that has the best shots of falling debris I have seen yet). What you may not know is that building 7 housed the city’s emergency command post. The building was designed to remain operational if power were to be lost. How was this building designed to keep running if power were to go out? This is the part we don’t hear too much about:
…There were a number of fuel tanks throughout the building that may have supplied fuel to the fires for up to seven hours. In addition to smaller “day tanks” on each floor, two 6,000-gallon tanks in the basement fed most of the generators in the building….. Two generators, located on the fifth floor, were connected to the fuel tanks in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time”…. (p. 56)
….WTC 7 was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. That required an unusual design in which a number of columns were engineered to carry exceptionally large loads, roughly 2,000 square feet of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” (p. 55)
(Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts)
Also note that trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed (similarly to WTC 1 and 2) to transfer loads from one set of columns to another.
(The following is added for clarity even though already ): I want the skeptic to look here at the damage caused by debris [let alone the fires] from the falling Twin Tower to building 7:
Oooops, I guess the building was damaged after all!
...Ryan Joins In
Do you work for the government? lol… first off just because people have conflicting theories and haven’t figured out everything doesn’t mean there wrong. Ok I am pretty convinced that 9-11 was an inside job from the videos I have seen and you call people who believe in this wacko… not a very good thing if you want people from the other side to listen to you. I haven’t read everything you said yet… I get headaches when I read. Do you have any google videos or something that I could watch that supports your side?
POPULAR MECHANICS BOOK (DEBUNKING 9/11 MYTHS) | BEDFELLOWS
...I Respond
The best bet is to buy The Learning Channel’s video “World Trade Center: Anatomy of the Collapse”, this is a great resource. Dude, you are talking to a guy that is going to recommend books all-day long… so you may want to find someone else to talk to. Some of the largest demolition companies were approached by the authors of the book I recommend, and they said that it would take two-teams of 75-people (each team) months to plant and strip all the supports columns on three floors. This went unnoticed?
Also, the “Loose Change” people have strange bedfellows… something the conspiracists always try to make connections to in regards to Bush and the oil companies…. I would say for them to look at the log in their eye first:
[….]
I am including some edited comments I made from another post to make clear some thinking here:
...Additional Info
Grant,
First off let me welcome you to this site. While I will disagree with you you must keep in mind your opinion is welcome here.
Secondly, did you even read my post? There was a destructive agent involved, and it wasn’t Bush! Could it be… “SATAN?!” No, it was probably the 15,000 gallons of fuel in WTC-7. There are two important things to remember: there hasn’t been a building (1) like the Twin Towers Complex built that had (2) this amount of damage done to them. Keep in mind that the other buildings often used as “caught on fire and didn’t collapse” as proof that the Twin Towers or WTC-7 shouldn’t have were never hit by large debris [and in the case of the TT, planes] and then caught on fire with their particular architecture, 15,000-gallons of fuel in the building, and no water to fight it.
Another important thing to remember is that in those other buildings always mentioned, there was sufficient water to fight the fires and put them out or stop them from spreading. Most of the sites you probably visit do not show the photos and video I will show.
I will first – in the “UPDATE” section [photos shown above] – show the photo most see on conspiracy sites, and then show some video and shots that tell the whole story. But first, let’s review how this is different, than say a plane hitting the Empire State Building:
1) About 15,000 gallons of fuel, some of it high pressured “spouts of flames;”
2) Little to no water pressure to supply the firefighters hoses to fight the fire (damaged from the massive amount of debris from Tower 2);
3) Yes steel used in WTC-7… but no, not same design. The support structure of this building was wildly different than any other building’s design. So the factors of debris, architectural design, and fuel all were a deadly combination to any and all of these buildings.
A LATER UPDATE FAKE VIDEO USED AS PROOF
UFOs and WTC-7
It’s funny because someone just posted this video that Eddie Current made. Here is the video posted on Twitter, with my response:
This video was put together by a well-known Truther on his way out of the movement to make a point. And his point is still being made: https://t.co/LxoKLTVjZW
.
— Papa No Good Very Bad “Ultra-MAGA” Bal Giorgio (@papagiorgio200) July 21, 2023
I guess the guy missed the UFO added as well! LOL:
Many 9/11 “Truthers” weren’t fooled by my ridiculous fake video of 7 World Trade Center being taken down by controlled demolition. But those who were, well….. gullible people are gullible.
A well-known leader in the truther movement, has left the movement — but not before creating a fake video that the 9-11 truthers fell for, hook-line-and-sinker. Here are two videos by him.
HERE IS HIS FIRST VIDEO ABOUT LEAVING THE MOVEMENT:
A semi-comedic — but dead serious — account of my embarrassing brush with the delusional “Truth” movement.
Here is a waaay more in-depth “Pull-It” response.
Pull It
I can’t believe I am revisiting this. At any rate, someone challenged me with the Pull-It “conspiracy,” proving [somehw] that the building was brought down by charges/detonation devices. I was asked to watch this:
This is from one of the best sites on this matter, Debunking 9/11’s post on Pull-It:
Silverstein’s Quote:
“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.“
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
Silverstein’s spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
“In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.“
He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence…
“They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there – this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn’t really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.” – Richard Banaciski
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire…
“The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn’t] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely” – Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
“Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area — (Q. A collapse zone?) — Yeah — be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn’t have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed.” – Chief Cruthers
“Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o’clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we’ve] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy…. The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn’t] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that’s] when 7 collapsed…. Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess.” – Lieutenant William Ryan
“Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was,but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.”
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren’t meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make “a hole 20 stories tall“.
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing,but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along thesurface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02 — METABUNK]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02 — METABUNK]
Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.
Before getting into these two evidences for a second shooter, I just want to say that yes, it is rare to have an act done in killing people without a clear motive. Typically the killers leave behind a manifesto that explains why they did it. In the case of the Vegas shooter, we have nothing yet. THAT BEING SAID, I do not need a manifesto from a person to know that they are incurably wicked. My guide to this and the next life make this abundantly clear. Mankind is depraved… able to do any wicked deed that comes across their hearts.
Maybe there were demonic forces influencing him. Maybe his anti-depressants brought out the real Stephen Paddock.
SIDE-NOTE — Most men struggle with two main issues that are natural to them: lust and anger. I have friend’s or know people who struggle greatly with sexual issues (lust, attraction, fidelity, etc.). Others struggle with anger… this is me. It runs in my Italian side of the family, and it is what my family had to see me deal with over many years. (Others battle both.) PIVOT — I have Multiple Sclerosis… and there are four drugs they recommend to help suppress it. I opted for the daily shot as it was least offensive to one’s body. The shot COMPLETELY changed my demeanor… all the gains I made over many years of maturing as a man and believer — out the door. As soon, and I mean within days of not using the inhibitor, I was back to normal. So my own experience with some of these more serious drugs makes the below ring true. I reacted to this mild medication, Copaxone, in the most extreme way – a very low percentile reaction.
NOW, whether he was taking any “anti-Depressants I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS IN REPORTS. He was prescribed … but whether he was taking them regularly is something no one knows. I try to take my vitamins every day, but often times forget about them.
Again, this is just anecdotal evidence meanderings by myself and others.
PADDOCK AT TRUMP RALLY – DEBUNKED
(My original statement) At this point we do not know. What I do know so far is that it looks like he has acted alone. So far. I am inclined to think he was a Leftie, and hated life. It is possible he target the event to kill the most Trump supporters possible. But all I have to go on is that there are pictures of him at a rally with a pink “pussy” hat on and some anti-Trump sign. And? Even I need more.
UPDATED INFO regarding Paddock being at an anti-Trump rally… to be fair, I want to debunk my own claim above. Here is SNOPES dealing with this:
…Here’s the best comparison we could create of photographs allegedly depicting the same man in these two different contexts:
Although these images are blurry, one can spot noticeable differences, such as the two men’s eyebrows (the accused gunman had light eyebrows, while the protester’s eyebrows are dark) and earlobes (the bottom of the gunman’s earlobes are attached, whereas the protester’s appear detached). Even if the man in pink was indeed the Las Vegas shooter, it would be nearly impossible to identify him from this photograph alone.
It’s as if conspiracy theorists simply searched for photographs of an anti-Trump protester who shared the shooter’s approximate age, race, and gender in order to push the narrative that the latter’s actions were politically motivated. In fact, another video purportedly showing the Las Vegas gunman at an anti-Trump rally identified an entirely different person:
Although this individual is also white, middle-aged, and male, there’s no evidence to suggest that he is the same man who committed the shootings….
OCCUPANT NEXT DOOR TO PADDOCK
So, this first conspiracy theory was an easy one to debunk. It came through my son via a buddy of his. Here is the evidence for a second shooter in Paddocks room, it comes from a blog:
An Australian man who was staying in the room next to the shooter in the Mandalay Bay has confirmed he witnessed multiple gunmen involved in the Las Vegas attack.
“There were multiple people dead and multiple shooters. I was just hiding waiting for police to come get us. I got outside safely and was hiding in bushes,” Brian Hodge told Australia’s Courier-Mail.
Mr. Hodge, who was staying in room 32134, next door to Stephen Paddock in room 32135, also provided important information when he revealed that a security guard was killed by police.
“My floor is a crime scene. They killed a security guard on my floor.”….
However, Mr. Hodges was not in his room, as THE DAILY MAIL and other outlets report:
…Mr Hodge is thankful that he was not in his room at the time police used controlled explosives to enter room 32134 and locate Paddock.
‘It was hardcore, like it was full machine-guns for 20 seconds and then it stopped for five seconds then it just went again,’ he said, describing how he hid in bushes outside of the hotel for more than three hours.
‘There were so many shots fired, I couldn’t tell you how many.’
Mr Hodge also described the terrifying moment a woman stepped in front of him and urged to turn back because there was a shooter….
So he did not see two shooters that night, as, the conspiracy sites try to make out. NOR was a security guard killed by police. Dumb! TO BE CLEAR, Brian Hodges did not see multiple shooters. Nor has he ever said that a security guard was killed by police.
…In fact, Hodge gave an interview to the Sydney Morning Herald in which he more fully describes what he saw.
Hodge told that newspaper that he never made it to his room on the 32nd floor and after hearing the bullets he first went to a casino kitchen before hiding in a bush outside.
“I was just laying on the ground. It was like a scene from a movie. The shooter was up above, we didn’t know where they were… I didn’t want anyone to know where I was, so I just curled up and hid. It was the most terrifying moment of my life.”
Hodge also posted on Facebook, “There is a live shooter with a gun in my hotel in Vegas right now, but I got outside safely and hiding in bushes.”
More importantly for this fact-check, it’s clear to us the Neon Nettle [a crazy conspiracy site that said it interviewed Hodges] post puts words in Hodge’s mouth. Hodge never said in the Courier Mail article nor in any other article or social media post that the security guard was a shooter…..
He also disputes ever saying “shooters” (multiple), or seeing a guard shot. Here is one response to a comment on his Facebook by someone noting the conspiracy theory (via Pundifact):
MISSING WINDOWS
HAT-TIP TO A.D. LEM
The second conspiracy deals with multiple windows looking as if they were broken on various floors, adding to thew suspicion of other shooters. This photo is starting to take off on the interwebs. Here is the PROOF of multiple shooters:
The only problem is that this is not the same side the shooter was on. Nor do I know the date of this photo. And I also have photos I know the date of:
2010 Pic
2011 Pic
2014 Pic
Even in this shot the taken day after the shooting you can see that the missing windows are on the opposite side of the building. And… so you know, no one died in the line of fire of those missing windows. If there were shooters in them, they were the worst shot ever!
During conversation about this on Facebook, someone posted a video to prove the position that there were multiple shooters. In fact, the opposite is done — it DISPROVES multiple shooters. Here I take the linked video and edit in the above points:
In other words:
The angle is impossible;
No one was shot on the North-West side of Mandalay Bay;
No missing or broken windows were present on the North-East side of Mandalay Bay… besides the windows Paddock broke.
FOURTH FLOOR EVIDENCE
HAT-TIP TO A.H. SMIDT
Simply put, people are showing videos (taxi driver || far shot) of supposed gun shots Uber driver driving away Here is a raw video shown in the below video debunking this conspiracy theory, HERE:
Quoting SMIDT’S post:
also the visuals of the strobing don’t match with the gunshots. The former is consistent, doesn’t stop. The gunshots came in waves. No match, not even when we consider the differential between sound and light waves.
Notice the different missing windows from the pic you posted from the one’s Erin did. Also, notice the many other pics throughout the years of Mandalay Bay’s missing windows. Window maintenance is common at MB.
Also, you’d have to suggest in what way the missing windows on the other side of the building relate to the shooting since there’s no demonstrable evidence of any effects related to those windows or that side of the building in any way.
The reports about police saying the wind blew out the windows are not factual.
Listen to the gunfire. You’d hear overlapping patterns if there were multiple shooters, unless they took turns, which seems inefficient and unlikely (unless we’re going full planned attack to make it seem like a single shooter).
Bruh… this shit is gonna rot your brain.
SIMILARITY TO WTC-7
In one of many refutations regarding World Trade Center number seven, I kept a video by an ex-truther regarding his final week in the movement. These dealt with similar windows. Here is how I prefaced the video on Facebook:
I have listened to the raw audio from the early uploads. It was one shooter. The echo from a gun firing would have been two or three for each bullet fired with massive delays due to the buildings in that vicinity. I also watched the video. Those windows being replaced were on opposite towers/sides than where Paddock was shooting into the crowd from. Last I checked no one was shot en mass on other streets or areas other than what his room over looked.
Edward Current was a long time 9/11 Truther and left the movement when he realized almost all the evidence for his position was founded on innuendo. The week he officially left he cobbled together a fake video and watched his allies go to town putting together elaborate stories surrounding it’s authenticity. A video of his explanation is found via my YouTube, and is explained more on my WTC-7 CONSPIRACY DEBUNKING PAGE.
Unfortunately, Info Wars and Prison Planet [e.g., Alex Jones] type crap is becoming somewhat popular (made all the more so by The Drudge Report and Paul Joseph Watson – who has some good commentary at times). All, one must keep in mind, based on innuendo.
This is an importation of a few posts that are slightly edited for this platform and will be edited — more so — in the future. so I will simply start with the most recent post on my old site and work backwards…. here, Rosie O’Donnmel pushes the myth of an evil cabal planning the Iraq and middle-East takeover — otherwise know as Project for a New American Century (PNAC). I will precede the posts with a date:
Rosie O’Donnell Still Pushing 911 Conspiracy Myths/Lies… PNAC Her Biggest (Originally Posted March 12, 2010)
(Video Description) Talk about a stubborn mule: three years after misleading the public during The View regarding 9-11, Rosie O’Donnell is at it again. In fact, this is the second time in a week she’s used her radio show to revisit her widely-debunked theories.
Take note that some of these links are broken. Just shorten the link to its main website URL to explore. The following mainly comes from 9/11 MYTHS… READING BETWEEN THE LIES:
MISQUOTE EXAMPLE #1
The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.
MISQUOTE EXAMPLE #2
The victims of the 9/11 attacks have been disaster for Muslims because 19 Arabs were named as hijackers of the planes, but they’ve been a dream come true for the PNAC ‘think-tank’ whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a “catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor” would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and “regime changes”.
MISQUOTE EXAMPLE #3
There is circumstantial evidence that some part of the US administration was involved in the attack. It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor, in order to provide the impetus for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.
These examples should suffice. So how does one respond to this tired old canard? with the real quote (the truth shall set you free). Here is the response via the counter conspiracy site, 9/11 MYTHS:
So, the first quote tells us it’s about war in Iraq and huge increases in military spending, the second says it’s about justifying war and regime changes, the third and fourth link the quote to war on Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems there’s broad agreement, so can they all be wrong? Let’s see.
First, the actual full quote is this.
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.
The odd word here seems to be “transformation”. What do they mean? Let’s look back to the beginning of the same chapter.
“To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence”.
So “transformation” refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC’s pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs….
Can you see why many get frustrated when talking to 9/11 “truthers”? They use the title without actually using the meaning… truth.
PNAC – Project for a New American Century (Originally Posted: December 31, 2008)
…His brother Jeb is not only considering, but 90% sure he will throw his hat into the GOP ring for the Presidency in 2008. Unfortunately for Jeb, the hat will read “I With Stupid.” What a wonderful prospect this is, yet another President who is a card carrying member of the PNAC group. The Bush brothers are pictured above left with one of the carcasses they left behind on the road to the White House…. (emphasis added)
The below is such a great help in understanding what the “Project for a New American Century” is all about… by refuting the crazy conspiracy people who love to link to anti-Semitic sites.
PNAC
Mr. Legge, like many critics of the administration in recent years, attributes both the 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a plan produced by the group Project For a New American Century (PNAC). From the introduction to his paper:
It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor, [3] in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.
The footnote supporting this argument then points to:
3. A plan existed. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) “The process of transformation.” The plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”
While the somewhat edited quote,1 is superficially accurate, the conclusion which is drawn from it, is completely wrong. This is not only “not proof of complicity”, this is such a mischaracterization of what that quote says as bordering on academic fraud. The author states that the “Pearl Harbor” they are referring to is “in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq”. The invasions of these two countries, however, are nowhere mentioned in the PNAC document, they are not even vaguely alluded to. It exists purely in the imagination of the person writing this paper. In fact the only time the paper mentions Iraqi policy at all, is in regards to continuing the containment policy around Iraq with regards to the no-fly zones,2 not in invading it.
Afghanistan only merits a brief historical mention, in regards to the cruise missile attacks carried out by President Clinton in 1998, and only while discussing the Navy’s decreased staffing. A researcher does not need to try and infer what PNAC is talking about, however, the “process of transformation” that they are referring to is specifically discussed on the page previous to the “Pearl Harbor”quote (emphasis added):
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of TRANSFORMING effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military TRANSFORMATION will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.
It is no surprise that proponents of this theory only quote the one sentence, not even the whole sentence in this case, because if you read the rest of the paragraph, it becomes abundantly clear, that this has absolutely nothing to do with US international policies after 9/11 (emphasis added):
Further, the process of TRANSFORMATION, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
Furthermore, there is no “strong desire” for this “catalyzing change”, not even the technological transformation which they are actually talking about. They are merely pointing out the likely timetable for these changes to take place, thus the sentence at the end about the process taking decades.
And regards to the Pearl Harbor reference, what precisely were they talking about? A sneak attack by terrorists using fanatical devotion combined with box cutters? Well, curiously enough, the PNAC document uses this Pearl Harbor reference in another part, which despite clarifying the meaning, didn’t manage to make Mr. Legge’s paper.
absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.
They aren’t just talking about a sneak attack, they are talking about a sneak attack using a technology that we are unprepared for, just like the Japanese aircraft carriers on December 7th, 1941. Arabs with box cutters and fake bombs may be a sneak attack, but they were hardly something that could have been prevented by this technological transformation they have spent the entire paper advocating.
An in-depth analysis of this 90 page document also shows that an invasion of Afghanistan andIraq not only fails to assist them in their “transformation”, but it would most likely hinder them. In fact the study points to the increased operational tempo of the operations in the Balkans as detracting from needed R & D funds.7 It also discusses the difficulty of carrying out this transformation without impacting even the current international obligations.8 Somehow we are to believe that two expensive and manpower intensive wars would improve this process.
Mr. Legge then continues this paragraph with:
The fact that the air attack on Afghanistan commenced on October 9, less than a month later, is not proof either, but does suggest the possibility that plans for the invasion were already in place.
This is one of many cases where the author “suggests” things that he admits he can’t prove. I am not aware of the academic merit of just suggesting things. If you have no proof, or even a logical hypothesis, then why are you bringing up the subject? Perhaps if he had done some research on this area he wouldn’t need to suggest as much. One good example is General Tommy Franks’ autobiography, “An American Soldier”, which describes the hectic process and frantic international negotiations needed to prepare for the invasion.
In regards to the “less than a month” part, on August 7, 1998 over 200 people were killed in near simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Less than 2 weeks later, on August 20th, the US carried out attacks against suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan. Is Mr. Legge going to “suggest” that Clinton had plans prepared ahead of time?
Some of the original FOOTNOTES
1.This quote from the paper titled “Rebuilding America’s defenses,” and actually reads in full from page 51: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
2. Page 73-74 “Likewise, terminating the no-fly zones over Iraq would call America’s positions as guarantor of security in the Persian Gulf into question; the reaction would be the same in East Asia following the withdrawal of US forces or a lowering of American military presence.”
[….]
7. Page 50 “Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years.”
8. Ibid page 50: The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.”
A great, short, article can be found over at Libertarian Republican systematizing some of the differences between Democrats and Republicans:
TRUTHERS versus BIRTHERS
A 2006 Scripps-Howard poll found that 51% of Democrats believed it was “likely” or “very likely” that the federal government either assisted in the attacks of 9-11 or knew that the attacks were coming and did nothing in order to go to war in the Middle East. And, a 2011 PPP poll found that 51% of Republicans believed Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
I am going to interrupt this part of Dr. Thies’ article merely to add to the information given above, and this comes from my “Comparing Two Conspiracy Theories: Birtherism vs. 9/11 Conspiracies” as well as updated information. One should read this post of mine because the “evil” factor in these conspiracies are VASTLY different. In other words,
…Republicans at least say Obama was lying about his place of birth in order to get special preference in educational and publishing opportunities; at most saying that Obama later found out about other peoples lies in getting him over to America as a child and tried to cover it up for his Presidential run.
On the other-side of the coin, you have Democrats saying that [at least] Bush knew about the pending attack and allowed it to happen in order to financially profit from a war[s]. At most they say he was actually involved in the taking down of the Trade Towers in order to go to war. BOTH options Bush is culpable for the murder of innocent and military lives.
First the historical polling:
What is the percentage of Republicans that believed (at it’s height of belief) Obama was not born in America?
31% of Republican think/thought that Obama was not born in the states…
How many Democrats?
15% of Democrats believe the same… [well as 18% of Independents]
However, a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him…
That last sentence is also key, “…a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him.” And here is a poll concurrent with Clifford’s:
12 percent of Democrats think the president was born elsewhere, as do 21 percent of independents. That percentage climbs to 37 percent among Republicans. Among those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, 41 percent think the president was born outside the U.S.
Most American voters — 67 percent — believe Obama was born in the United States. That includes almost all Democrats (84 percent) and most independents (69 percent). Less than half of Republicans (47 percent) and Tea Partiers (44 percent) think so.
Can I mention as well that it was a Democrat who originated this conspiracy, Philip Berg, NOT to mention that many years prior to Berg… Obama’s own publisher had him listed as “born in Kenya” from 1995-to-2007.
Continuing:
TRADITIONAL VALUES versus ALTERNATIVE VALUES
A 2013 Harris poll found that more Republicans than Democrats believed in God, miracles, heaven, hell, Jesus, angels and life after death; and, that more Democrats than Republicans believed in Darwin, ghosts, UFOs, astrology and reincarnation.
SOCIALISM versus FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM
A recent YouGov poll found that 43% of Democrats had a favorable view of socialism, while only 9% of Republicans did; and, that 79% of Republicans had a favorable view of free-market capitalism, and, that only 43% of Democrats did.
Either he is so disconnected from society that he has never heard of this theory;
or, he was playing politics and being “ecumenical,” the empty suit;
or, he truly believed that all views are equivocable and should be looked at, looked into equally.
ALL of the above means he is a weeny!
Libertarian Republican has this awful story of modern radicalism that blames the U.S. for 9/11. And as usual, the radical nature of this belief is not manifested in a radio host, a reporter, but an official [as usual] who represents the Democratic Party. Here is the story:
Muhammed Attah and his gang of merry Muslim warriors didn’t really fly those jets into the Twin Towers… That’s just fantasy don’t ya know… It was really those evil Republicans in the Bush Administration!!
[….]
Who the hell is this guy? Most certainly a backbencher of the Democrat backbench.
Meet Democrat Rep. Brian Higgins. If you’ve never heard of him, relax, nobody else has either. But he may have just made a name for himself by becoming a spokesman of sorts for the Truther movement, and aligning himself with the theory that maybe “Muslims didn’t do it” after all.
Watch and be horrified as he agrees with a caller that evidence that Muhammed Attah and the other 18 Muslim hijackers may not have flown those jets into the Twin Towers. Perhaps it was the… drum roll please… BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!
In a conversation that is quite typical of those I have engaged in with Ron Paul fans, I ended up provideing evidence that Ron Paul’s views on the 9/11 are misguided by showing the people involved in the conversation themselves wee misguided. The discussion was the same-ol-same-ol… Ron Paul sends his fans to vote for radical candidates that are self-attested anti-Semites and Marxists when libertarian folk like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman are/were lifelong Republicans, etc., etc.
What peaked my interest is that the conversation is joined by John Lofton, who is part of the site, The American View, and has many of his MP3s HERE, as well as having a blog entitled, Recovering Republican. All-in-all John and I probably agree on much. However… discussion about Ron Paul led to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. So I pick up the conversation where John hops in. (I will point out that most times I will change the name of persons from FaceBook discussions. But john is a public enough figure that I will use his full name and links):
John Lofton
Oh, and Reagan gave us O’Connor!
Me
Mr. Lofton, may I recommend a resource for you. It is seminary level study, and you may thoroughly enjoy it, “Politics According to the Bible.” We also got Rehnquist and Scalia (and almost Bork). Bush gave us Thomas. How many Justices did Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode get us? Zero.
Ruining the good for the perfect… your position (to the many above who are doggedly RP fans) are no better than the utopians out there because you do not ebb the utopian dreams of the left in ANY way.
Also, there are less hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like today than generations ago. These are false stats put forward by eschatological positions of the left (and unfortunately from the eschatological positions within Christianity, with which I agree with — minus the bad information and scare tactics).
[….]
By the way John… I believe you have jumped the shark. You seem to be a truther as well. And after listening to you mp3 on the subject, I would steer you to my C-O-Nspiracy page: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/c-o-n-debunker/
John Lofton
You a Christian, Sean?
Me
Yes.
John Lofton
Then why are you making snide, snotty remarks about being a “truther?”
Me
After listening to your mp3 on the matter, you conflate two subjects, what the 9/11 truther goals are with truth/Truth. My faith has no connection to calling a spade-a-spade. I have spent lots of $$$ and time looking into many of the claims in Loose Change and other conspiracy position. I also noticed that many of these positions are lies, the opposite of truth.
“Trutherism” doesn’t ad-hoc equal truth, and to make it is a non-sequitur/straw-man argumentation.
John Lofton
So what are the top 3 things in Loose Change that are “lies?” List them here, please….
Me
Lets do this John. Let us talk about one item you think is strong in Loose Change (since over different editions got rid of many of their previously stated evidences).
John Lofton
You made an assertion, Sean, an affirmation….please back it up. Thank you….
John Lofton
So, in other words, you will not reply even briefly to my simple question, right?
Me
I have thoroughly refuted Loose Changes position on two major premises, a) the Pentagon, and b) WTC-7. If you have not read a good refutations of these two major positions put forward in this “true” documentary, then choose one? Which edition? One, two, or three? How bout cell phone calls, mmm, that was in the first one. They rejected that. There are many they present, I deal with the macro one, choose one YOU feel confident about, something that would come to mind that convinces YOU or that you would like to share here as an evidence that others would be persuaded by. One. Simple, not three. One.
go…
John Lofton
“Lies” means things said to DECEIVE ON PURPOSE……list those things here, Sean….
Me
Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying out options on airline stock.
John Lofton
What was said in “Loose Change,” Sean, that was a “lie,” something said ON PURPOSE TO DECEIVE?
Me
That is one. There was no truth to it, and when investigated, there was no truth to it. It was stated merely to endure a conspiracy minded folk to the film. Maybe those reading this would benefit from some sanity on this topic:
Another example is the out-of-context quote from an air traffic controller who supposedly reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane. This controllers full context (apologists should be use to this tactic used by skeptics to state certain things from the Bible but not so in context) was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that:
★ “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”
I have given you two.
John Lofton
What was said, Sean, that was said TO PURPOSELY DECEIVE is my question which you have not answered?
[….]
You have loose mouth about “Loose Change,” Sean……have documented here no “lie” that was told….
Me
They misquoted the second example IN ORDER TO mislead, deceive. They had no proof, evidence of the first example but merely invented it with no evidence. Both are willful acts to deceive and to engender people’s fears. It worked apparently.
John Lofton
And what is your evidence they sought to mislead ON PURPOSE, Sean?
Me
Both were untrue, in the first they had no way of knowing this — even if true — however, they made it up whole-cloth. In the second, they had access to the full context, but decided to truncate it in order to engender their point. A common attack on our faith. Sort of like when they talk about WTC-7 and show a picture of a small fire in one window… but refuse to show pictures of the entire building on fire or the massive damage of the World Trade Towers destroying a corner of the building, or not talking about the 15,000 gallons of fuel in the building, etc., etc. The picture engenders what they want their viewers to believe.
John Lofton
For-the-record: I have neither said nor written ANYTHING saying I agree with anything in the “Loose Change” DVD. I do NOT, however, believe our government’s official story re: 9/11 and believe our government is capable of murdering 3000+ people because our government murders people now in our unGodly, unConstitutional wars; and the government has OK’d the murder of millions in the womb by abortion…..
SIDE-NOTE: Again, it is quite plain-and-simple John supported these conspiracy theories by a) obfuscating ideas of truth and trutherism, and b) by all-but endorsing Loose Change. FOR CONTEXT: one should listen to John’s MP3 on the “truther” movement and realize that I spoke out against Ron Paul’s admiration of truthers and John then [much like in his MP3] equated the mere mention of “truth” in “trutherism” as unassailable. His presentation is titled: Lying, Shameless Hatchet-Job On 9-11 Truth Seekers By Chris Bury On “Nightline” Scurrilous, Despicable But, Of Course, No Surprise; Also of note is his interview with Richard Gage, Founder Of Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, Inc.; O’Reilly Lies Repeatedly About Study Re: Building 7. ON RICHARD GAGE: Here is a three part interview with Richard Gage where he is caught lying about thermite: Part 1, Part 2, and Part3. You can also see many well done articles refuting Gage’s positions quite well, HERE. While he says he doesn’t support. I would strongly suggest John does agree with Loose Change as well as Gage on these issues (after listening to his own words that is).
John Lofton
You believe the government’s story, Sean?
Me
John, proving one position by stating opinion and then supporting the “truth of it” by stating another example unrelated (you gave thee definition of a non-sequitur) is not a logical way to jump from one position to another. The Christian has to think well, and testing our own positions with this good thinking:
“I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition.”
Morimer J. Adler, “A Philosopher’s Religious Faith,” in, Kelly James Clark, ed., Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 207.
This is applicable to our discussion. Reason is not being used to its Godly potential here.
John Lofton
You believe the government’s story, Sean?
Me
Do you have a good reason for me not to?
John Lofton
Why can you directly answer a direct question, Sean? You are a bit of a windbag…..
Eric RS
Come on John…lets be gracious at least. He answered your leading question with a question, very much like Christ did many times.
[….]
Of course he agrees with the govt. story, unless we can prove otherwise.
Me
“You a Christian, John? Then why are you making snide, snotty remarks about a fellow believer?” (Adapted from Mr. Lofton)
Do I trust my government, the heroes of America, our Founders, say one should always be weary of it. And that the Christian faith is its true guide. But as to THIS topic (9/11), yes. And you have yet to show me why I should not. Again, I think you are taking a larger issue (one trusting government in the macro), and then overlaying it to our particular (micro) discussion here. Like you saying that if our government can kill “x” amount of people through abortion, then why not 3,000 in New York?
I believe many on the pro-choice side think that killing innocent lives is wrong. They agree with us on this major point. They merely redefine the person in the womb as non-human. It is imperative that we open up dialogue with them and make a strong moral argument that convicts them to change on this position.
POST-SCRIPT: I should have also made the point that both pro-choice people and pro-life people agree that the people that perished in this particular attack were innocent people, and thus an evil immoral act.
Continuing My Thought
So yes I trust the government in this particular case. And no, as a whole the checks and balances issue is meant to try and keep government honest:
Which is why our Founders stated that, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government” (Patrick Henry); “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” (George Washington).
