9/11 cranks sure are paranoid - of each other

please visit www.gabrielchristou.blogspot.com.

you will see PHOTOS of WHO and WHERE Bin Laden and his NETWORKS ARE.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO THE FBI.

gavriild@gmail.com

Wow. Gosh... at first I thought Gabriel must be a crank. But then I clicked on his signature and got this response:

Page Not Found
Error 404

So that just goes to prove he's right, since obviously the tewwawists have control of the internet and are preventing access to his web site.

Or could it be because his signature contains an invalid URL?

I have to admit, I've often suspected that the wilder conspiracy theories out there are in fact elaborate disinfo campaigns. The classic example being the Roswell incident - promote the UFO conspiracy theory to provide cover for a real secret sensor program. Only problem is that they take on a life of their own - although I'm not sure if that's a problem for the initiators of such theories. The more wild-eyed crazy people there are claiming that the US government is colluding with aliens, the harder it is to get any of the real, documented dodgy stuff (like Iran-Contra) taken seriously. It's a form of well-poisoning.

This is also a really fun theory to promulgate amongst conspiracy theorists. :)

Dunc -

Depends - a problem I find with CTers is what I'd call Complete Imagination Failure.

For instance, for me to think 'If 10,000 tonnes(*) of explosives were placed in a WTC tower, we would expect to see X, Y and Z' requires me to consider the possibility of such an event (even if I find it extremely unlikely). However, the opposite problem - for a CTer to consider the possibility that the administration is simply bumbling, opportunistic and generally incompetent, for example - requires that the CTer entertain the possibility that they may be incorrect, which they simply won't do. It's like their brain hits a brick wall, to imagine being wrong counting as the same as being wrong.

Well, yeah - that's what makes 'em so perfect for promulgating disinfo. Once you've got the idea out there, the CT footsoldiers will take your idea, run with it, and defend it to the death - even in the face of absolutely incontrovertible evidence against it.

For example, I don't see much difference between the idea that the Twin Towers were demolished by explosives and the idea that Ollie North was a patriotic hero. They're both obviously ridiculous, completely contrary to all available evidence, and rather popular.

It's all part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to destroy the concept of objective reality. ;)

Dunc -

Well, yes, Objective reality is frequently inconvinient and biased..

Luckily, once the VRWC noticed that they could do pretty much whatever they liked right out in the open (Start a war in Iraq on false pretenses, lose a major city, run up fantastic debts, whatever), the need for sneaking around was reduced.

There seems to be an epidemic of 911 cranks. Most recently a number of pilots have been infected. Their main complaints are absence of intercepts and black box data from flight 77 which these reality challenged airline and military pilots claim indicate that the 757 got no lower than 200 ft above the pentagon.

So, are these people "cranks" as well:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

And all of these people:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

Is this the profile of a crank:

Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD � Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Former Chair, National Academy of Science's Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. Recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, in 1999, presented by President William J. Clinton. The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, announced in 1998 that it will permanently archive Dr. Margulis' papers. President of Sigma Xi, the scientific research society, from 2005 - 2006. Recipient of the Proctor Prize for scientific achievement in 1999 from Sigma Xi. Prior to moving to the University of Massachusetts, Dr. Margulis was a faculty member at Boston University for 22 years. Her publications span a wide-range of scientific topics, and include original contributions to cell biology and microbial evolution. Dr. Margulis is best known for contributions to evolution, especially the theory of symbiogenesis. For more information on Dr. Margulis' career, please visit http://www.chelseagreen.com/authors/LynnMargulis and http://www.sciencewriters.org.

Author of over 130 scientific works and numerous books. Recent publications include Mind, Life, and Universe (2007 with Eduardo Punset), Dazzle Gradually: Reflections on the Nature of Nature (2007, co-authored with Dorion Sagan), Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution (1998), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (2002, with Dorion Sagan), Early Life: Evolution on the Precambrian Earth (2002, second edition with Michael F. Dolan), Luminous Fish: Tales of Science and Love (2006), What is Sex? (1997, with Dorion Sagan), What is Life? (1995, with Dorion Sagan), Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality (1991, with Dorion Sagan), Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Evolution From Our Microbial Ancestors (1986, with Dorion Sagan), and Origins of Sex: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination (1986, with Dorion Sagan), Kingdoms and Domains: Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (4th edition, co-authored by Michael J. Chapman, Academic Press, 2008 in press), Symbiosis in Cell Evolution (second edition, 1993).

* Statement to this website 8/27/07: "The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations. I arrive at this conclusion largely as the result of the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11. I first met him when he was a speaker at a scholarly conference unrelated to 9/11. He immediately impressed me as a brilliant, outstanding philosopher - theologian - author, a Whiteheadian scholar motivated by an intense curiosity to know everything possible about the world.

On the plane home and for the next two days I did little else but read Griffin�s first book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor. From there I went on to read his even more disturbing account of the bogus 9/11 Commission Report, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.

It is clear to me that David Ray Griffin and his fellow critics are correct: the 9/11 "new Pearl Harbor" was planned in astonishing detail and carried out through the efforts of a sophisticated and large network of operatives. It was more complex and far more successful than the Allende assassination, the US bombing of our own ship the "Maine" that began the Spanish-American war (and brought us Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines), the Reichstag fire that was used to justify the suspension of most civil liberties in Germany in the 1930's, and even Operation Himmler, which was used by Germany to justify the invasion of Poland, which started World War II.

Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork. Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.

I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

* Bio: http://www.chelseagreen.com/authors/LynnMargulis

Actually yes Margulis fits the profile of a crank exactly. She's also a denier of the link between HIV and AIDS. Just because she is bright and creative doesn't mean she can't fall victim to stupid conspiracy thinking. You seem to think "crank" automatically means "dumb". While cranks clearly are incompetent at certain forms of critical reasoning they are not necessarily stupid.

The fact that you cite David Ray Griffin, who has repeatedly been shown to be full of crap - most recently with his "phone calls to family members were faked by the evil cabal" theory - shows that you are similarly incompetent in judging sources of evidence.

It is clear to me that David Ray Griffin and his fellow critics are correct: the 9/11 "new Pearl Harbor" was planned in astonishing detail and carried out through the efforts of a sophisticated and large network of operatives. It was more complex and far more successful than...

and

Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.

Anyone else getting the racist tone I am from this guy?

Apparently, Americans can perform impossible plans involving super stealth ninja demolition experts moving about a continually occupied building for months, (or whatever the hell this particular crankdom is), and yet apparently Arabs are too stupid to be able to hijack a few planes.

...Jingo all the way...

Your attacks are curiously weak for a blog that pretends to be dedicated to science and rational thinking. Margulis' opinions about AIDS have no bearing on her understanding of 9/11. "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

So-called debunkers also like to attack Griffin's fake phone calls obsession. Who says just because he is wrong about one thing, he is therefore wrong about everything? Another seriously flawed rationale. Isaac Newton was a mystic: does that mean calculus is nonsense?

The "racist" canard is another classic. Instead of confronting the evidence and whether 9/11 could have been carried out by a very small non-state group (19 people), you choose to read into these remarks something that simply isn't there. Perhaps the speaker (who, BTW, is a woman -- but thanks for coming out) references "a man in a cave 7000 miles away" to draw attention to the fact that elements of the evidence suggest inside assistance/planning (something not available to the guy in the cave)? Who knows. It's irrelevant, because you are using ambiguous evidence to launch yet another ad hominem attack.

I see you also have nothing to say about the large group of engineers and architects who reject the official 9/11 myth. I guess their credentials also don't mean anything to you? Or maybe you'll discover one of them is a Christian, and then return with, "How can anyone who believes in a virgin birth be a reliable source?!" And on and on you will go, without addressing a single piece of evidence.

The "racist" canard is another classic. Instead of confronting the evidence and whether 9/11 could have been carried out by a very small non-state group (19 people), you choose to read into these remarks something that simply isn't there.

Boy, is someone avoiding the issue. The racist thing wasn't important to my argument. It was an irrelevant side ad hominem, not a premise. That means it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

The point was that you're essentially claiming it's impossible for some people to hijack some planes (relatively simple), and yet the US government can perform impossibly large conspiracies (typically beyond the competence any organization has ever shown).

So, thanks for deliberately ignoring my argument and attacking a convenient-for-you straw man.

So, what evidence do you have that there were demolition explosives/orbital R-9 wave cannons/missiles/whatever it is this week?

I'm really sick of conspiracy nuts, especially 9/11 twoofers. They want us to buy into things like silent explosives, thermate/ite that burns perpendicular to gravity, orbital energy weapons, objects that can fall faster than gravity's acceleration, government trucks that can cart away enormous piles of debris in half an hour, the non-existence of plainly visible debris that got spread all over the place, convincing holography, infallible eyewitnesses, thousands of infallible government agents without conscience, millions of people who can be bribed, yadda, yadda, yadda.

And yet, they have the audacity to think that slipping past airport security is impossible.

You asked if Margulis sounded like a crank. I know for a fact that she is. It's not an ad hominem dismissal, it's a characterization of her tendency to believe weak arguments.

We don't have to engage 9/11 cranks like we're all honest brokers in some legitimate debate. They simply do not have any valid evidence to present, routinely restate rejected and impossible hypotheses, cherry-pick evidence, and form conspiratorial theories that are non-parsimonious. Quite simply there is no reason to take you seriously at all.

Sorry if that comes across as ad hominem, but it's absurd to pretend as if there is a balanced argument to be had here.

Maybe if you actually tried presenting evidence for the conspiracy, rather than parroting the party line without references, we might be able to take you seriously.

Of course, you'll never bother doing any research or presentation, and just twist everything we say into whatever you want us to say, like you did with your trivial objections fallacy, above.

So, any evidence of explosives/orbital R9 wave cannons/holograms/missiles/whatever?

Heck, forming a unified theory would be a step up from the ephemeral vapor. Then we could actually discuss something. But nope, you'll remain diverged over an infinite parade of contradictory theories, just like with all the other woo categories: Alternative "medicine", sponsored by Big Altie, Incorporated, "Intelligent Design" which can't even make a single prediction, and psychics who change their story every 12 minutes.

And they all have forums that ban skeptics on sight for just asking questions.

There is a baseline skepticism about 9/11 that is often overshadowed by the more spectacular claims of a few skeptics, or the mostly discredited claims of Loose Change. The baseline skepticism is this: the 9/11 Commission was a fraud comprised of insiders, vehemently opposed by Bush and Cheney, deprived of money and time, and ultimately the report it produced was written and edited by the White House. I'm not going to write a 50,000-word dissertation on the subject in this blog comment; that's not practical.

You may wish to begin with Bryan Sacks' article on Philip Zelikow: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051128144916707. I recommend Sacks' peer-reviewed article in the anthology, The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 from the academic publisher Elsevier. David Griffin's book Omissions and Distortions is not perfect, but it contains some well researched criticism of the report.

No reasonable person can read the 9/11 Commission report and feel like it is a credible exploration of the facts. It takes some research to identify some of the egregious distortions. I leave that to you.

I do not believe the phone calls were faked. TV Fakery, Directed Energy Weapons, and the No Boeing at the Pentagon are all ridiculous theories, perhaps products of disinfo, perhaps just the daydreams of misguided people.

Arguments about controlled demolition don't go anywhere, because each side is loaded with experts. I already provided a link to an organization of engineers and architects that believes the towers were exploded. I realize there are websites galore that provide alternative explanations. I don't have space here to replicate the debate. I invite you to look at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They have a complete presentation at their website. Other expert opinion is available online, if you look. I am agnostic on the controlled demolition theory. I respect both sides. I don't know how it would be accomplished, but I do see evidence that supports the skeptics.

I am not a Holocaust denier. I do not believe in the Illuminati. I do not believe in UFOs or ghosts. Please leave ad hominem attacks at home.

I begin with a very basic question: Why do "debunkers" not find it unusual/appalling that Bush vociferously opposed an independent commission to investigate 9/11? Here is the sitting president during the worst terrorist attack on US soil, and he publicly opposes the victims' families and denies them an investigation. That was mass murder, and Bush opposed an investigation for 441 days? That's appalling.

I begin with that fact. I begin with the obvious fact that the 9/11 Commission report is a whitewash. I'm not entirely sure what it covers up. I recommend the 9/11 Timeline at www.cooperativeresearch.org, if you want to know more about 9/11.

The above comment is mine. Sorry, I must have been "logged out".

I also recommend Peter Dale Scott's book, The Road to 9/11, though only two of its chapters deal specifically with one small aspect of 9/11.

I also recommend the film, 9/11 Press for Truth. I make no claim to support other 9/11 skepticism films.

I begin with a very basic question: Why do "debunkers" not find it unusual/appalling that Bush vociferously opposed an independent commission to investigate 9/11?

Who said anything about that? Oh, wait, that's the twoofers poisoning the well by using transfer.

Oh, and how about pointing out a single problem about the 9/11 commission? Just one.

Or, how about this: Proposing just one hypothesis for how the conspiracy would be pulled off. I have yet to see one that doesn't require winning the JREF Paranormal Challenge.

Additionally: Who cares about experts? The laws of physics are the same, no matter who makes claims. There are claims and evidence that supports or refutes them. That's it. Fancy letters after your name only work for quick decisions.

Book: Doggerel #19.

"Who said anything about that? Oh, wait, that's the twoofers poisoning the well by using transfer."

Well, if you agree that Bush's opposition to an investigation is incriminating, then why are you 100% certain there is no crime to conceal?

"Additionally: Who cares about experts? The laws of physics are the same, no matter who makes claims."

If that's how you feel, what is the point of this blog? Also, the laws of physics favor the skeptics, not the official story.

"Oh, and how about pointing out a single problem about the 9/11 commission? Just one."

I just posted several, but you don't seem interested in reading/watching them.

Here's another, from page 172:
"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origins of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

The source of the funding doesn't matter? That's absurd. It is essential. The above is what is known as both an omission and a distortion.

How about another, from page 146, where the commission admits it never met the alleged al-Qaeda detainees, was not allowed to submit questions to them, and was not allowed to meet the alleged interrogators of the alleged detainees? Basically, most of chapters 5 and 7, where the "plot" is detailed, is derived from "detainee interrogation reports" that have no corroboration. Kean and Hamilton admit this much in their book. Don't you find that problematic?

So, we don't know where the money came from, and we don't have reliable sources for the details of the plot. The FBI publicly stated it has "no hard evidence" to connect Bin Laden to 9/11. Does any of this trouble you, or is your confidence in Bush and Cheney and their manservant Zelikow unshaken?

want us to buy into things like silent explosives, thermate/ite that burns perpendicular to gravity, orbital energy weapons,

Formosan termites.

Sneaky little buggers, in cahoots with the aliens under Denver airport.

Your attacks are curiously weak for a blog that pretends to be dedicated to science and rational thinking. Margulis' opinions about AIDS have no bearing on her understanding of 9/11.

You gave an entire paragraph regarding Margulis' scientific credentials. If you are going to start talking about logic fallacies then this is an appeal to authority. In response to this appeal to authority it is entirely valid to point out that her scientific credentials give her no authority in fields outside of her expertise.

In addition her pseudoscientific opinions on AIDS show that she has a history of saying stupid things when she steps out of her field of expertise. Nobody is saying that it necessarily follows that her views on 911 are therefore also false but it should awaken some skepticism.

I'm still a bit baffled. Why did you ask whether Margulis sounded like a crank if you were going to complain about ad hominem fallacies? If her crank views on AIDS are irrelevant then why ask the question in the first place? According to your logic it is irrelevant whether she is a crank or not. Why ask if you don't want an answer?

The numerous firefighters, policeman, first responders, workers and other survivors who were there should not be believed? It's all just one big mass hallucination right? Now that's the true conspiracy theory. Talk about denial-ism.

William Rodriguez's story
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wIZtqKiidlo

New eyewitness corroborates testimony of William Rodriguez
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11801

We Are Change UK interview Kevin McPadden - First Responder - about countdown at Building 7
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho

America's Number One Collapse Expert Thought WTC Bombed
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/100907_wtc_bombed.htm

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/090807_firefighters_account.html
Ignored Firefighter�s Account Contradicts 9/11 Commission

http://www.neuworldorder.com/news/interview-craig-bartmer-first-respond…
An Interview With Craig Bartmer (NYPD), First Responder

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm
9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building
Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collpased

http://noonehastodie.blogspot.com/2007/06/jason-bermas-reveals-his-own-…
The name of the WTC7 security official mentioned above was eventually leaked (Barry Jennings). He is expected to appear in the new Loose Change movie coming soon.

Just a few examples. I guess they're ALL lying right? We can trust big brother instead though, they never lie. Pfffttttt....

How blind can one be?

simuvac: "Why do 'debunkers' not find it unusual/appalling that Bush vociferously opposed an independent commission to investigate 9/11?"

Humor me and suppose for the sake of argument that you are wrong about some 9/11 conspiracy. Even in the absence of such a conspiracy, we still have a Bush administration that was asleep at the switch with regards to terrorism, unlike a previous administration that the Republicans love to hate (*cough* Clinton *cough*). We also still have a Bush administration that had alleged non-existent links between Iraq and 9/11. Do you really think that the Bush administration wanted an independent commission that would shine a light on those issues?

#1: What's so magical about eyewitnesses? Human beings are fallible creatures with fallible memories that are easily messed up in times of stress.

#2: You twoofers love to quote mine eyewitnesses who later come out to say you lied about their stance on the issue. This is especially true of people who describe the perfectly expected explosions, and you try to use that as evidence of explosives.

#3: Your link on that "collapse expert" doesn't demonstrate his expertise: He doesn't make much of an argument. He doesn't explain anything in detail, there. Most of the article just seems to be pumping him up as an authority to be blindly trusted. Sorry, we don't take arguments from authority.

#4: That article also deliberately neglects to mention that a big plane crashed into the building: It only talks about the fire, and only the fire from jet fuel. This is typically a big fat warning sign that the people involved don't even know what they're arguing against.

I quoted directly from the 9/11 Commission, in response to a request for at least one discrepancy (in a report filled with them), and yet no one here has anything to say about the evidence I presented. All you are doing is going in circles, yapping about credentials.

Bronze Dog, you're still prattling on about controlled demolition, even though I said I was agnostic on the subject. Why won't you address the specific evidence I presented, as you requested? I think it's because then you would have to defend in the indefensible, the 9/11 Commission Report. I think most of you debunkers haven't even read the report, and don't know what you're defending. You keep returning to Loose Change-type theories, instead of debating demonstrable lies. Even your responses to the controlled demolition hypothesis expose an ignorance of the topic. I'm not about to recycle the debates you can find all over the Internet.

JJ Ramsey, you write, "Do you really think that the Bush administration wanted an independent commission that would shine a light on those issues?" There is a more tangible question to be asked: "Why do you not DEMAND total transparency from your elected government? Why do you let them hide behind fraudulent commissions and reports, for ANY reason?" That is, even if I am wrong about 9/11, there is no excuse for a government to oppose the families of the victims of the worst terror attack in US history. No excuse. It is unconscionable. And yet debunkers would rather oppose skeptics than oppose a government that is obviously lying, obviously pissing on the constitution, and obviously escalating its own imperial power.

I want a real 9/11 Commission because I want to know why Bush acts like he has something to hide. Maybe they didn't want an independent commission because they didn't want other, non-9/11 crimes exposed? That's still a justified reason to have a real investigation.

Once again, I recommend the sources I indicated above. It's up to you to read/watch them and decide for yourself. If you don't at least look at the skeptics' evidence, then you are being dishonest labeling them as "cranks".

"And yet debunkers would rather oppose skeptics than oppose a government that is obviously lying, obviously pissing on the constitution, and obviously escalating its own imperial power."

What utter bullshit. You complain about ad hominem and then you throw this false dilemma fallacy at us? There's no reason that, in a search for truth, we can't both debunk the stupidity of your 911Truth movement AND call for a further investigation into what the Bush administration knew. Moreover, the idiocy of the 911Truth movement threatens to undermine the progressive movement in America, and, as such, deserves to be exposed for the crock that it is.

As for your flaws in the 9/11 Report, they do not logically lead to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job, or even support the "let it happen" brand of conspiracy theory. The evidence you present does not support the conclusions you draw.

Do you have any evidence that logically supports your position that 9/11 was an inside job?

One motivation of the "truthers" seems to be Get Bush. But Bush is a liar, a knucklehead, and a warmongering SOB even in light of the official story. One does not have to believe that the Men in Black, the Joos, the Illuminati, little green men from Mars, or anybody but Al Qaeda brought down the Towers to understand that the neocon artists have exploited this event to the max.

Moreover, the "truthers" have presented no plausible alternative. Controlled demolition is the only "truther" hypothesis that is not facially absurd, and the "truthers" still have not explained how the Men in Black wired two 110-story towers to collapse, while they were occupied, and no one saw them.

"Do you have any evidence that logically supports your position that 9/11 was an inside job?"

I never said 9/11 was an inside job. I said it was never investigated. It is rather easy to prove the 9/11 Commission was a fraud. None of you have answered any of my complaints yet. You keep inventing arguments I never made. And you still haven't responded to the evidence I quoted directly from the 9/11 Commission Report, as one of you asked me to. You continue to be evasive, inventing claims I never made, and harping on "controlled demolition" theories, when I explicitly said I am agnostic on the issue of CD.

"But Bush is a liar, a knucklehead, and a warmongering SOB even in light of the official story. One does not have to believe that the Men in Black, the Joos, the Illuminati, little green men from Mars, or anybody but Al Qaeda brought down the Towers to understand that the neocon artists have exploited this event to the max."

You keep repeating these ridiculous claims, claims I never made. Go back and read my posts. I explicitly said I don't believe in Illuminati, UFOs, etc.

The "motivation" behind 9/11 Truth is not one thing, and your assertion that it is to "get Bush" is a diversion from the issue. The issue is, either the 9/11 Commission Report is a comprehensive examination of the facts, or it is not. And it is not. It was composed by the White House (hence, the focus on Bush, if you like), and omits or distorts key evidence. I offered two examples above, and nobody here seems interested in responding to those examples, choosing instead to talk about Elvis and UFOs. You mentioned that crap, not me. I think that speaks volumes about your understanding of 9/11 skepticism, and your intellectual dishonesty.

The "motivation" for 9/11 Truth is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. But if you want my motivation, here it is: I want government transparency, not the secret perpetuation of corporate gangsterism. I want a proper investigation of 9/11, not the complete farce that was the 9/11 Commission. I want justice, whatever it brings.

@simuvac 6:43 PM: I was not speaking specifically to you when I mentioned the loonier aspects of the "truth" movement ("the Men in Black, the Joos, the Illuminati, little green men from Mars, or anybody but Al Qaeda").

Oh, and speaking of intellectual dishonesty, you say at 6:43: "I never said 9/11 was an inside job." And at 2:21: "Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation...must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork. Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away...could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization." You might not have directly said "inside job," but the rest of us were clearly meant to read it.

"I offered two examples above, and nobody here seems interested in responding to those examples..." This was addressed by Boris at 1:52. But you clearly didn't read it the first time, so there's no point in repeating it.

And yes, your claim that "19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away...could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11" is 100% racist bullshit. Osama bin Laughin' is a wealthy and educated man, and many of the hijackers had educations as well. A man isn't a dummy just because he's an Ay-rab.

Finally, you can look to the left side of this blog to see the Popular Mechanics and Scientific American accounts of the towers' collapse. They make the case that no thermite, explosives, missiles, or exotic technology is needed to explain the collapse: the planes themselves were sufficient. Occam's Razor then does away with the Men in Black, the Joos, the Illuminati, little green men from Mars, or anybody but Al Qaeda.

And you still haven't told us how to wire an occupied 110-story building for controlled demolition without being seen. Or what kind of exotic technology would be sufficient to do this otherwise.

So remove the beam from your own eye before you lecture me about intellectual dishonesty.

Ray C.: You are misreading the thread. The comments you cite above were written by Margulis, not me. Those comments are from Margulis' profile at www.patriotsquestion911.com. I never said those things. My point there was simply that you people refer to 9/11 skeptics as cranks, but there are many very qualified individuals with serious questions about 9/11.

How many times do I have state I AM NOT ENDORSING THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THEORY, so please stop attributing those ideas to me. How many times do I have to repeat this? Are you even reading what I personally stated?

Answer my specific criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report, and leave the demolition stuff out of this. I'm not talking about demolitions, why are you?

What I said was, there are experts on both sides of the demolition debate, so I respect the difficulty of coming down on one side. I am agnostic on that issue. Please see my specific citations from the 9/11 Commission Report, and answer my questions. I am not here to debate demolition theories.

there are many very qualified individuals with serious questions about 9/11.

As we've pointed out, you should not point to Margulis as a "qualified individual" to assess evidence. Nobel or not she is a crank who believes in all sorts of BS.

What I said was, there are experts on both sides of the demolition debate, so I respect the difficulty of coming down on one side. I am agnostic on that issue. Please see my specific citations from the 9/11 Commission Report, and answer my questions. I am not here to debate demolition theories.

Experts on both sides - the cry of the crank. We are not interested in parity, we're interested in evidence.

Who cares about experts? It's about evidence. What evidence do the twoofers have beyond the inherent unreliability and quote mine potential of eyewitnesses?

Ray C.: You are misreading the thread. The comments you cite above were written by Margulis, not me. Those comments are from Margulis' profile at www.patriotsquestion911.com. I never said those things.

But you quoted them with what seems to be approval.

My point there was simply that you people refer to 9/11 skeptics as cranks, but there are many very qualified individuals with serious questions about 9/11.

And?

How many times do I have state I AM NOT ENDORSING THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THEORY, so please stop attributing those ideas to me.

Forgive me. It's my fault. I thought that there was some kind of coherent thought buried within your endless rantings. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

How many times do I have to repeat this? Are you even reading what I personally stated?

You haven't personally stated anything coherent.

Answer my specific criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report,

"Boris" at 1:52 PM already did. You didn't read him, why should I think you'll read me?

and leave the demolition stuff out of this.

You first.

I'm not talking about demolitions, why are you?

Bullshit.

What I said was, there are experts on both sides of the demolition debate,

So?

so I respect the difficulty of coming down on one side. I am agnostic on that issue. Please see my specific citations from the 9/11 Commission Report, and answer my questions.

"Boris" already did. You didn't read him, but what the hell. You have thrown up a gigantic non sequitur. You have built an enormous edifice of conclusions on a gossamer basis of premises.

I am not here to debate demolition theories.

You don't seem to be here to debate anything coherent at all.

Now that this is out of the way, how about you answering two simple questions:

1. What evidence do you have that the impact of a commercial airliner, followed by a raging fire, was not sufficient to bring down the towers?

2. What, exactly, do you think did bring down the towers?

Why won't you address the specific evidence I presented, as you requested?

Where?

Chances are, of course, they've already been addressed here, whatever they are.

I'll just step in at this point and tell the 9/11 cranks to respond to questions or get lost. No trolling please.

Further, this tactic of saying you just want more investigation, or want to find the exact truth is a classic denialist technique. One of the first goals of the denialist, when their true objectives must be masked to avoid dismissal or ridicule, is to hide their motivations. This nonsense about just wanting to know the truth, or uncover any wrongdoing is of course just that, nonsense.

The real objective is to get people to entertain nonsensical ideas about a super-secret conspiracy thought up by Darth Cheney to attack our own country so they could gain power.

Not saying they didn't take advantage - I think Naomi Klein's got the right idea - but the idea that anyone from our government was behind 9/11, rather than the 19 terrorists, or that the buildings were blown up, or cruise missiles were being shot at the pentagon, or anti-aircraft at flight 93, etc., is simply not supported by the evidence.

When cranks realize they can't win on this tactic they of course emphasize a search for the more nebulous and abstract "truth" or "historical accuracy", when their real objective is perpetuating nonsensical idiocy.

Since no one here seems interested in honest debate, I will repost my earlier response to your demand to point "out a single problem about the 9/11 commission? Just one."

Good luck with your name-calling. It's amazing how much you resemble that which you detest.

---------------------
I just posted several, but you don't seem interested in reading/watching them.

Here's another, from page 172:
"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origins of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

The source of the funding doesn't matter? That's absurd. It is essential. The above is what is known as both an omission and a distortion.

How about another, from page 146, where the commission admits it never met the alleged al-Qaeda detainees, was not allowed to submit questions to them, and was not allowed to meet the alleged interrogators of the alleged detainees? Basically, most of chapters 5 and 7, where the "plot" is detailed, is derived from "detainee interrogation reports" that have no corroboration. Kean and Hamilton admit this much in their book. Don't you find that problematic?

So, we don't know where the money came from, and we don't have reliable sources for the details of the plot. The FBI publicly stated it has "no hard evidence" to connect Bin Laden to 9/11. Does any of this trouble you, or is your confidence in Bush and Cheney and their manservant Zelikow unshaken?

Since no one here seems interested in honest debate,

"Dear kettle, you are black. Signed, The Pot." See Boris at 1:52 PM.

Now it's your turn:

1. What evidence do you have that the impact of a commercial airliner, followed by a raging fire, was not sufficient to bring down the towers?

2. What, exactly, do you think did bring down the towers?