What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Jan. 29 2010 - 1:29 pm | 2,224 views | 2 recommendations | 113 comments

Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers

September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: V...

Image via Wikipedia

Like unsinkable rubber duckies, everytime you push down the fatuous arguments of the 9/11 “truthers,” who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on that fateful day in September, they just pop back up. In response to my blog here, 9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack, the “truthers” have fired back with a series of questions for me, not about Al Qaeda and bin Laden taking credit for the Xmas day underwear bomber, or for 7/7, or Lisbon, or the attack on the World Trade Center buildings in the early 1990s, but on specific “anomalies” in the collapse of the WTC buildings, in the mistaken belief that if I cannot address each and every anomaly they believe they have found, then this is proof positive that Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and company are guilty. Here is their challenge to me: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-michael-shermer.html

The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the “evidence” for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.

For example, on the issue of the melting temperature of steel, according to 911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees Fahrenheit. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. (This claim is made by Jim Hoffman,in his book Waking Up From Our Nightmare and on his web page http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/text/index.html.) Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, M.I.T. engineering professor Dr. Thomas Eager explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture, and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and spreading the fire throughout the building; temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag, straining and then breaking the angle clips that held them to the vertical columns; once one truss failed, others failed, and when one floor collapsed (along with the ten stories above it) onto the next floor below, that floor then gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered the 500,000-ton building to collapse.

Conspiricists also argue that if the buildings had collapsed due to the impact of the planes, they should have fallen over on their sides. This is also wrong. With 95 percent of each building consisting of empty space (these were office buildings after all), they could only have collapsed straight down—there simply isn’t enough structural support integrity to take an entire building down in one piece.

Conspiracy theory buffs—in direct contradiction of the above claim—also believe that the buildings fell straight down into their own footprint, which, they say, could only have happened if they had been deliberately brought down by explosive charges carefully and deliberately set ahead of time. Not true. The buildings did not fall down perfectly straight. Their collapse began on the side where the planes impacted, and so were tilted slightly toward that weakened collapse point.

Another conspiracy claim is that the buildings fell from the top down, precisely in the manner that controlled demolition buildings collapse. False. Controlled demolitions are done from the bottom up, not the top down. If you search “building demolition” on YouTube you will find hundreds of video clips of buildings collapsing by controlled demolition from the bottom up.

For our special 9/11 issue of Skeptic (https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=c87b04f1741b6411293eee53ccfedc39&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=magv12n4&Category_Code=BI) we consulted a demolition expert named Brent Blanchard, who is Director of Field Operations for Protec Documentation Services, a company that documents the work of building demolition contractors. Since the rise in popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories, he too has been inundated with requests to explain why the buildings appeared to have “collapsed as if by a controlled demolition.” (Blanchard’s entire analysis may be found on the Website he edits: www.implosionworld.com) Blanchard and his team of experts at Protec have worked with all major American demolition companies and many foreign ones to study the controlled demolition of over 1,000 of some of the largest and tallest buildings around the world. Their duties include engineering studies, structural analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services. On September 11, 2001, Protec had portable field seismic monitoring systems operating at other sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Demolition specialists were hired to clean up Ground Zero and remove the remaining damaged structures, and these experts called on Blanchard’s company to document both the deconstruction and the debris removal. Here are nine of the best arguments made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their rebuttal by Protec:

Claim #1: The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions.

Protec: No they did not. The key to any demolition investigation is in finding out the “where”—the actual point at which the building failed. All photographic evidence shows World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 failed at the point of impact. Actual implosion demolitions always start with the bottom floors. Photo evidence shows the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 were intact until destroyed from above.

Claim #2: But they fell right down into their own footprint.

Protec: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance and there was a lot of resistance. Buildings of 20 stories or more do not topple over like trees or reinforced towers or smokestacks. Imploding demolitions fall into a footprint because lower stories are removed first. WTC debris was forced out away from the building as the falling mass encountered intact floors.

Claim #3: Explosive charges are seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.

Protec: No, air and debris can be seen being violently ejected from the building—a natural and predictable effect of rapid structure collapse.

Claim #4: Witnesses heard explosions.

Protec: All Seismic evidence from many independent sources on 9/11 showed none of the sudden vibration spikes that result from explosive detonations.

Claim #5: A heat generating explosive (thermite?) melted steel at ground Zero.

Protec: To a man, demolition workers do not report encountering molten steel, cut beams or any evidence of explosions. Claims of detected traces of thermite are at this time inconclusive.

Claim #6: Ground Zero debris—particularly the large steel columns from towers 1 and 2—were quickly shipped overseas to prevent scrutiny.

Protec: Not according to those who handled the steel. The chain of procession is clearly documented, first at ground Zero by Protec and later at the Fresh Kills site by Yannuzzi Demolition. The time frame (months) before it was shipped to China was normal.

Claim #7: WTC7 was intentionally “pulled down” with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to “pull it.”

Protec: Building owners do not have authority over emergency personal at a disaster scene. We have never heard “pull it” used to refer to an explosive demolition. Demolition explosive experts anticipated the collapse of WTC7, and also witnessed it from a few hundred feet away and no one heard detonations.

Claim #8: Steel-frame buildings do not collapse due to fire.

Protec: Many steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.

Claim #9: Anyone who denies that explosives were used is ignoring evidence.

Protec: Most of our comments apply to the differences between what people actually saw on 9/11 and what they should have seen had explosives been present. The hundreds of men and women who worked to remove debris from ground zero were some of the countries most experienced and respected demolition veterans. They of all people processed the experience and expertise to recognize evidence of controlled demolition if it existed. None of these people has come forward with suspicions that explosives were used.


Comments

Active Conversation
113 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    This is great stuff, Michael. I think Rumsfeld made a lot of mistakes and was not the right choice for a wartime SecDef but to accuse him of murder is truly beyond the pale. It’s great to see the “truthers” points–and don’t they always seem so sensible on the surface, and prey on our ignorance of the details– refuted so clearly and succinctly.

  2. collapse expand

    “Claim #10: Nothing you or anyone else can ever say will ever change our minds.”
    Love to see someone refute that as effectively as was done with the first 9 claims.

    • collapse expand

      because, doncha know, Shermer and Protec are in on it! They are co-conspirators, natch! Just like my cousin who was a 1st responder to the pentagon on 9/11, they’ve been co-opted to spread the lies!

      Yes, I’m kidding.

      Truthers, don’t waste your time responding to me and I’ll budget my time and not respond to you.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  3. collapse expand

    Shermer is not a “skeptic” on this issue at all, and his efforts to debunk and/or de-legitimize those who don’t buy the “official story” as wild-eyed conspiracy theorists displays the weaknesses of his own arguments. Truth is NOT what “everyone” or even “most” choose to believe. There are quite legitimate doubts about the “official story” surrounding the 9/11 tragedy, and Shermer has done nothing to dispel or rebut them.

    Among the legitimate doubts is the facile manner in which the so-called hijackers have been presented to the public, and the quite obscure methods used both to identify and describe them. Certainly, the CIA should know about al-Qa’eda, since they helped create, train, equip and support them as US proxies fighting the Russians occupying Afghanistan. But the extraordinary feats attributed to that organization are of fairy-tale-fantasy quality, as are the aircraft piloting capabilities attributed to theretofore bumbling flight trainees. The bumbling Xmas Day attempt by the would-be “underpants bomber,” rather than confirming the 9/11 fairy tale, clearly illustrate the absurdity of it.

    So the most that can truthfully be said re: the entire 9/11 & “War on Terror” debacles, and the roles of the Bushies and Darth Vader Cheney in the long history of the rise of a fascist-leaning national security state is that the American people, including Mr. Shermer, have never been told the truth, and likely will not be in this lifetime.

  4. collapse expand

    If there WAS a 9/11 conspiracy, these tweezerhead knobshine Truthers are the best possible smokescreen for it. Maybe Alex Jones is in league with THEM, too…

  5. collapse expand

    Why would anybody debate you when you immediately call people names?

    You pick and choose your arguments and only bring the frailest rebuttals.

    Are you aware that the number of people questioning those events has only increased despite the fact that no debate is allowed in the media?

    Your experts are few and far between. You make statements as if they are fact without providing evidence.

    I wonder how, Sir, you might explain the evidence given by the FBI of the video won by Judicial Watch in court of the missile hitting the Pentagon.

    I wonder how you can explain the passport and bandana found on the street below used to identify the supposed hijackers when there is no way that they could have survived that crash.

    I wonder how you can explain the number of different witnesses who directly contradict the official story’s claims.

    I wonder how you can explain why the plane over PA was found scattered over a four mile distance.

    I wonder how you can explain why so many supposed hijackers have been found alive and well.

    I wonder how you can explain why the Bush family is friends with the Bin family, the Saudi royal family who Bob Graham states that in the 911 report were found to be necessary for the plan to work, the dancing Israelis, Tenet in the prince’s pool talking about being sold out, the fact that the flight school is owned by friends of the Bush family and implicated in CIA criminal activity, the fact that German Intelligence, FBI chief Ted Gunderson, the prime minister of Italy, Japanese parliament, and Susan Lindauer claim it was an inside job.

    Bushco lied to make us go to war in Iraq which took the lives of a million people. What is a small event in comparison like 911 to them?

    How do you explain all of the well documented crimes of the CIA and claim now that they are guilty of nothing?

    Sir, you are not a skeptic. You are a shill. The people who question the infinite holes in the official story are the real skeptics.

      • collapse expand

        OK cricket man

        I wonder how, Sir, you might explain the evidence given by the FBI of the video won by Judicial Watch in court of the missile hitting the Pentagon.

        Easy – no such video definitively showing a missle hit the Pentagon exists. It was an airplane – as the flaming debris clearly demonstrates.

        I wonder how you can explain the passport and bandana found on the street below used to identify the supposed hijackers when there is no way that they could have survived that crash.

        That is so stupid it doesn’t even deserve and answer. Many things – including unlikely thing survive plane crashes all the time.

        I wonder how you can explain the number of different witnesses who directly contradict the official story’s claims.

        Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. Many people believe they are being abducted by aliens and see alien spacecraft. They are just as (not) reliable.

        I wonder how you can explain why the plane over PA was found scattered over a four mile distance.

        Easy – it wasn’t. Try a little research.

        I wonder how you can explain why so many supposed hijackers have been found alive and well.

        Where? Produce evidence…

        Try to learn a few facts before making yourself look so loony…

        http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

        Moron…

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          Wow. I didn’t think ignorance could go so deep.
          Anyone who has seriously looked into the evidence without prejudice will have discovered within minutes irrefutable evidence that the official story of 9/11 is a total fantasy. Every assertion by Protec is not only lamely and “authoritatively” (without evidence) presented, but further, each of these lame “debunking” claims have been soundly blown out of the water long ago by real investigation. Popular Mechanics’ treatment was pap and factually untrue and unscientific, and thoroughly debunked in David Ray Griffin’s well-documented rebuttal.
          AND — let’s be real here — asking Protec (the company who was hired to remove all evidence from the crime scene of the century) to tell us whether there was any funny business going on there, is being as smart as asking the driver at a bank heist whether they think the bank is safe to make a large deposit.
          I think in this case the “large deposit” is the load this article delivered. (Again!)

          In response to another comment. See in context »
  6. collapse expand

    If anybody has read the 50 plus highly detailed warnings that were given before the attacks, then it is impossible to believe how they could have been ignored.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html
    http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus

    The link below shows how the number of people who distrust the official story is growing despite all efforts to shut down the story. If there was nothing to hide, why don’t they allow debates about it. How come Beverly Eckert won all her cases in court?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls

  7. collapse expand

    “I wonder how you can explain why so many supposed hijackers have been found alive and well.”

    Fine example of one of the silliest truther claims. You are to believe the alive hijackers are sitting there in some Arab country, BUT! New papers and TV stations un-friendly to the USA have chosen NOT to drag these “alive” terrorist out for all the world to see, thereby exposing the big US false flag operation. Just imaging the finely honed logic it takes to buy that one?

    • collapse expand

      Well… The names WERE dragged out by newspapers in that rabidly anti-American country of England.
      Thing is, it was assumed that bringing this story out (this was early on remember!) would help the US gov’t get the story exactly correct. But we didn’t let the facts get in the way here, and pretty much stuck to the names we dished out.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  8. collapse expand

    Many senior veterans of the US Counter-terrorism and Intelligence services also do not believe the official account of 9/11.

    - Ray McGovern, former Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke.”

    - Bill Christison, former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis. “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. …The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.”

    - Terrell Arnold, former Deputy Director of Counter-terrorism, US State Department, and Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, former Commanding General, US Army Intelligence have both publicly stated they do not believe the WTC Towers collapsed as a result of the airplane impacts.

    For more info see the article “41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11″ http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Articles

  9. collapse expand

    “I wonder how you can explain why the plane over PA was found scattered over a four mile distance.”

    And another silly claim! Yeah because some papers from the plane were found several miles downwind of the crash site. In truther world it becomes the entire aircraft. “scattered over a four mile”.

    That is the problem with these people, they pick up on claims made on conspiracy theorist site and repeat them as if true without checking the validity of the claim or vetting the logic of the claim. My favorite is the claim the towers fell at “Free Fall” in only 10 seconds. Clearly watching a video of the entire collapse and employing the simple act of COUNTING shows the tower took somewhere 18 to 25 seconds to fall. But the Free Fall canard is still thrown out there.

  10. collapse expand

    You know who else thinks 9/11 was an inside job? General Albert Stubblebine the “The Men who Stare at Goats” general. He also believed that a soldier could adopt the cloak of invisibility, pass cleanly through walls and, perhaps most chillingly, kill goats just by staring at them. Of course none of this worked and lots of tax dollars were spent investigating this bunkum, the general became a bit of a joke as a result.

    Want to impress, show me just ONE structural engineer who has demonstrated his or her ability to understand the physics of massive structures like the WTC by designing and building a building over say 10 stories who say the event of 9/11 were a controlled demolition. Not third rate architects like Richard Gage, real engineers.

    • collapse expand

      Try Isaac Newton. He wasn’t a structural engineer but he knew his gravity all right. Shit, the man even wrote the book on it.
      And he will tell you that no object can fall through 4/5ths more of itself heading groundward and achieve the same free fall time as the same object actually “falling,” “freely,” through empty air.
      You wont catch me arguing with Newton. Arguing Shermer – that’s too easy.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        You are confusing Newton with Galileo who discovered the Law of Free Fall.

        Galileo was also responsible for the Discovery of Scaling Laws, In effect the larger the structure the support needed to hold it up is NOT proportional to it’s scale. So the nature of the collapse of the WTC is not unusual given it’s scale. You can’t judge how a 1300 ft tower will react by looking at building half it size in a similar event.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  11. collapse expand

    “It’s great to see the “truthers” points–and don’t they always seem so sensible on the surface, and prey on our ignorance of the details– refuted so clearly and succinctly.”

    Actually Shermer is playing on your willful ignorance of the details. He is using debunked information and red herrings to allow you to remain in your kool-aid trance.

    Go watch the demolition video of WTC 7 on youtube.

    WTC 7 is the 47 story elephant in the living room.

    911 was clearly a false flag psyop.

    If you want to continue to believe the official story of 911, I advise that you do NOT do any research.

    • collapse expand

      You mean research like the fact WTC7 was hit so hard by WTC1 that it started to lean! The FDNY chief was so concerned by this he had a surveyor transit brought in so they could measure the leaning that got worst over the day. Then you have the massive fire that all the FDNY personnel witnessed but could not fight due to lack of water and rescue operations on the Tower piles, How about that huge 20 floor gash in the south face of the building. Watch a few YouTube videos is not research.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Your claims have even been debunked by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. They say that fires and only fires are responsible for WTC 7s demolition. The truth is that WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition using explosives. This is the only way that the building could have come down at free fall acceleration. Watch the videos on youtube and decide for yourselves what happened to WTC 7. There are videos showing a known controlled demolition beside the WTC 7 event. They look extremely similar.

        The “gash” you allude to was not a causal factor according to NIST.

        NIST said nothing about the building leaning. If it were leaning, why didn’t it fall to the side it was leaning to, rather than come straight down. You are misinformed. You clearly want to believe the official story.

        You must have a vested interest in perpetuating the official conspiracy theory.

        WTC 7 is so obviously a controlled demolition that it reminds me of Orwell’s 1984.

        I am here to say that 2+2=4 and WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          This is the only way that the building could have come down at free fall acceleration.

          Total collapse time for WTC7 was about 18 seconds, that includes the internal collapse that started before the typical 6 second collapse you see in conspiracy theorist videos. Why do they only show that part and not the entire event? To fool you.

          Here is an idea, step away from the kiddy YouTube videos and read a book on physics, not as entertaining but it will enlighten. Research exactly how a controlled demolition is done, all the work involved, the pre-weakening that need to be done, the devices used. Lean a little something and you will see rigging a working office building for a controlled demolition is near impossible. Not to mention one that is on fire. This is not the movies you know.

          Educate yourself and the conspiracy theories look like what they are, scams to fool the foolish.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            Your condescending tone makes me wish that this was a face to face discussion.

            You have to refer to youtube as Kiddy. It is a venue for people to watch video. Many of the videos of WTC 7 are from the major television networks. Your reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired. I said WTC 7 came down at free fall acceleration. This means the fall of the building, once initiated, was the same as if you had dropped a bowling ball through air from the top of the building.

            Your reference to how much time and work would have to go into a controlled demolition is correct. That is THE POINT. The building was set up for controlled demolition before September 11th, which means that the official story has a huge gaping hole in it.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            Don’t forget, all that pre-planning IS necessary to bring down a building as neatly as WTC7 — or demolition crews would simply set fires to building to bring them down! It is an exacting art dependent on a honed science to bring a building straight down, and mother nature would rather just push it over if it were “leaning”.
            Even people with a severe lack of intelligence don’t persist so stupidly when they are presented with the truth; why don’t you to admit to the truth? What do you have to gain by obscuring reality, I wonder?

            In response to another comment. See in context »
  12. collapse expand

    I take the risk of being name-called a “conspiracy theorist” (simply by asking some “unauthorized” questions… thats the form these days). Here is yet another 9/11 issue which the mainstream “weasel” media refuses to address, but here goes:

    I am writing this on behalf of those who remain convinced that the entire operation was carried out by al Qaeda agents loyal to Osama bin Laden, and the attack came as a complete surprise to every department and agency within the US Government, including the Bush Administration and the DoD. The 9/11 Commission’s Final Report echoed this scenario, and the mainstream media touted this line from about noon on the day of 9/11/2001 itself.

    Most of the US public still view the 9/11 Commission as the “last word”, regarding the attacks. However, the 9/11 Commission was unlike any other national inquiry in US history. In short, the most generous description would be “a charade and whitewash”. The following information and commentary comes from Commission members and other officials, and puts a very different light on the character of the “investigation” which both the Bush and Obama Administrations claim to be the definitive story and analysis of the most heinous atrocity ever committed on US soil.

    First off, the Bush Administration refused to authorize any inquiry for 441 days (an extraordinary and unexpected non-reaction), as well as taking the equally bizarre step of appointing Henry Kissinger as Commission chairman; HK resigned the position because he refused to reveal his client list, citing “conflict of interest”. Once the inquiry was authorized (with extreme reluctance on the part of the Bush White House), they promised it would be the fullest investigation “no stones to be left unturned”. Unfortunately, according to the most senior Commissioners, this was far from the case. The Bush White House did everything in its power to derail an open inquiry. Then, when faced with its inevitability, the president and his aides sought to limit its scope, its access and its funding.

    *John Farmer, the lead counsel to the Commission, claims that the greater part of the Commission’s findings “are untrue”. He also states: “The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”. Indeed, they said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.

    John Farmer also said: “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

    *9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

    *9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”.

    *9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”,” and also “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.

    *The intimidation of witnesses in a criminal trial is a very serious offense. Throughout the 9/11 Commission hearings, Government “minders” aggressively intimidated Commission witnesses on a wholesale basis, with impunity.

    *CIA chief Tenet demonstrably lied to the Commissioners in closed session meetings.

    *Despite the common awareness in the intelligence and law enforcement community that torture is a counterproductive method of obtaining worthwhile information, the huge majority of the Commission’s “evidence” was extracted by torturing supposed suspects.

    * Former VP Cheney provably lied to the 9/11 Commission regarding his movements and whereabouts in the critical period of time shortly after the attacks started.

    * After both President Bush and VP Cheney initially refused to testify to the Commission under oath, their testimony was secret, behind closed doors, no cameras or transcripts allowed, and no questions by reporters. Does “executive privilege” extend to this *amazing* degree of obfuscation?

    *A document recently discovered in the National Archives shows that, in a memo to the 9/11 Commission’s chairman and vice-chairman on false statements made by NORAD and FAA officials about the failure of US air defenses, the commission’s Executive Director Philip Zelikow failed to mention the possibility of a criminal referral. This supports allegations that Zelikow “buried” the option of a criminal referral by the commission to the Justice Department for a perjury investigation. The document was found at the National Archives by HistoryCommons contributor paxvector and posted to the History Commons site at Scribd.

    * The overwhelming proportion of evidence, some 90% heard by the Commission was not included in the Commission’s final report; this report has been described as a classic example of “dry labbing”. In scientific circles this means “starting out with a theory, which you then prove by omitting all contrary material. The responsibility for this fiasco clearly fell with the Commission’s executive director, Philip Zelikow, a Bush White House official, who determined which material was to be published, and which was to be ignored and erased.

    *Both 9/11 Commission co-chairs Kean and Hamilton haves stated publicly that the 9/11 Commission was “deliberately set up to fail” by the Bush/Cheney White House. The 9/11 Commission Report is no better than a 571 page lie.

    In the light of this information, the 9/11 Commission was clearly at the very best, severely hobbled; at the worst, it was bogus, a complete failure, its conclusions worthless garbage: a national disgrace with treasonous implications. According to the latest polls, the nation is divided about 50:50 on either supporting a new, real, no-holds barred investigation with full subpoena powers… or to let the matter rest and “move on”. This latter group is clearly either unaware of the facts behind the 9/11 Commission’s failure, or do not want to know. America and the world deserves far better than to let the matter rest; we are now in the insane situation that the worst crime of our lifetime remains uninvestigated, unsolved, and unpunished. Our alleged representatives in Washington DC appear to have closed ranks in keeping this nasty chapter in our history secret.

    This goes way beyond the left-right paradigm. If the 10s of millions of people asking the difficult questions are all “conspiracy theorists”, then the US Government shouldn’t have any difficulty addressing these questions and evidence.

    My question is: “If the 9/11 attack was the work of 19 guys controlled by Osama bin Laden, with no prior knowledge of warning, why was the 9/11 Commission so severely derailed by the leaders of the nation which was attacked that day?

    • collapse expand

      Just replace ‘9/11 Commission’ with ‘Warren Commission’ – you are just as deluded as the Kennedy conspiracy crowd.

      You people are just like YEC’s…anything that doesn’t fit your script is immediately discounted.

      You people should really get a life…or maybe not – you are endlessly amusing.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Bradfeaker: If you had a worthwhile answer to the question I put, then I live in hope that you would rather have stated such, rather than prove to everyone that you have nothing to say, or have no argument, by the telltale indulgence in name-calling and “conspiracy theory” accusations.

        Incidentally, the dictionary definition of “conspiracy” is “a plan by two or more people to commit an illegal act”. By this definition, then the officially endorsed explanation (read “highly unlikely fairytale”) is also a conspiracy, committed by 19 alleged hijackers and some bearded guy in a cave 10,000 miles away with a satellite phone.

        In my reply, I quoted statements by senior 9/11 Commission members, and asked a simple question regarding why the 9/11 Commission was scuppered by the Bush Administration. You appear to be amongst a set of people who can’t seem to tell the difference between “asking a question” and “speculating upon a solution”. Perhaps you are not aware that all humans, regardless of color, ethnicity, nationality or religion, are equally capable of committing appalling acts, most especially if they know they can and will get away with it.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          Of course all manner of people are capable of appalling actions. But you follow a familiar pattern popular among conspiracy theorists. You’re ‘just asking questions’ but you offer no solid answers or explanations of your own. You condemn and dismiss ‘the official version’ yet offer no coherent explanation that accounts for all the facts.

          ‘Teach the controversy’, ‘I am just asking questions’, ‘You don’t have ALL the answers’ – all tactics of creationists, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers and other fringe movements. It is dishonest and intellectually lazy.

          I doubt that the 9/11 Commission got everything right – but they got the most important points correct. There will always be unanswered questions and we may never have the entire story…but a grand conspiracy by the Bush administration? You give them far too much credit.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            I am with Blogulator on this. But I will go further than “just asking questions”, as you put it. Meanwhile, I want to know what you mean?
            While you refuse to give Bush/Cheney any shred of theoretical/speculative credit for being able to OK a small network to outwit their own government systems, you would think them THAT inferior to a very small bunch of documented misfits whose main activity seemed to be drinking and hitting strip clubs?

            In response to another comment. See in context »
  13. collapse expand

    Shermer says it can’t have been a controlled demo jobbie because those start from the lower parts not the top.

    What he deliberately does not consider as do all his ilk is this:

    This was a controlled demolition job designed by terrorists made to appear to the gullible as if it was a gravity collapse.
    I say gullible because its not possible to achieve freefall time when falling through the line of most resistance pulverising floors at a rate of 7 – 8 floors a minute if the only force available was gravity.
    Common sense tells you that.

  14. collapse expand

    Shermer even says that Protec demolition helped Controlled Demolition inc do the clean up.
    Why use explosive demo men to clean up a debris site that never was never caused by explosives to begin with.
    (Controlled Demolition inc. don’t even normally do the prep work let alone do the dishes after the party!)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqeWz4Wrky8&feature=related

  15. collapse expand

    Why should anyone care what Shermer has to say?

    Most of us have understood by now the events of 9/11 were not what they first appeared.

    His next article “rebutting 9/11 truthers” will hopefully be a bit more up to date and interesting.

    Shermer might try the anthrax attacks next.

    Good luck Mike!

    • collapse expand

      Well actually things did appear exactly what they seemed at the time they happened.
      When we watched the towers come down we bwere watching buildings being blown up from the top down.
      Trouble is its just taken far too long for people to wake up and recognise that what they thought they saw was indeed what was happening.
      As David Chandler says, “The first point of science is observation.”
      And I say, “The second point is believing what you were seeing all along and not believe what you are told that disputes what you saw.”

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Kroll Inc. undertook “fire proofing” work in the Twin Towers in 1999. It is coincidence beyond the extraordinary that the two principle areas in which this work was carried out correspond *exactly* to the portions of the North and South Towers of the WTC which were impacted by airplanes on 9/11.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  16. collapse expand

    Truthers, birthers, AGW deniers, holocaust deniers, creationists, Ufologists, Coast to Coast AM callers.

    Man – you all sound the same. My faith in humanity is dwindling everyday. Every single argument presented here has been addressed repeatedly – yet the same crap shows up over and over. While I admire your ‘Troofer’ persistence, I do question your sanity. The anonymity of the internet sure brings out the fringe element. If you are so convinced – use your real name.

    Dr. Shermer – you display the patience of Job. (Even though he is fictional).

    • collapse expand

      Yes we get seriously bored and annoyed having to constantly repeat ourselves.
      I tell you what pet, why not watch this short vid that should make things clear once and for all.
      Think of it as the “G for Gravity” bit in a Sesame Street episode.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqeWz4Wrky8&feature=related

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Not as bored as we get listening to your delusions. I have seen that idiot video before – and it is ignorant on so many levels I am surprised that you truthers even believe it.

        Let’s try a little big boy math – I know it may stretch you Sesame Street math skills – but bear with me. The accelerating force on an object (with mass) in a 1 G field is 9.80665 metres per second squared and is an equal force regardless of the amount of the mass (as long as m > 0).

        With me so far? This however does not account for things like drag and friction. You know – like when 2 different 110 story building collapse from being struck in 2 different places?

        Now notice in the video that when the upper portion of the tower begins to fall out of the buildings footprint – it falls faster that the rest of the collapse! Amazing! 4/5th’s of the tower did not collapse into itself.

        From the article above…

        Protec: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance and there was a lot of resistance. Buildings of 20 stories or more do not topple over like trees or reinforced towers or smokestacks. Imploding demolitions fall into a footprint because lower stories are removed first. WTC debris was forced out away from the building as the falling mass encountered intact floors.

        If you think it DID collapse that way – you are blind as well as in denial.

        Try a little harder

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          god you don’t half waffle. NIST says the tops fell in free fall time. The video shows then that tops falling, one through air and the other through matter would, according to NIST logic take the same time.
          This obviously a lie and an absurd one at that.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            A paper submitted to the NIST by Dr. Steven E. Jones (a truther) does not imply tacit endorsement by the NIST. It is not a peer reviewed paper and is not a part of the NIST official investigation. In fact it is merely the contents of a lecture he gave at Berkeley.

            Dr. Jones spends a great deal of time convincing his readers of just how smart he is (with all his research into muon-catalyzed fusion no less) as a physicist. I failed to discover his credentials as a structural engineer.

            Once again – try a little harder…and you might try reading Dr. Shermer’s book – ‘Why People Believe Weird Things’ – ISBN 0-8050-7089-3. Read Chapter 18…it describes Dr. Jones perfectly.

            Wait a minute – what am I thinking? I can tell you wouldn’t bother. Never mind…

            In response to another comment. See in context »
  17. collapse expand

    You are dead wrong regarding lack of proof of thermite. The report has been circulating for some time now that Super Thermite exists due to the WTC incident.

    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

    • collapse expand

      Oh Yeah. It was “Peer Reviewed” alright, By the same pay to publish company who accepted a paper comprised of pure computer created gibberish. This hoax that came from some students who called themselves the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

      You do know for $850 you to can get a paper published by Bentham? Of course they would never get published by a REAL science journal.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

      It a sad fact what passes for science in the truther world is often CRAP. Again we see where truther pull something from a conspiracy theorist site and never investigate it’s validity.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Yes well if you want to argue with the Jones paper I suggest you get on to NIST and get them to do forensic explosive tests of their own. Then you can get back with proper comment. In the meantime you might want to ask yourself why hasn’t NIST and why does NIST still now refuse to do such tests?

        And now perhaps you would like to try this for size. RJLee Groups dust analysis for Deutche Bank on Liberty Street.
        They report very high levels of Barium and vaporisation of metal lead DURING the “collapses” caused by extremely high temperatures. Wonder where they came from DURING the collapse then?
        Expert Report WTC Dust Signature

        http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          The reason they didn’t test for explosive is because there was absolutely no sign explosives were used.

          The compounds you mention can be found in all kind of stuff including computer monitors.

          Instead of asking silly questions that have been answered time and time again, try proving you hypothesis. Question mean nothing and is a lame tactic use by conspiracy theorist types when they have nothing else.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
          • collapse expand

            You don’t test because you believe or not believe something to be the case.
            You test in order to confirm what the case is.
            Otherwise you would be acting in a bias manner wouldn’t you?
            And we wouldn’t want that in an investigation into the towers collapse would we?
            Some people might get the idea that no tests were done because certain people didn’t want to discover certain things, yes?
            Now, suggest you tell us all why in a supposed gravity collapse Protec Explosive Demolition an Controlled Demolition Inc were given the job of clearing up.
            So you’ve got explosives people clearing up a site where the authorities insist no explosives were used, and the same authorities don’t test the dust for explosives even though the pulverised billowing clouds right from the beginning strongly suggest explosive was used.

            In response to another comment. See in context »
  18. collapse expand

    And then you have the Italian who found this supposed “Super Thermite” has all the chemical properties of rust proofing paint used to treat the steel before construction. Wow, painted on Super Thermite Paint!

    http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

    My question is, if it exist let see the truther demonstrate this stuff, even on a small scale.

    Of course informed people know thermite is nothing more than Iron Oxide AKA Rust, and aluminum Oxide, the towers were clad in aluminum. Did you know, thermite has NEVER been used for controlled demolitions.

  19. collapse expand

    I remember truther showing picture of steel beams that had obviously been cut with a torch and saying they were cut will this magical thermite.

    Took me all of 15 minutes to find pictures of iron workers doing the exact same cuts using a thermic lance (no not thermite lance). 20 years from now there will still claim it had to be thermite, and will still be wrong.

  20. collapse expand

    Me thinks truther think the world works like the movies they see. Bad guy want to blow up building so he plants some bombs and BOOM building falls down. Well that’s the movies not real life. But kids love the movies.

    Now if you were really intellectually curious you would find out as mush as you can about how a controlled demolition works, not the simple process you would think. Lots and lots of work, pre cutting of structure is done, Thermite has never been used but special shape charge devices are, and these have to be placed exactly and have to wrapped in blast blankets to prevent shrapnel from being thrown out. Detonation core is used because electrical detonator have a nasty habit of triggering from static alone. Funny no det cord was found or evidence of any other kind of detonator.

    And you want me to believe this was all done in working office buildings? Yeah, right, soon as I send some money off to this Nigerian Guy who emailed me.

    • collapse expand

      Yes terrorists planing a controlled demolition that they intend will kill thousands are really going to wrap charges in blast blankets aren’t they?
      Like so many story believers I can never tell whether you lot are plain dishonest or extremely slow in the brain.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Well IF you were smart enough to understand, you use blast blanket to prevent the area from being peppered with shrapnel, something that would if it happened show explosions had occurred. Sorry, I should have known you would have not have known that and dumbed down the explanation more.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      David – you are really wasting your time with the good ‘inspector’. When he cannot rebut an argument with evidence, he resorts to the good old ad hominem attack or engages in ‘moving the goalposts’. You are flogging a dead horse my friend.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        I realize some people are to drunk on the conspiracy theorist Kool-Aid and impervious to facts and logic.

        I point out their lies and flawed logic for the fence sitter who may be reading, The more you poke them the more wild their claims become. Watch we will see clams that no planes hit the towers and directed energy weapons were used.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  21. collapse expand

    Seems to me all truther argument are based on their personal ignorance.

    They don’t understand how controlled demolitions are done but because it sort of looks like a controlled demolition, it must be a controlled demolition and nothing else.

    They don’t understand the event was a gravity driven event and that explosive have no effect on the acceleration of the gravity driven collapse. DUH, gravity brought the buildings down, so yes some parts of the building reached gravitational acceleration, no big mystery there.

    They don’t have a deeper understanding of gravity and free fall so they parrot “Fell fall” as a religious chant. Sad testimony to the state of science education in this country.

    • collapse expand

      Yes and you are a prime example of how deplorable education standards are these days.
      You can’t achieve free fall time unless you are “falling” “freely”.
      An object falling only under gravity cannot achieve free fall rate and free fall time and pulverise itself as well..
      For amongst other reasons, as you will remember from school,
      YOU CANNOT USE THE SAME ENERGY TWICE

      Finally, if an object falling through the line of most resistance (4/5ths of itself in the towers case) does fall in free fall time then it is only an exact facsimile of free fall time and not free fall time because the object can’t have been falling freely under gravity but must have had additional force assisting its descent.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Not much up on physics are you?

        Fact: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another. All the energy that went into lifting multi ton beams into place at the WTC was retained as Gravitational Potential Energy. No energy was lost in the falling of the beams and no extra energy (explosives) was needed to make them fall. A small fraction would be lost due to friction with the air, but that is tiny. All that energy was converted when structure hit other parts of the building or the ground. Converted as heat or kinetic energy, pulverizing.

        Again NO extra energy is required to cause a building to collapse. All that energy is stored in the building mass. That is how a controlled demolition works and as a consequence how it happens with a fire induced collapse.

        See you learned something.

        Maybe if you have such a weak understanding of the science of this event you should try reading a physics book before pimping conspiracy theorist tripe.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          I am not a physicist, but even I understand that Inspector is talking over your head on this.
          You cannot both have pulverization AND demolishing weight without additional energy input. This is very fundamental. When was the last time anything was flattened (and made into more dust, instantaneously) by the dust falling from above? UnTruthers are always talking about how insubstantial the buildings were, how the 57 enormous vertical core columns magically disappeared when floors explosively (there is no better descriptor when you view the phenomenon) succumbed to – what?? – the pulverized dust from above? Give me a break. Only rational conclusions then are 1.) either there was excessive additional force, able to break apart COOL steel where no fires existed (4/5 of building) or 2.) magic happened.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      And before anyone dare jump in and suggest free fall didn’t happen – here is the top man at NIST:

      Dr Shyam Sunder
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfr8Q12tj3s

      Enjoy, its also a piss take.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  22. collapse expand

    I should have said A small fraction would be converted to heat due to friction with the air, but you get the idea.

    You seem to have the rhetoric down pat, but seem to be ignorant of the physical reality of the event and the science behind it.

  23. collapse expand

    Dr Shyam Sunder
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfr8Q12tj3s

    Enjoy, its also a piss take.

    I know children love the YouTubes, but have you tried reading the NIST report? Or is it to far above you mental pay grade?

    • collapse expand

      You’ve seen the video you have heard the man speak. Now here is the text from the NIST fact sheet.

      [6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?}

      Have you got that?
      First I take the piss out of you then Dr Sunder of NIST does by giving a fall time for the towers commensurate with the same fall rate as that in a vacuum.
      There wasn’t a vacuum in New York then was there?
      But don’t you see now? The buildings used all their gravitational energy in order to achieve the fastest fall time possible. There would have been none spare to be transferred.
      Therefore what ever was doing the pulverising MUST have come from another energy source than gravity.
      Only fools don’t understand this.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  24. collapse expand

    Here is another thing.
    The tops of the towers had been “falling down” on the lower part of the building all the buildings life.
    To believe the official story you are asked to accept that when the tops became severed from the rest of the building at the impact point the suddenly gained an incredible amount of new gravitational energy that made them suddenly overwhelmingly top heavy.
    Common sense should tell you that the gravitational energy would neither increase or decrease merely because the top was now “detached”.
    And the quick check for that one is to consider this:
    Does a book offer a heavier load to a shelf on which it rests when it is loose, and would it offer a lighter load if the book was stuck to the shelf.
    Once again common sense tells us it would make no difference.
    And sports fans are you noticing something?
    I’m demolishing the official story without recourse to any “conspiracy theory” whatsoever.
    Mid school physics does it all.

  25. collapse expand

    The buildings used all their gravitational energy in order to achieve the fastest fall time possible.

    Mid school physics does it all.?

    Not a very good school you are going to, are you? Not very bright are you? It take you re a rather dumb high school kid, you are proving my assertion very well. Stupid people buy this 9/11 conspiracy theory thing.

    You don’t get the simple basic law of physics. No energy is used or lost in falling. It is converted to kinetic energy but NONE is lost. When that beam hits something all that energy is converted from kinetic energy to pulverize or to impart more energy into the things it hit.

    In you world thing would only fall so far and then stop when they run out of energy. Again falling does not use energy unless you are saying frictional loss from air to heat did it, is that what you are saying?

    You are proving what we all know, as a truther you lack the knowledge that thinking people take for granted. Try reading a physics book for a change.

    Watch a video of the collapse and COUNT, you know 1. 2. 3 etc. You will see it takes 18 seconds at least for a total collapse. Sorry, but them’s the facts.

    • collapse expand

      Kyte, you wrote:
      “In you world thing would only fall so far and then stop when they run out of energy.”
      That is precisely what he is maintaining, I would think. Any you should too. It is called the first law of thermodynamics, isn’t it? Well, things run out of energy when they meet the resistance of the things below it. Free fall can only happen when there is absolutely no resistance, and, to top it off, pulverization is very energy-absorptive.
      So give us all a clue how UnTruthers do their magical feat of instantaneously bringing down three skyscrapers in YOUR world without the addition of superfluous energy (explosives, removal of key architectural elements)? And don’t say “The Planes, Foolish Man” because not only were the buildings over-engineered against that very insult, but the energy input was long dissipated (this goes for the fires, too, incidentally, which were isolated near the top and choking off).

      In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      Its not actually your business to argue with NIST. We truthers can because we don’t believe a word of it. But you lot have to stick to the script.
      So with regards the towers you have 11 secs & 9 secs fall time – now go away and believe.

      As for WTC7 it may come as a suprise to you but a falling event is a very visual event. i.e. If you see something falling it is and if you don’t see something falling it’s because it isn’t.
      So we see the penthouse go, followed a second and a bit later by the rest of the building, the four corners falling straight down in around 6.5 secs.
      Total time around 7.5 – 8 secs max for WTC7 NOT 18 seconds.

      [6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
      http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  26. collapse expand

    Shermer’s analyis ignores evidence and denies facts. See “9-11 Blueprint for Truth” by Richard Gage. Cut steel beams and molten steel were documented EXTENSIVELY on the site. Tests have already been done proving Thermite was used. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, Jack.

  27. collapse expand

    Ho Hum. As it was once said, “For those who believe, no words are necessary, but for those who disbelieve, no words are enough!” Anyone can find someone to support their belief systems, hence Skeptic pretty much reveals its focus before the reader ever gets into the material. Assuming the “intent” of these discussions is to get at the truth behind 9/11, I’m sure Skeptic would support an independent investigation into these attacks. Without a doubt, Dr. David Griffin has a commanding grasp of these events, notwithstanding a work written by Peter Tiradera entitled 9-11 Coup Against America! ~ The Pentagon Analysis. Note that Tiradera is a physician and ex-USAF officer, who served in an engineering unit of the Air Force and was assigned to surveying the debris fields of jet aircraft. The bottom line here is simply that before anyone should come to their own conclusions regarding the events of 9/11 they should first do some of their own homework and that means doing some in depth reading.

  28. collapse expand

    Claim #8: Steel-frame buildings do not collapse due to fire.

    Protec: Many steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.

    Name one building that collapsed due to fire???
    Just one?? And you can’t say the world trade center. How much do they pay you to lie and spin the truth? Is it worth your soul? Is it worth your humanity? Just keep drinking the Sodium fluoride and make sure you take an extra H1N1 Vaccination just to be extra safe!

  29. collapse expand

    Well, well well, the great Skeptic strikes again. What a yawner.

    It is conceivable that Mr Shermer really was once a skeptic. But at least on the topic of September 11, he is the last person for whom that label is accurate.

    Mr. Shermer will twist himself into knots to support a version (not the current one, by the way) of the “Offical Story”. He ridicules and disparages any claims he disagrees with, in many cases using the very techniques he accuses the Truth Movement of. In that respect he is very much like defenders of Creationism–exactly what he claims the “Truthers” are prone to do. The one exception was when he mistakenly agreed to appear on the Thom Hartmann radio program with Kevin Ryan, and was forbidden from using ridicule and personal attacks…and got creamed in the debate. Funny how that works, isn’t it, MIKE????

    So let’s examine some of Mr. Shermer’s claims that “debunk” the 9/11 Truth Movement:

    First Mr. Shermer cites Thomas Eager’s analysis of why steel did not have to melt: because steel loses its strength without melting. This is a red herring, since numerous photographs and testimonials refer to molten “steel”. The notion that steel did not have to melt is completely irrelevant in the face of evidence that steel (or iron) did melt.

    Then Mr. Shermer cites Dr. Blanchard of Protec and their 9 “best claims” of the 9/11 Truth Movement. In many cases, the claims are either incorrectly represented or are responded to with bogus counter-claims.

    To take just a few:

    Claim #1: The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions.

    This was countered by noting that controlled demolitions “start at the bottom”. While technically true, this is only because that is the order in which the sequencing of explosive events are programmed to occur. There is no reason why they cannot start anywhere the demolition experts want them to.

    ******************

    Claim #3: Explosive charges are seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.

    Protec: No, air and debris can be seen being violently ejected from the building—a natural and predictable effect of rapid structure collapse.

    Isn’t it interesting that Dr. Blanchard can tell the difference between “explosive charges” and “air and debris”. And in Dr. Blanchard’s expert opinion, the air and debris is forced out of narrow windows as much as 40 floors below the destruction wave. By what exactly, Dr. Blanchard? By overpressuring caused internally by the collapse? Shouldn’t that provide resistance that would slow down the collapse? At best this is pure speculation, and the good Doctor surely knows this.

    *************************

    Claim #4: Witnesses heard explosions.

    Protec: All Seismic evidence from many independent sources on 9/11 showed none of the sudden vibration spikes that result from explosive detonations.

    Notice that Dr. Blanchard has not even attempted to refute the claim. That would require disproving that literally hundreds of witnesses thought they heard explosions. Instead he has attempted to interpret the claim, citing seismic evidence, which could not possibly be relevant to explosions inside the building but well above ground level.

    And if Dr. Blanchard insists on discussing seismic evidence (which does not address the witness claims), then perhaps he would care to explain why an airplane, hitting the North Tower 95 floors up and horizontally, created a much stronger signal than a plane (Flgt 93) slamming straight into the ground, and thereby releasing all its kinetic energy directly into the earth without the building attenuating it.

    ******************************

    Claim #5: A heat generating explosive (thermite?) melted steel at ground Zero.

    Protec: To a man, demolition workers do not report encountering molten steel, cut beams or any evidence of explosions. Claims of detected traces of thermite are at this time inconclusive.

    This appears to be a direct lie. There were numerous direct claims of molten steel, one of which appeared in the series “American Ground”, published in Atlantic Monthly in 2002. Molten steel was discussed frequently in the news in the ensuing weeks after 9/11, and was taken as fact by the general public. But the 9/11 Commission Report did not discuss it.

    **********************************

    Claim #7: WTC7 was intentionally “pulled down” with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to “pull it.”

    Protec: Building owners do not have authority over emergency personal at a disaster scene. We have never heard “pull it” used to refer to an explosive demolition. Demolition explosive experts anticipated the collapse of WTC7, and also witnessed it from a few hundred feet away and no one heard detonations.

    Instead of dealing with the fact that Building 7 exhibits the very characteristics cited in Claim #1 (that controlled demolitions start at the bottom), Dr. Blanchard chooses only to address the “pull it” narrative. While his treatment of this issue is dishonest (since “pull it” has many times been used to imply demolitions), it is also not important. People in the movement do not believe Building 7 was a controlled demolition because Mr. Silverstein said “pull it”. They believe it was a controlled demolition because it resembles one in every conceivable detail.

    *************************

    Claim #8: Steel-frame buildings do not collapse due to fire.

    Protec: Many steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.

    This is a completely unsupported claim. Dr. Blanchard does not cite a single example. I would be very curious to see what example he might cite. On the other hand, there are many examples of very tall buildings (both steel framed and steel-reinforced concrete) that were subjected to very hot, prolonged fires, that stood with virtually undamaged skeletal structures intact. None of the WTC buildings were subjected to hot or prolonged fires, and yet all three of the major ones collapsed in seconds.

    ******************************

    I won’t fault Mr. Shermer for seeking the opinions of Dr. Blanchard, or any other expert in relevant fields. However, Mr. Shermer has repeated discredited claims on numerous occasions, and has embraced Dr. Blanchard’s claims without even noticing the most obvious problems pointed out above.

    Mr. Shermer is not only materially wrong in his claims about September 11. He is deceptive and dishonest. He has strayed very far from the true inquisitiveness of a scientist, and has treated this issue with dogmatic servility to the official story (or rather to one version of it!). He does not appear to be interested in the truth, whatever that may turn out to be. Rather he is serving an agenda to defend the official story, no matter what the counter-claim. I will not speculate WHY Mr. Shermer chooses this path. I will simply say that he appears willing to compromise his integrity as a skeptic and as a scientific thinker…whatever the reason.

    • collapse expand

      The Protec man is deeply suspect. Here is what he says about steel framed building collapses as posted above.

      [Claim #8: Steel-frame buildings do not collapse due to fire.
      Protec: MANY STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS HAVE COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE.]

      Here is NIST’s Dr Sunder from the WTC7 fact sheet:

      [THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7 IS THE FIRST KNOWN INSTANCE OF A TALL BUILDING BROUGHT DOWN PRIMARILY BY UNCONTROLLED FIRES.
      http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

      Now here is NIST engineer John Gross denying knowing anything about molten metal at ground zero in spite of it being mentioned by FEMA and the head of Controlled Demolition inc who did the clean up.

      [John Gross Denying molton metal
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeOTDx5rOvM

      Its worth noting that at the end of the video he says that NIST were tasked to investigate what happened right up to the beginning of the collapse and so no calculations were made about the collapse itself. That wont be true. The reason they don’t offer anything more than general supposition is because any further detail would of course bring them into sharp conflict with Newton. (Gravity alone did not cause the event.)
      But worse, this lack means that there doesn’t exist an official government agency forensic engineering explanation for just what exactly was happening to the towers at the very time when most people that were in them where actually being killed.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  30. collapse expand

    One does begin yo wonder whether Mr Shermer actually reads the crap he includes in his articles. had he done so he would have noticed this total nonsense from the clown at Protec:

    [Claim #7: WTC7 was intentionally “pulled down” with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to “pull it.”

    Protec:... DEMOLITION EXPLOSIVE EXPERTS ANTICIPATED THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7, and also witnessed it from a few hundred feet away and no one heard detonations.]

    First off, since when have “explosive experts” become “expert” at anticipating the likeliness or otherwise of a collapse of a building that apparently didn’t involve explosives?
    Secondly, since when have “experts,” explosive or otherwise, gained the “expertise” to be able to predict events for which there has been no precedent?
    No steel framed office block has ever in the history of steel framed office blocks ever fallen down through gravity alone.
    As such an event has never before taken place it therefore could never have been predicted.

  31. collapse expand

    This is a test to see if I am blocked from commenting:

    1

  32. collapse expand

    For some reason, follow up comments appear to be blocked

  33. collapse expand

    Now, back to Sutton. utton was a historian who worked for the Hoover Institution and while there worked on a book called “Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development”, a book tha Obama’s Foreign Policy “Brain” (http://www.economist.com/b
    logs/democracyinamerica/2007/03/a_new_brain_for_bara
    ck_obama.cfm) and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, praised in his book “Between Two Ages”. Nonetheless, he cam to conclusions that while true, and well known among the “intellectual elite”, were nevertheless uncomfortable. Sutton soon became very concerned and wrote a condensed version for the Public entitled “National Suicide”. Because of this, he was forced out of the Hoover Institution. He details some of that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sCpsq55uic&feature=PlayList&p=FF2C1C6DA3ED8AC3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=30

    Sutton was very methodical, and never made a claim without substantiating it by means of documentation (much of which is reprinted in his text). In addition to writing “Wall St. and the Rise of Hitler”, he wrote “Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution”(http://www.scribd.com/doc/23620863/Sutton-Wall-Street-and-the-Bolshevik-Revolution-1974), and “Wall St. and FDR”(http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr.html), about the puzzling support of high finance for those various forms of socialism, and a look into the documented intent behind such actions.

    • collapse expand

      Subsequently, Sutton wrote such classics as “Trilaterals over America”(http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119694.pdf), “The Federal Reserve Conspiracy” (which I could not find a link to, but if you have a positive response to this email I will send you “The Web of Debt”, lauded as one of the best books on the monetary system), and what he considered to be his Magnum Opus, “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones”(http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119639.pdf). He has many other interesting books, among them, “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy”(http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/index.html), about U.S.-Soviet collusion during the 1980s.

      Connsidering his background, his work in the Hoover institution, his acknowledgement by Brzezinski, etc., it is likely that Sutton might have become one of the top historians/economists in the United States had his code of ethics not gone in the way.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  34. collapse expand

    What do you think of the following quote: “We shall have a World government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” – James Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, before the U.S. Senate

    Now do you know who Warburg was? One of the biggest bankers on the planet, that’s who!

    “Obviously our first step must be immediately to establish and advertise drastic policies designed to bring our own population size under control.”

    “…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” – Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

    Ehrlich wrote a very interesting book with Obama’s Science “Czar”, John Holdren. You can see excerpts of it here: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ And look at who Holdren’s inspiration was: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/

    The eugenics connection is very important, and it’s something I argue it a letter to the editor here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24688786/Letter-to-the-East-Bay-Express-Regarding

    This depopulation urge is a consensus, as can be seen here:

    “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,”Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ‘95

    and here: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”- – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ‘96

  35. collapse expand

    The film ENDGAME, that I linked you to, explores some of this. Also, crucial reading is “Seeds of Destruction”: http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Destruction-Hidden-Genetic-Manipulation/dp/0973714727/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263786060&sr=8-1 , about which, top Geneticist Dr. Arpud Putzai said – “What is so frightening about Engdahl’s vision of the world is that it is so real. In this new age of free markets, everything science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers.”

    The book is crucial, as it traces the Eugenic impulse, and shows how it has metastasized. It furthermore shows how it influenced the Rockefellers, and the subsequent introduction of highly toxic GMOs into the food supply. The full aspects of this (including spermicidal corn, and other serious health damage brought about by GMOs) are meticulously explored at length.

    Consider this, by Aldous Huxley, brother of Julian Huxley (who was the first director of UNESCO, and believed that Eugenics should be reintroduced into the culture, a sentiment he expressed in “UNESCO: It’s Purpose and Philosophy”)

  36. collapse expand

    “And here I would like briefly to compare the parable of Brave New World with another parable which was put forth more recently in George Orwell’s 1984. … And I’m inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future (and I think they’re going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world) will be a good deal nearer to the Brave New World pattern than to the 1984 pattern. They will be a good deal nearer not because of any humanitarian qualms in the scientific dictators, but simply because the Brave New World pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other. That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living, the state of servitude, the state of being … Well it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this, that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy (who have always existed and presumably always will exist) to get people actually to love their servitude. People can be made to enjoy a state of affairs, which, by any decent standard, they ought not to enjoy. And these methods I think are a real refinement on the older methods of terror, because they combine methods of terror with methods of acceptance. … Within the various other methods which one can think of there is, for example, the pharmacological method. This was one of the things I talked about in Brave New World. And the result would would be that you can imagine a euphoric which would make people thoroughly happy even in the most abominable circumstances. I mean, these things are possible. … There will be, in the nextgeneration or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.” – Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, “The Ultimate Revolution”, March 20, 1962, UC Berkeley

  37. collapse expand

    Bertrand Russell was also a theorist of Scientific dictatorships. He wrote a book called “The Impact of Science on Society” where he talks in the initial chapters how methods of scientific totalitarianism will be developed (and he says this with certainty), then, in “Scientific Technique in an Oligarchy” feigns revulsion, says that a lasting scientific dictatorship will be impossible unless it can become world wide, and then, after a brief interlude, proposes World Government and population reduction (one of the pillars of the Eugenics faith), and does so in such interesting ways. For example, when talking about population reduction, he says “war has hitherto been disappointing in this respect.” He writes such things about “Diet, Injections, and Injunctions” that I showed you previously.

    Before going on, remember that I’m not making up “theories”. I’m quoting the elite themselves.

    The very term “scientific dictatorship” means that most people are oblivious to it, because they have been dumbed down by propaganda, “education”, diet, and drugs. It’s not something that is just going to “happen” in the future. It is well under way, and is likely to only intensify unless more people become aware of it. We live in a mild Brave New World society already. Most people are “human resources” who go to work on things that offer them no fulfillment whatsoever, come home to be stupefied and propagandized by the television (which keeps people in an alpha state, and minimizes complex brain functions that come with reading or listening to the radio (given that the whole experience, audio and visual, is provided for you and you don’t have to use visualization processes) ), and get drunk or otherwise “wasted” off of various drugs. – See “4 Arguments for the Elimination of Television”

    Their diet consists of nutritionally deficient and dangerous GMO foods that introduce Russian Roulette like scenarios into their digestive and growth processes (and now, there are even pharmaceuticals and spermicides being genetically engineered into corn) – See “Seeds of Destruction” by F. William Engdahl, which I’ve already mentioned, and which details the politics of GMOs and their connection to the Rockefeller Eugenics cult, and “Genetic Roulette”, detailing a plethora of independent studies showing the severe health dangers of GMOs. Also see http://saynotogmos.com/

    The excitotoxins aspartame and MSG literally kill brain cells – see “Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills”, and the documentary Sweet Misery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYSyJoNDf3E

  38. collapse expand

    This is not about Al Queda and it is not about conspiracies.

    It is about Newtonian Physics.

    You said “jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees Fahrenheit.” You will only get that temperature in a CONTROLLED BURN where the right amount of air is mixed with a controlled amount of fuel. Pour some jet fuel on the ground and set it alight and you will not get that temperature. Open air fires are oxygen starved because too much fuel tries to burn at once. That is why such fires produce carbon-monoxide.

    Try telling us the weight of a complete floor assembly. Those 205 foot square concrete slabs weighed a little more than 600 tons. But what did the corrugated pans plus all of the 35 and 60 foot trusses weigh? We have heard about those things pancaking or not pancaking for EIGHT YEARS now. But you people in the media can’t even ask what one weighed. There were more than 90 of them in each tower.

    So what were the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on each level of the building? Why couldn’t the NIST come up with 132 numbers to put in their 10,000 pages.

    So all you can do is ridicule people into conforming to the right thoughts but you can’t ask obvious questions that grade school kids should understand. Oh yeah, the kids should BELIEVE whatever the adults believe. The 9/11 religion. Or is it 9/11 psychosis?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

    Is that too difficult for 7th graders to build and understand?

  39. collapse expand

    I will provide citations here:

    p. 2: “It is ironic that just as Marxism reached final bankruptcy as a framework for political and economic organization, one of its
    basic notions gained new life. Karl Marx, after all, postulated that revolutions can be deliberate rather than inadvertent; historical change can be created, engineered, and harnessed by those who understand it.”

    The document then covers details of military realities in the modern world, and posits a future history – after describing the fact that wars occur more between networks than between nation states, and positing a series of problems this caused, it says:

    p. 19: “This series of fiascos led a small number of American political leaders, senior military officers, and national security experts to conclude that a revolution was needed in the way we approached conflict short of war. They held the Vietnam-inspired doctrine of the 1980s and 1990s directly responsible for these disasters. Only radical innovation, they concluded, could renew U.S. strategy and avoid a slide into global irrelevance.”

    pp. 19-20: “The revolutionaries’ first task was to recruit proselytes throughout the government and national security community. Initially the revolutionaries, who called their new strategic concept “Dynamic Defense,” were opposed by isolationists who felt that new technology should be used simply to build an impenetrable electronic and physical barrier around the United States. Eventually the revolutionaries convinced the president-elect following the campaign of 2000 that Dynamic Defense was both feasible and effective–a task made easier by his background as a pioneering entrepreneur in the computer-generated and controlled “perception-molding” systems developed by the advertising industry. The President was thus amenable to the use of the sort of psychotechnology which formed the core of the RMA in conflict short of war.”

    p. 20: ““The first step in implementing Dynamic Defense was reshaping the national security organization and its underlying attitudes and values. Technology provided opportunity; only intellectual change could consolidate it. With the full and active support of the President, the revolutionaries reorganized the American national security system to make maximum use of emerging technology and new ideas.”

    p. 20: “This integrated the military, civilian law enforcement, the diplomatic corps, and organizations responsible for gathering and analyzing intelligence. Since so many of the conflicts faced by the United States were “gray area” threats falling somewhere in between traditional military problems and traditional law enforcement problems, the organizational division between the two was abolished.”

    p. 21: “One of the turning points of the revolution came when its leaders convinced the President and key members of Congress that traditional American ethics were a major hindrance to the RMA. This was crucial: the revolutionaries and their allies then crafted the appropriate attitudinal vessel for the RMA. Through persistent efforts and very sophisticated domestic “consciousness-raising,” old-fashioned notions of personal privacy and national sovereignty changed.

    This was relatively easy since frustration with domestic crime had already begun to alter attitudes and values. In fact, the RMA in conflict short of war was, in many ways, a spin-off of the domestic “war on drugs and crime” of the late 1990s when the military… became heavily involved in support to domestic law enforcement. The changes in American values that accompanied that struggle were easily translated to the national security arena. Once the norms concerning personal privacy changed, law soon followed.”

    p. 21-22: “Old-fashioned ideas about information control and scientific inquiry also changed. Preventing enemies (or potential enemies) from responding to our technological advantages became a prime objective of U.S. national security strategy.

    The government closely controlled and monitored foreign students attending American universities and exchanges of information within the global scientific and business communities. When necessary, the govemment protected valuable information through outright deception. And the national security community cooperated closely with business on counterespionage, providing training, advice, and equipment. With values changed, technology then opened the door to profound innovation. Vast improvements in surveillance systems and information processing made it possible to monitor a large number of enemies (and potential enemies). In pre-RMA days, psychological operations and psychological warfare were primitive. As they advanced into the electronic and bioelectronic era, it was necessary to rethink our ethical prohibitions on manipulating the minds of enemies (and potential enemies) both international and domestic. Cutting-edge pharmaceutical technology also provided tools for national security strategists.”

    p. 22: “All of this reorganization and technological development was simply preface for the full flowering of the revolution in military affairs. American leaders popularized a new, more inclusive concept of national security. No distinction–legal or otherwise–was drawn between internal and external threats. In the interdependent 21st century world, such a differentiation was dangerously nostalgic.”

    p. 23: “The actual strategy built on the RMA was divided into three tracks. The first sought to perpetuate the revolution. Its internal dimension institutionalized the organizational and attitudinal changes that made the revolution possible, and pursued future breakthroughs in close conjunction with business, the scientific community, and local law enforcement agencies — the core troika of the 21st century security. The external dimension actively sought to delay or prevent counterresponses by controlling information and through well-orchestrated deception.”

    p. 23: “The second track consisted of offensive action. Our preference was preemption. In a dangerous world, it was preferable to kill terrorists before they could damage the ecology or strike at the United States… When preemption failed, the United States sought either passive containment where strikes (electronic, psychological, or physical) were used to limit the spread of the deleterious effects of a conflict. For opponents with the ability to harm the United States, the military preemptively destroyed their capabilities.”

    p.24: “Probably the finest hour of the new warriors was the Cuba preemption of 2005–Operation Ceberus.”

    pp. 24-25: “Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the Comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as “potential” or “active,” with sophisticated computerized personality simulations used to develop, tailor, and focus psychological campaigns for each.”

    p. 25: “Individuals and organizations with active predilections to support the insurgency were targets of an elaborate global ruse using computer communications networks and appeals by a computer-generated insurgent leader.”

    p. 25: “Psychological operations included traditional propaganda as well as more aggressive steps such as drug assisted subliminal conditioning.”

    p. 25: “Since all Americans in Cuba had been bioelectrically tagged and monitored during the initial stages of the conflict, the NEO went smoothly…”

    p. 25: “The attitude-shaping campaigns aimed at the American public, the global public, and the Cuban people went quite well, including those parts using computer-generated broadcasts by insurgent leaders–”morphing”– in which they were shown as disoriented and psychotic. Subliminal messages surreptitiously integrated with Cuban television transmissions were also helpful.”

    pp. 25-26: “In fact, all of this was so successful that there were only a few instances of covert, stand-off military strikes when insurgent targets arose and government forces seemed on the verge of defeat. U.S. strike forces also attacked neutral targets to support the psychological campaign as computer-generated insurgent leaders claimed credit for the raids. At times, even the raids themselves were computer-invented ‘recreations.’”

    pp. 26-27: “Perhaps most important, Americans are beginning to question the economic, human, and ethical costs of our new strategy. A political movement called the “new Humanitarianism” is growing, especially among Americans of Non-European descent, and seems likely to play a major role in the presidential election of 2012. There are even rumblings of discontent within the national security community as the full meaning of the revolution becomes clear. Since the distinction between the military and non-military components of our national security community has eroded, many of those notionally in the military service have come to feel unbound by traditional notions of civil-military relations. This group has founded a new political party – The Eagle Movement – which is beginning to exert great pressure on the traditional political parties for inclusion in national policymaking. The traditional parties are, to put it lightly, intimidated by the Eagle Movement, and seem likely to accept its demands.”

  40. collapse expand

    I also suggest reading this study of the Revolution in Military Affairs, showing how various features of it have been applied: http://popularsymbolism.com/mitaphane/rma-en.pdf

    see also “Set of Main Articles from Knowledge Driven Revolution” (analyses of documents from elite thought leaders about our system. Begins with Bertrand Russel’s ideas of scientific technique in an oligarchy (as you know, Aldous Huxley, the brother of UNESCO director Julian Huxley, emphatically predicted same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6uzFcv6qkg), and then analyses the literature of other thought leaders, and elite think tanks: http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/5/12/2439876/Set-of-Main-Articles-From-Knowledge-Driven-Revolution-by-Brent-Jessop.pdf)

  41. collapse expand

    So many people labor under the misconception that we live in a “democracy”. Yet even FDR showed the ridiculousness of this when he said The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson” (Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), p. 373.:http://books.google.com/books?cd=4&q=FDR+His+Personal+Letters++financial+element+government+since+the+days+of+Andrew+Jackson&btnG=Search+Books))

    Also – ideologues have quoted Quigley out of context, but this quote is not out of context. He noted how the radical right was incorrect, and that a financial element had operated in the way the radical right believed the communists operated. On p. 954 of “Tragedy & Hope”, he said:

    “It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so
    exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the framework of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travellers took over in the United States in the 1930s. It must be recognized that the power of these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and
    suspicions of the American people were aroused as they were in the 1950s, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers. Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from the admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank,
    fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations. The Eighty-third Congress set up in 1953 a Special Reece Committee to investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation
    went too far and that the “most respected” newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worthwhile. An interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather quietly. Four years
    later, the Reece Committee’s general counsel, Rene A Wormser, wrote a shocked, but not shocking, book on the subject called “Foundations: Their Power and Influence.”"

    For a while, all we had was the book “foundations: Their Power and Influence”. This is a book I really suggest you get a hold of. In context excerpts are here:http://www.earthemperor.com/2009/06/14/foundations-their-power-and-influence-by-rene-a-wormser/

    Yet due to the efforts of Charlotte Iserbyt, the other documents pertaining to this committee, which, in private correspondence, she said had been very difficult to obtain, are now available: http://www.scribd.com/rnbaker7

    Quigley referred to a 1954 report as “interesting”. This was the Dodd report. It can be read here:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd-Report-to-the-Reece-Committee-on-Foundations-1954

  42. collapse expand

    In the Dodd report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, Dodd began with a definition of “subversive”, saying that the term referred to “Any action having as its purpose the alteration of either the principle or the form of the United States Government by other than constitutional means.” He then proceeded to show that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism. He stated, “The purported deterioration in scholarship and in the techniques of teaching which, lately, has attracted the attention of the American public, has apparently been caused primarily by a premature effort to reduce our meagre knowledge of social phenomena to the level of an applied science .” He stated that his research staff had discovered that in “1933-1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a “revolution” . They also indicated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government ; that a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside of the local community, -and that this “revolution” had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate .” He stated that this revolution “could not have occurred peacefully, or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the United States had been prepared in advance to endorse it.”

    He stated that the grants given by the Foundations had been used for:
    “Directing education in the United States toward an international view-point and discrediting the traditions to which, it (formerly) had been dedicated.
    Training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice to the Executive branch of the Federal Government.
    Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition .
    Changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life.
    Financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature.”

    He cited documents which, due to Iserbyt’s site, I have been able to obtain. I understand that many here come from a leftwing perspective, and in many ways, I do too. However, this is not liberatory leftism, it is instead, managerial collectivism. It appears that the marxist methodology that castigates “greedy” capitalism and the libertarian methodology castigating government is not fully adequate, and that we might want to instead envision monopoly capitalism erecting a collectivist apparatus that further ensures monopoly.

    Antony Sutton, who I previously mentioned, was a Hoover Institution scholar who did a great deal of primary source research to verify his claims. He also comes to these conclusions. Here is an introduction to his work:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XxgcORB4cA&feature&p=E00F4F4C0877FD6E&index=0&playnext=1

    I disagree with his support of Austrian economics, and his citation of Guy Richard’s book, but otherwise I think he has an important message.

    One of the documents cited in the Dodd report is the exhaustively documented analysis called “The Turning of the Tides”. I don’t know about your opinion right now, but after reading this, you may consider it to be one of the most important books you have ever read:http://www.scribd.com/doc/37817636/The-Turning-of-the-Tides

  43. collapse expand

    Iserbyt also recently wrote a document giving these documents a lot of context: http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD2%2FDeath+of+FreeWill_12_11_2010.pdf&id=540

    Another document cited by Dodd was the 1934 study written by the American Historical Association and sponsored by the Carnegie endowment, entitled “American Historical Association’s Report on the Commission on Social Studies”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32432452/Carnegie-Endowment-AHA-Report-on-the-Commission-on-Social-Studies

  44. collapse expand

    It’s a very hard read, with some doublespeak, and parts of it may sound very good to people (who like being managed in a soft authoritarian, managerial collectivist state). I personally do not agree with it. Here are some quotes that are not out of context:

    “The Commission is under special obligation to its sponsor, the American Historical Association. Above all, it recognizes its indebtedness to the Trustees of the Carnegie Corporation, whose financial aid made possible the whole five-year investigation of social science instruction in the schools, eventuating in the following Conclusions and Recommendations.” – p. xi
    “the Commission could not limit itself to a survey of textbooks, curricula, methods of instruction, and schemes of examination, but was impelled to consider the condition and prospects of the American people as a part of Western civilization now merging into a world order.” – p. 1
    “The Commission was also driven to this broader conception of its task by the obvious fact that American civilization, in common with Western civilization, is passing through one of the great critical ages of history, is modifying its traditional faith in economic individualism, and is embarking upon vast experiments in social planning and control which call for large-scale cooperation on the part of the people.” – pp. 1-2
    “the Commission recognizes the further fact of the inter-relationship of the life of America with the life of the world. In all departments of culture-intellectual, aesthetic, and ethical – the civilization of the United States has always been a part of European, or “Western,” civilization . To ignore the historical traditions and usages which have contributed, and still contribute, to this unity is to betray a smug and provincial disregard of basic elements in American life and to invite national impoverishment, intolerance, and disaster . Moreover, the swift development of technology, industry, transportation, and communication in modern times is obviously merging Western civilization into a new world civilization and imposing on American citizens the obligation of knowing more, rather than less, of the complex social and economic relationships which bind them to the rest of mankind.” pp. 11-12
    “there are certain clearly defined trends in contemporary technology, economy, and society of the utmost importance in creating new conditions, fashioning novel traditions, reorienting American life, and thus conditioning any future program of social science instruction.” – p. 13
    “Under the moulding influence of socialized processes of living, drives of technology and science, pressures of changing thought and policy, and disrupting impacts of economic disaster, there is a notable waning of the once widespread popular faith in economic individualism; and leaders in public affairs, supported by a growing mass of the population, are demanding the introduction into economy of ever-wider measures of planning and control.” – p. 16
    “Cumulative evidence supports the conclusion that in the United States as in other countries, the age of laissez faire in economy and government is closing and a new age of collectivism is emerging.” – p.16
    “As to the specific form which this “collectivism,” this integration and interdependence, is taking and will take in the future, the evidence at hand is by no means clear or unequivocal. It may involve the limiting or supplanting of private property by public property or it may entail the preservation of private property, extended and distributed among the masses. Most likely, it will issue from a process of experimentation and will represent a composite of historic doctrines and social conceptions yet to appear. Almost certainly it will involve a larger measure of compulsory as well as voluntary co-operation of citizens in the conduct of the complex national economy, a corresponding enlargement of the functions of government, and an increasing state intervention in fundamental branches of economy previously left to individual discretion and initiative-a state intervention that in some instances may be direct and mandatory and in others indirect and facilitative. In any event the Commission is convinced by its interpretation of available empirical data that the actually integrating economy of the present day is the forerunner of a consciously integrated society, in which individual economic actions and individual property, rights will be altered and abridged.” – p. 17
    “While stressing the necessity of recognizing the emergence of a closely integrated society in America and the desirability of curbing individualism in economy, the Commission deems highly desirable the conscious and purposeful employment of every practicable means to ward off the dangers of goose-step regimentation in ideas, culture, and invention, of sacrificing individuality, of neglecting precious elements in the traditional heritage of America and the world, and of fostering a narrow intolerant nationalism or an aggressive predatory imperialism.” – p.23
    “The Commission deems possible and desirable an enlightened attitude on the part of the masses of the American people toward international relations, involving informed appreciation of the cultural bonds long subsisting among the nations of Western civilization and now developing rapidly among all the nations of the world, and special knowledge of the increasing economic interdependence of politically separate areas and peoples, and of the emerging economic integration of the globe.” – p. 25
    “The Commission, under the frame of reference here presented, deems desirable the vitalizing of the findings of scientific inquiry by the best social thought of the present and of the past, and the incorporation into the materials of social science instruction in the schools of the best plans and ideals for the future of society and of the individual.” – p. 27
    “The implications for education are clear and imperative: (a) the efficient functioning of the emerging economy and the full utilization of its potentialities require profound changes in the attitudes and outlook of the American people, especially the rising generation-a complete and frank recognition that the old order is passing, that the new order is emerging.” – pp. 34-35
    “Organized public education in the United States, much more than ever before, is now compelled, if it is to fulfill its social obligations, to adjust its objectives, its curriculum, its methods of instruction, and its administrative procedures to the requirements of the emerging integrated order.” – p. 35
    “If the school is to justify its maintenance and assume its responsibilities, it must recognize the new order and proceed to equip the rising generation to cooperate effectively in the increasingly interdependent society and to live rationally and well within its limitations and possibilities….” – p. 35
    “The program of social science instruction should not be organized as a separate and isolated division of the curriculum but rather should be closely integrated with other activities and subjects so that the entire curriculum of the school may constitute a unified attack upon the complicated problem of life in contemporary society.” – p. 48

  45. collapse expand

    To appreciate the level to which this society has been dumbed-down by this managerial collectivist assault, please refer to this following standard 8th grade test from 1985, archived here (note that this isn’t a “conspiracy” site – it’s a perfectly normal site, with the primary source made immediately available): http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/quizzes/8thgrade_test.cfm

  46. collapse expand

    Returning to foundations, the CFR, Quigley’s monopoly capitalist “international financial coterie”, etc – Looking into this really is a goldmine. For instance, I have obtained a Carnegie endowment bibliography of books pertaining to building up World Government through regionalism:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32432037/Carnegie-Endowment-The-New-World-Order

    Also – Robert Hutchins of the center for democratic studies and the fund for the republic, financed by the Ford Foundation with tax-exempt money, produced a preliminary draft of a world constitution. This was actually a document I found through independent research and attempted to publicize:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/37814758/Preliminary-Draft-of-a-World-Constitution-1948

    Note that these are the sorts of “liberal” intelligentsia who castigate critics as paranoid, and meanwhile write these documents, denying with the left hand what the right hand is doing.

    You find this sort of literature to be ubiquitous amongst this caste of individuals.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    Dr. Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and editor of Skeptic.com, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and an Adjunct Professor at Claremont Graduate University. His latest book is The Mind of the Market, on evolutionary economics. His last book was Why Darwin Matters: Evolution and the Case Against Intelligent Design, and he is also the author of The Science of Good and Evil and of Why People Believe Weird Things. He received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate University (1991). He was a college professor for 20 years, and since his creation of Skeptic magazine he has appeared on such shows as The Colbert Report, 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, and Larry King Live (but, proudly, never Jerry Springer!).

    See my profile »
    Followers: 180
    Contributor Since: November 2009