Questioning 9/11

Friday 25 August (2006)

Not many people who remember the eleventh of September 2001 will ever forget it. For me, it was my day off from college, and I went downstairs for some breakfast to find that the news was on every channel. At this point only one plane had crashed into the World Trade Centre, and the general and conservative estimate on the BBC was that this was a terrible, terrible accident. Shortly after this, the second plane hit, and the rest is history.

But right from the start, there were people who said that this thing looked a little… off. Those two towers – whilst very tall indeed – are still a mighty small target for a commercial jet to deadeye. That it happened twice was one thing, but further north another plane had slammed into the Pentagon. This being one of the most important buildings in American defense, it’s highly likely that there were multiple cameras situated all around that would have caught the impact of this plane – but all that has ever been released, even five years on, are five frames of footage showing one large explosion and no trace of an airplane. A similar situation happened with Flight 93 in Pennsylvania – the world was shown an impact crater and some pieces of the fuselage, but it still didn’t look like a passenger jet had crashed into that field. And there was more than one cry of ‘controlled demolition’ when the three buildings of the World Trade Centre collapsed without damaging any of the other buildings around them.

But, everything seemed to be explained fairly adequately. It was the jet fuel running down the elevator shafts at incredible temperatures that caused the towers to collapse. WTC 7 collapsed due to falling debris from the two main towers. And the planes that crashed in DC and Pennsylvania impacted so ferociously that they actually vaporised.

Personally, I’m undecided. I tend to agree with Occam’s Razor; that the simplest explanation is generally the right one, and sure it kind of makes more sense that the towers collapsed because of a planned implosion, but really, what the fuck do I know about architecture and jet fuel? I can only work with the information that’s given to me, and there has yet to be a fair documentary about this subject. There are dozens of pro-conspiracy and anti-conspiracy documentaries, but they only ever offer evidence supporting their own theories, so you end up with some experts saying it’s definately a conspiracy and others saying there’s no way it could be a conspiracy. So, I’ve just avoided the whole field. The planes crashed, the towers collapsed, thousands of people died, it was a terrible tragedy that led to several military actions and further loss of life… it’s all in the past, so what can you do about it.

But still, it won’t go away. This is potentially the biggest cover-up going, and no-one seems able to blow it open. That’s why when I read a magazine article about an Internet documentary called Loose Change, I knew I had to watch it.

Now, the film itself has been around since mid-2005, so you may have seen it before. It’s currently on its second version online, and a third version is being geared up for a theatrical release too. Made by a 22 year old called Dylan Avery, the documentary isn’t much different from other pro-conspiracy documentaries – there’s only evidence here which supports that stance – but what it does do very well indeed is highlight the inaccuracies in the official story. You’ll see comparisons with planned building demolitions; other plane crashes across the world which haven’t ‘vaporised,’ and other interesting facts that you may not be aware of, like the fact that the passengers of Flight 93 couldn’t possibly have used their cellphones to contact people on the ground.

So watch Loose Change today, and see what you think – he presents a compelling argument. Even if you don’t want to watch it, skip to the last ten minutes because there’s a fascinating clip of two FOX News anchors tearing some poor bastard to shreds because he wants to teach a course in Islamic traditions at the school where he works. When they find out that he doesn’t believe the official explanation for 9/11, just watch them lay into him… bloody FOX News.


7 Responses to “Questioning 9/11”

  1. Simon Rogers Says:

    I watched this a couple of weeks ago too, and I thiought it was pretty interesting.
    They are always very selective of the clpis they show in these programs, but he did see to have a lot of clpis of people saying the same thing to support his case (like the explosions heard just before they collapsed).
    There were a few of his ideas which seemed a bit far fetched though, such as two of the planes actually being flown to safety. I mean, what wold be the point? If the government were going to sacrifice people in and around the WTC, then they arent going to bother about people in the planes. And what can you do with them once they are safe back on the ground? You cant send them back home again, and people would see the planes land, surely, what if there were plane spotters around? I know that they said that people did see the planes land, but Id have though if you were planning a big conspiracy like this, youd plan it a little better.
    Also that the terrorists have supposedly been found safe and well in other countries? It would just be asking for trouble if you use people who are still alive and well as being the suicide terrorists. What if they see themselfs on the news as being a dead terrorist, surely theyre gonna cause a fuss.
    Most of his other points are very believable though, we could just do to see the case against his theory now.

    I always find it strange that all the planes met their target, except for the one which was heading to where Bush lives.

    (I posted a comment like this a few days ago, and it said it had been posted, but it never appeard, so Im trying again)


  2. stan Says:

    Yeah sorry for some reason it thought you were spam, I only just noticed but it doesn’t matter now. As for the ‘why take the civilians off the planes’ thing, it does seem to make little sense at first but when I think about it, it holds up. The bad conspiracy men would shoot the passengers on the ground, so that they wouldn’t be there to interfere with the military operation. I mean, if they kept the passengers on the plane and then it somehow went wrong, those people would have some very interesting stories to tell.

    Still, it’s all pretty weak really – I’ve heard more convincing conspiracy theories.

  3. Dave Says:

    You find any big event and someone else will try to find you a conspiracy theory- be it this, the moon landings, the hindenburg, titanic etc. There was a C4 documentary ages ago which explained from a civil/structural engineering point of view why the towers collaped as they did, so “perfectley”. 2 seconds on google yields this good link

  4. stan Says:

    A good example of the conflicting versions of events – as I say, I don’t know anything about engineering so I can only go on what I read or see. I remember the C4 documentary though, it had some good animations of the steel buckling.

  5. Simon Rogers Says:

    Yeah, I believe there are a load of conspiracy theories knocking aroun now about the London bombings. Sometimes people look for something to create a conspiracy about.
    A while ago someone emailed me this link, which is a radio interview with a representative of ‘Popular mechanics’, who debunk the conspiracy theories, and have access to evidence which nobody else does (such as the video footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon). He doesnt do to well, its just funny listening to him try to wriggle his way out of question.
    I managed to find a page which I was lookin at a while ago too which apparently has videos and interviews of former high ranking government officials speaking up about the event.
    At the end of the day they probably are just speculating too though.

  6. joep72 Says:

    The top reason I believe in 911 as told by the government is because the government can’t keep it’s own secrets it doesn’t want out. You can’t pick up a newspaper without someone anonymously stating this or that government secret. There are people who believe we didn’t land on the moon.

    One of the stages of grief is denial. It’s a lot easier too to believe there’s an enemy within that you can elect away than a shadowy lurking enemy that took us all by surprise.

    There is no plausible way to believe that bankrupt airlines gave away four planes full of people and employees with families to cooperate with a presidential conspiracy of a man who had been in office just long enough to set up his desk.

    What did we have to gain by doing this to ourselves that couldn’t have been accomplished some other way? Whatever the “why” behind the conspiracy theories is, there is always another easier, less risky way the government could have done it.

    Where did all these passengers go? Why are they and their families not speaking up seven years later when the president who supposedly did it is at record disapproval levels, the media would love to haev the evidence, and the democratic candidates would jump on it? It simply isn’t there. There is no way the govt could silence entire branches of government, industry, and priovate families for so long.

    The fact that a small handful of people theorize that there were controlled explosions aren’t enough. Give me a half hour on google and I could piece together “evidence” to suggest the Titanic was sunk by a submarine, that FDR orchestrated Pearl Harbor, or that we accidentally shot down the space shuttle.

    We’ve never had jetliners crash into a modern day skyscraper, so there is no control case to compare it to. Physics state that steel melts and weakens at tempatures consistent with what happened when the planes crashed. Gravity did the rest. Are there similarities between the building collapse and a demo? Sure, the end is the same. But a person trained in explosive demo, the amount of explosives that would have to be covertly placed by a willing group of participants and then detonated with no trace shoots the conspiracy full of holes.

    As a Soldier it is painful to see people believe that their own government would do this to its people and that its citizens who did it would stay quiet about it all these years. Let it go.

  7. joep72 Says:

    One more thing…C4 alone could not bring down that building at the upper levels. One of the things that makes C4 stable is that it is consumable in fire without exploding. It requires a detonator. Any C4 that the conspiracy crowd says brought down the building would have been burned up in the flames of the jet fuel.

    So if the upper floors were intentionally imploded as the conspiracy folks suggest, the c4 would have had to be in larger quantities lower on the structure, and such a blast would have been unavoidably seen at the lower floors. It wasn’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: