Hot dicussion of the month! Last Move to top.

The biggest problem with any conspiracy theory is that for any real questions there are a dozen hair-brained ideas as to what happened. No matter what happened on 9/11, the event has become a new Kennedy assassination in the lore of possible conspiracies, with theories ranging from stupidity and a failure of leadership in the face of direct warnings to an Operation Northwoods-type government operation. Those making accusations carry varying levels of credibility, further muddying the waters of the debate.

Kevin Barrett believes the U.S. government might have destroyed the World Trade Center. Steven Jones is researching what he calls evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives detonated inside them, not by hijacked airliners.

These men aren’t uneducated junk scientists: Barrett will teach a class on Islam at the University of Wisconsin this fall, over the protests of more than 60 state legislators. Jones is a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University whose mainstream academic job has made him a hero to conspiracy theorists.

According to polls, some Americans believe in 9/11 conspiracy theory.

With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks quickly approaching, skepticism about the circumstances surrounding the tragedy is strong, as one in three Americans believe officials in the federal government either assisted or took no action to stop the attacks, according to a recent survey. About 36 percent of the 1,010 respondents in a national Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll said that they thought U.S. government officials were involved in the Sept. 11 atrocities because they wanted the U.S. to go to war in the Middle East.

Some accusations come from unusual sources.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s publishing arm has released a book that says President Bush organized New York’s Sept. 11 attacks. The decision by the 160-year-old Westminster John Knox Press, the trade and academic publishing imprint of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., to attribute the attacks on the World Trade Center brings into the U.S. religious mainstream a conspiracy theory long held by the world’s jihadists.

In ‘Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action,’ author David Ray Griffin calls the United States the world’s ‘chief embodiment of demonic power, says he initially scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Of course, there are also many who dismiss conspiracies. There are a number of people loudly decrying conspiracy theories, so not all the noise is from those thinking the government was behind 9/11.

So what do you think? Ignorance, conspiracy, or terrorist act?



  1. Frank IBC says:

    Roc Rizzo –

    The plane which hit the Pentagon did not land on the grass. It was still airborne when it hit the building, though at a very low altitude.

    The fire in the WTC was not hot enough to melt steel. However, kerosene and diesel fuel burn up to 1500 F, and the other combustible materials involved in the fire allowed certain areas of the fire to reach 1800 F. Minutes before the collapse, it was observed that the structural steel in some places had started to glow (“become incandescent”). The melting point of steel is 2500 F, however, steel which is heated to 1500-1800 F will lose half of its normal strength.

  2. j says:

    72
    It did upset the grass. Look at the photos
    It did upset the spools and many other things. Look at the photos.

    I don’t know anything about the steel sale thing but is it so hard to believe they just wanted the mess cleaned up and the company they hired decided to make money off of it?

    Jet fuel does not burn at 800 degrees. Even the conspiracy theorists agree on that or at least they used to lol.

    There was a research project that was use in one of those videos. The video completely misrepresented a graphic animation that the research firm had on their site. On that site they show the damage a standard office fire can do to metal I-beams. It was severe structural damage. So mush so that the beams had a huge arch in them. If you take into account the structural damage and the amount of weight on top of that structural damage. It is easy to see why those buildings collapsed. If I am correct the building that had the damage lower collapsed first even though it was hit last. Think about it!

  3. Frank IBC says:

    Not asking conspiritorial questions here, just making some observations that raise questions.

    What’s wrong with that?

    Nothing “wrong” with that, I’m just highly skeptical of the implication that you have never received an answer to those questions, in the five years since the WTC attack. It sure seems to me like you’ve heard the answers a thousand times already, but let them go in one ear and out the other.

  4. J says:

    Frank IBC sums it up well.

    “in the five years since the WTC attack. It sure seems to me like you’ve heard the answers a thousand times already, but let them go in one ear and out the other. ”

    Amen Brother!!

  5. David says:

    I can’t believe I’m actually reading this on Dvorak Uncensored. I generally expect some level of sensibility from readers here!

    It’s healthy to distrust the government, certainly. But any criticisms should be fair and open minded. Conspiracy believers: Forget the official explanation and the numerous investigations into the events. What is the most logical, fact-supported explanation of the 9/11 attacks? Let’s see.. a few religious fanatics hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC towers and the Pentagon; by far, the most sensical and logical explanation.

    Maybe one of the root causes of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (there are many of them, from missiles to faked phone calls to remote controlled aircraft to denotations) is that no one really likes having to accept our airport security and government failed us on 9/11. In accepting that fact we have to reevaluate our views of our own domestic security. It’s more convenient to believe some sinister government conspiracy is behind the attacks. But just don’t call it open-minded.

  6. gquaglia says:

    Wow 80 posts!

  7. gquaglia says:

    David, you should by now if you read this blog, that a majority of the posters here are strongly anti Bush and would believe anything in support of that. Its an almost fanatical hatered on the man and his administration.

  8. Smartalix says:

    80,

    Reading what? All comments on this post expressing an opinion are from our readers. We are providing a place for people to discuss this issue, and as gquaglia pointed out, they have responded.

  9. ECA says:

    Bush Jr, couldnt handle it.
    Bush Sr, and HIS group could.

    But, it all comes to the Idea of WHOM has the callous heart and attitude, to force a situation, that would MAKE, what they wanted Happen.
    Military monies?
    We need more money for Military or we Military corps NEED a reason to get the Gov, to give us MORE.

    commercial Monies??
    If this happens we can make MORE profits.

    One world IDEALS??
    We have to force a fight that we can win, and TRY to get the Non-group countries to JOIN us.

    Pointing fingers IDEAL??
    We did it, and made you LOOK at someone we hated.

    I can probably give senerios for ALL of the above. but, until the FOG of war Clears, we aint going to see much.

  10. Sounds the Alarm says:

    RE 82. Wait a min – don’t tar all anti-Bushies the same.

    I despise the very earth the man walks on. if he visited my house, I’d burn it afterward. HOWEVER 9/11 was not his fault (as entertaining as Fahrenheit 911 was). It was the fault of 19 wack-job Muslims.

    As to how guys with box cutters could take a plane? How about grab a baby or child and threaten to cut its throat if anyone moves?

    James is right – the conspiracy theory guys are just pissing on the memory of the victims and those that rushed in to save them.

  11. Jillorious says:

    Quote: “there weren’t any dancing israelies. Those were ARAB MUSLIMS.” for more information about there arabs dancing in particular, and about the other 9/11 “myths” – read or listen to Kenneth Timmermans’ book “preachers of hate”.

  12. Andrew says:

    LOOK OVER THERE! SHINY NEW TERRORISTS! I do love getting smacked by the Pavolvian Terror Stick in the morning. Lets see, Bush and Blair’s numbers down, Isreali/Hezbollah conflict calming down, 9/11 truth movement starting to gain traction (its why you’re reading this folks, a month ago, nada), the Fed ignores basic economics and doesn’t raise the intrest rate (doesn’t really matter, they print the money anyways), and mid-term election battles heating up, guess what folks! SURPRISE! Terror Attack!

  13. Gregory says:

    Jesus… I can’t believe this.

    Ok, I’ll challenge anyone who believes in this drivel to ask a question about 9/11 that hasn’t been answered by independent sources or witnesses, usuallly repeatedly, and that isn’t based on false information.

    Just one, thats all, then I’ll have some faith that at least some of the people who believe in this stuff can research for themselves and have some sense…

  14. Awake says:

    (Best imagined being said by Bush, Cheney and Chertoff dressed as Arabs)

    Boooga Boooga Booga!
    Booga Booga!
    Booooga Booooooooga Boooga!
    BOOGA!

    (What I hear these days whenever ANYONE from the Bush administration speaks)

  15. Frank IBC says:

    #80 David –

    Maybe one of the root causes of the 9/11 conspiracy theories…is that no one really likes having to accept our airport security and government failed us on 9/11…It’s more convenient to believe some sinister government conspiracy is behind the attacks.

    One thing I’ve noticed in every single conspiracy theory I’ve ever seen is that INCOMPETENCE never ever plays even the most miniscule part in the event in question.

  16. Frank IBC says:

    Awake –

    Actually those arrested in England are Pakistanis.

  17. RBG says:

    These links will answer all the conspiracy questions:

    http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

    http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

    And my opinion is that if the US government didn’t easily hide WMDs all over Iraq to justify the Iraq war, they sure aren’t going to mess with something like 9-11 with its thousands of uncontrollable variables.

    Of course if you are as good at this sort of thing like #19 claims Israel is, then you know how to set up Muslim Terrorist camps in Afghanistan and have bin Laden on your payroll.

    RBG

  18. jbellies says:

    #35, thanks for the link about why the Presbyterian press is publishing this book. The quoted paragraph at the beginning of that article makes me think that this is a book more about (applied) theology than about conspiracy theories.

    The article distances the Presbyterian Church from the book. Although Presbyterians comprise less than 3% of the US population, they have been trusted by the populace, which has elected 10 times that many to be their President

    http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

    On the day of the 911 attacks, Osama in an interview claimed that he knew nothing about the attacks in detail, but that he thanked Allah for them. I wonder how many, elsewhere, thanked Mammon.

  19. Roc Rizzo says:

    Frank IBC.
    maybe you can tell me what materials caused the steel in the WTC to melt? So far nobody has been able to elaborate on the specifics and how they would contribute to such a hot fire.

    Jet fuel (Jet-A) combusts at 975 degrees F. UNDER PRESSURE, which would no longer exist, had the fuel stop being pumped into a jet engine, jet fuel will achieve maximum combustion at upwards or 1800 degress F. That is from a NASA report. Look it up. Sorry for the misinformation. I stand corrected.

    Still 975 would not weaken ASTM-992 beams like those used in the WTC. It would take in excess of 2000 degrees F to weaken them. That’s the standard. Go and look it up from the ASTM.

    What substance in a standard office is so flammable that it would accelerate a fire to that temperature? The only thing that I could think of is if you had some iron and zinc that had caught fire somehow. That would be a crude form of thermite. Can you document this?
    Nobody has been able to so far, to my knowledge. Can you?

    I was watching them on CNN put out the fire at the Pentagon, and there is green grass, and a couple of wire spools still standing. Maybe we aren’t watching the same videos.

    And nobody can tell me anything about the steel that should have been kept as forensic evidence. Nobody.

    You may say that I have been “told the answer” thousands of times, but without extensive detailed proof, I cannot accept it. I want to know the whys, hows, and whens of the whole thing.

    Yes, in the five years I have heard “answers,” but they are not backed up by any sort of research or proof. Nobody can show me where it says that this can happen, so I, being the doubting person that I am, cannot believe it is true. I ask questions of everything, and have done so since I was a child. Which is when I saw these discrepancies in the 9/11 incedent, I looked up sources, not from magazines, but from the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) and NASA, and organizations like that. Scientists who do advanced research on such things. The media does not give me good answers, and everything I read in these technical specs and such, point to some sort of accelerant that was used in the WTC. Not plastics, not paper, not anything that I can find can confirm the 2000 degrees F. necessary to melt these steel beams. The only thing, which may be coincidence, would be if there was some sort of iron and zinc that were on those floors, that were heated high enough to undergo a thermite type of reaction, and this is highly doubtful.

  20. Thomas says:

    Responding to these conspiracy claims such as from Roc Rizzo is just troll bait. Until they provide solid evidence of people actually conspiring to plan and implement the 9/11 bombing, their questions about events will be seen as nothing more than mental masturbation.

  21. Frank IBC says:

    In one ear…

    …and out the other.

    And he will still be asking these same questions 10 years from now and claim no one ever answered him.

    Jet fuel (Jet-A) combusts at 975 degrees F. UNDER PRESSURE, which would no longer exist, had the fuel stop being pumped into a jet engine, jet fuel will achieve maximum combustion at upwards or 1800 degress F. That is from a NASA report. Look it up. Sorry for the misinformation. I stand corrected.

    Still 975 would not weaken ASTM-992 beams

    And he can’t even process the information contained in material he quotes. And he keeps babbling about “melted steel”. Pathetic.

  22. Frank IBC says:

    How high off the ground are these “wire spools”, Rocky? And where are they in relation to where the pentagon was hit?

    And how do you account for the streetlamps that were knocked over?

  23. Roc Rizzo says:

    Again I state, this is not a conspiracy claim, just my own observations. I don’t know what happened, but I would surely like to know.

    Besides, mental masterbation is good. It keeps your brain in good function, thus preventing things like Alzheimer’s.

    I didn’t say who was responsible for 9/11. All I said is that I doubt the stories that the mainstream media and the Bush administration have been feeding us.

    Just as there is little solid evidence that there was a conspiracy, there is also little evidence that it was just some 19 people who had a hard time with cessnas, who had box cutters, who flew planes into buildings.

    If it was, the next question to ask, is that if these planes were making U-turns in the sky, why wasn’t some portion or our military sent to scramble, and actually told to stand down? They can track objects without transponders, they do it all the time. the transponder just identifies the plane. A “plane” without its transponder on is still detected, they just don’t know what plane it is.

    Sorry, but I am not going to tow the line on this one. Maybe in the past, but I have seen too many people swindle people on more complicated stuff than this. I just don’t buy the “party line.”

  24. Frank IBC says:

    Since Rocky is too lazy to bother to read the relevant passage in the Popular Mechanics article, I will post it.

    BTW, I stand corrected – the temperature at which steel starts to weaken is considerably lower than I had said in my previous post.

    Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength–and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”

    “Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

    But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

    “The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”

  25. Frank IBC says:

    Rocky –

    Can you tell me how long it took military planes to catch Payne Stewart’s plane after it went “AWOL”?

    If you can’t, you might want to read the Popular Science article.

  26. Frank IBC says:

    For Rocky –

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

    Why couldn’t ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes’ transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country’s busiest air corridors. And NORAD’s sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. “It was like a doughnut,” Martin says. “There was no coverage in the middle.” Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them.

  27. Frank IBC says:

    Sorry, I meant “Popular Mechanics”, not “Popular Science”, in my #101.

  28. You know, it’s one of those things that can’t truly be proven one way or another…if our government is smart enough to pull this off, then they are surely smart enough to keep the evidence vague and disputable. So our critical thinking alarm should go off that any assertations about government conspiracies are at best useless as they can’t be proven true OR false.

  29. Roc Rizzo says:

    Frank,
    I read the Popular Mechanix article, and it still raises the question: At what conditions does Jet fuel burn at 800 degrees F? at 1500 degrees F? I found my answer at NASA, where they have some research on this, and it is only under HIGH PRESSURE with lots of compressed air, that jet fuel approaches these higher temperatures… I even went to the local airport (the little one around here where I know the guys), and asked them to humor me. We went out to the edge of the property and lit some jet fuel on fire in a 55 gallon drum. We used some rags as a carrier for it. With my nifty IR thermometer, it only registered 780 degrees F. This tells me that the jet fuel that was spread on the WTC could not have reached a higher temperature, because the engines that compress the air and fuel, were turned off, as soon as the jet stopped (albeit through the building).

    Off the top of my head, it took between eight and fourteen minutes to scramble jets and get them to Payne Stewart.

    NORAD got the call from ATC, and started to act upon it. They had the jets ready to scramble, when someone was told to belay the order to scramble jets… WHY? I find it highly unlikely that they could not find a plane making a U turn, that was supposed to be on a regularly scheduled flight plan. It just doesn’t sound reasonable to me.

    And at what temp. do the rugs, furniture and paper burn? I know that paper burns at 451 F, but the rugs and furniture cause a 1000 degree upswing in the temp, I simply find unfeasable.

    No matter what, until you can prove to me, without question, what happened, I will still ask questions. It’s just my nature. Anyone who knows me can tell you that. Yes, I am a pain in the butt at times because of it, but it has helped me understand a whole lot of stuff.

    But I will NOT believe what is spoon fed to me from both the mainstream media, and the Lying Bush Administration. I have to find out the facts for myself. Three of my friends died that day, and I will be damned if I don’t get ALL the facts.

  30. Gibson says:

    Ok Roc…Frank IBC has answered you. Are you going to just ignore all that now and keep on going with your “no one has answered me” routine?

    Also, why scramble jets because a plane turned around? Remember, we didn’t know what was about to happen. No one did. They were told to stand down? Where did you read that? A legit source or some nut-jobs theory site?

    Tow the line on what? What is missing? Jesus Christ….there’s a MOUNTAIN of evidence and EXPERT engineers that were THERE at the site investigating it first hand. They weren’t government officials nor did they work for some covert black-ops military wing either. They were structural engineers and fire investigators, crash site investigators and on and on and on. You can find the names of the people…hell, you can probably find them in the phone book if you want.

    It’s all been explained. Have a question that no one has answered for you…it’s been answered. It’s just some people don’t want to hear that. They want to listen to people that have absolutely zero experience in these matters making wild allegations about it. Stop listening to George Nori and Art Bell also, they just spout that stuff because it pays the bills.

    This isn’t the Kennedy assassination all over again, no matter how much some people want it to be.


3

Bad Behavior has blocked 4558 access attempts in the last 7 days.