Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2...-and-facts.html


Homeland Insecurity:
The 9/11 Conspiracy File: Myths and Facts

NEWS: Six years after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there's plenty of unanswered questions about why the Bush administration didn't prevent them. But the most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories are full of holes, too. Part six of a seven-part series on the lessons of 9/11.

By James Ridgeway
September 11, 2007



Assessing our vulnerability to terrorist attack remains difficult in part because the events surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001, have not been thoroughly explained. In its investigation into them, the 9/11 Commission slid past many important questions, leaving them unanswered, and did not adequately challenge the Bush administration when it refused to cooperate or obfuscated its own actions. This has naturally spurred the various conspiracy theories that have set out to unravel what happened. Some address legitimate issues, such as the as-yet-unexplained fact that American intelligence had been tracking lead hijacker Mohammad Atta since the late 1990s but did nothing to stop him. But most theories run the gamut from the preposterous (the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon were drones) to the improbable (the WTC buildings collapsed due to a demolition charge). The prevailing theory is summed up by a bumper sticker: "9/11 Was an Inside Job."

My own inquires, made while preparing the book Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11, suggest that there was a real government "conspiracy"—but not the one the 9/11 skeptics are peddling. Government agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, did not inform the public that a terrorist attack might be imminent, and afterward, the FBI engaged in an unconscionable cover-up of its activities and blunders. FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has repeatedly fought to publicize the bureau’s inner workings, only to be blocked by the Justice Department and the courts. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission did not pursue many major lines of inquiry. It failed to take sworn testimony from President Bush or Vice President Cheney on what happened that day. We still do not have satisfying answers on why Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, second in command to the commander-in-chief, appeared to have been largely absent on 9/11. Why was he out of the loop while Cheney, who had no constitutional authority, ran the show from the White House bunker? And why did the commission not look into why our friends the Pakistanis, who helped create the Taliban, did not tell us what was going on? Or did they? How come John Walker Lind, the young American convert, was able to walk into the inner councils of Al Qaeda, but CIA agents could not? These are but a few of the legitimate lingering questions that dog the official storyline.

It is clear that the real conspiracy of 9/11 (besides, of course, Al Qaeda's) was the federal government's deliberate cover-up of what it knew and never acted upon, as well as its ineptitude. Below, a few of the other major 9/11 conspiracy theories and some information that helps to explain their persistence, as well as their flaws.

The Pentagon Attack
Theory: A missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, hit the Pentagon. The two holes punched in the side of the building were much smaller than the wingspan of a 757. According to a French author, the building was struck by a satellite-guided missile fired as part of an attempted military coup.
Fact: Crash investigators concluded that the main hole in the Pentagon was smaller than the plane's wingspan because one wing was sheared off and the other was damaged on impact. The second, smaller hole was made by the jet's landing gear. And if a missile did strike the Pentagon, why was DNA from the passengers of Flight 77 found in the rubble? Finally, Flight 77's black box was unearthed at the site.

Remote Control
Theory: The two planes that hit the Twin Towers weren't piloted by hijackers but directed by remote control.
Fact: Boeing said these planes could only be piloted from the flight deck. In addition, the passengers and crew made phone calls describing hijackers taking over. In a call minutes before the crash, American Flight 11 attendant Betty Ong told ground personnel, "Our Number One has been stabbed and our Five has been stabbed. Can anybody get up to the cockpit? Okay. We can't even get into the cockpit. We don't know who's up there." A second flight attendant on Flight 11 told an American Airlines ground employee, "Listen to me. Listen to me very carefully," and then went on to describe the hijacking as it unfolded.

The Twin Towers Collapse
Theory: The Twin Towers collapsed because demolition charges were planted inside them, not because of fire and structural damage resulting from American Flight 11 and United Flight 175 plowing into them. The buildings had been designed to withstand great stress and the fires were not hot enough to melt steel. And, if the buildings had collapsed, they would have fallen at an angle—not pancaked straight down, as only buildings destroyed by controlled demolition do.
Fact: Planting enough explosives to blow up the Twin Towers would have required considerable preparation, such as hacking away concrete and steel to position the charges. The work would have taken weeks, possibly months, and could scarcely have gone unnoticed. Additionally, no evidence of explosives has ever turned up at Ground Zero or on debris from the towers. The explosions set off by the crashes ignited fires that did not melt the buildings' steel structure but significantly weakened it, causing its design to fail. Floors crashing down upon one another with enormous impact took the building down.

Flight 93
Theory: United Flight 93 was shot down over southwestern Pennsylvania by an unidentified white military plane or by a heat-seeking missile fired from an F-16, possibly flown by the North Dakota Air Guard.
Fact: On 9/11, a white Dassault Falcon business jet, owned by VF Corp of Greensboro, North Carolina, was preparing to land at an airport 20 miles north of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. According to Popular Mechanics, which did a thorough investigation into Flight 93 and other conspiracy theories, the Cleveland control center contacted the VF plane's cockpit and asked the pilot to divert and see if he could find the crash site. The Dassault descended to 1,500 feet and eventually spotted the smoking hole in the ground where Flight 93 had crashed. As for the missile, according to an Air National Guard spokesman, Lt. Colonel Rick Gibney flew an F16 that morning from Fargo, North Dakota, to Bozeman, Montana, where he picked up Ed Jacoby Jr., head of New York state's Emergency Management Office; he then took him to Albany, New York. Jacoby told Popular Mechanics that Gibney couldn't possibly have shot down Flight 93 because he was with the fighter pilot at the time the plane went down and they never were anywhere near Shanksville. Additionally, the military did not know about the crash of Flight 93 until four minutes after it occurred.

Where Were the Fighters?
Theory: None of the fighters from the 28 air bases within range of the hijacked airplanes were scrambled because the Air Force was ordered to stand down.
Fact: The Federal Aviation Administration's Boston Center phoned the Northeast Air Defense Sector at 8:37 a.m. to say Flight 11 had been hijacked. Within minutes, NEADS scrambled two sets of fighters—two F-15s from Otis Air National Guard Base at Falmouth, Massachusetts, and three F-16s from a National Guard base at Hampton, Virginia. The Virginia planes headed out over the ocean. The F-15s didn't have time to reach Flight 11 before it crashed. Also, the hijackers had turned off the planes' transponders, forcing air traffic controllers to look through thousands of radar blips to find the planes. North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is supposed to guard American airspace from attack, had its radar focused out of the country, searching for incoming rather than internal attacks.

Hijackers and the FBI
Theory: In 2000, future hijackers Khalid Al Mihdhar and Nawaf Al Hazmi were followed by the CIA to an Al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Then the agency lost them. Afterward, both men legally entered the United States through Los Angeles and went to live in plain sight in San Diego. How could this have happened without the government’s knowledge? The 9/11 Commission buried this detail in its footnotes and the FBI successfully resisted subpoenas from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to produce an informant who had known the two men in San Diego. Congress never was able to question this informant. The 9/11 Commission did talk to him, but what transpired at this meeting is classified, along with other footnotes in the commission's report. Therefore, the hijackers must have been here with government approval.
Fact: The Intelligence Committee's staff was the first to unearth and report the FBI informant's relationship with the two hijackers. Former Florida Senator Bob Graham has described the committee’s unsuccessful efforts to persuade the FBI to bring the informant to testify before Congress. The true relationship of the hijackers and the FBI informant remains hidden in the bureau's files.

Insider Trading
Theory: Insider trading in American Airlines and United Airlines stock just prior to 9/11 suggests that the traders had foreknowledge of the plot.
Fact: This appears to have been a coincidence, not a conspiracy. After investigating the theory, the 9/11 Commission concluded that "much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [Airlines stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades."

Able Danger
Theory: Mohammad Atta had been under surveillance by German and American intelligence back in the late 1990s. A secret Pentagon project called Able Danger knew all about Atta and his trips back and forth from Germany to the United States. Able Danger participants wanted to tell the FBI what was going on but were prevented from doing so by Pentagon brass, who feared that news of the secret project would cause a political uproar. The military is prohibited by law from spying inside the country.
Fact: Atta's purported trips to the United States now seem unlikely. Nobody really knows what Able Danger was up to, since project officials were prevented by the Pentagon from testifying before Congress.


James Ridgeway is Mother Jones' senior correspondent.

OK, first off, where are the other portions of this article?

Second

watch this

If you really want to understand the push behind the "theories" I'll be happy to oblige you with four or five DVD's that make a case that is impossible to ignore...

You often say yourself that you want a new independant investigation into the 911 facts. Is this because you want the "myths" debunked? I know its hard to believe that the PNACers could do this to americans, but this is far from the first time our government, or those with ties to power have used false flag terrorism. Hell, they even made up the term, and have admitted it in numerous instances - gulf of tonkin, operation northwoods, etc...

I'm not going to waste my time going through this post, point by point, because so many others have done so already, and the answers are easy to find. Google "911 truth", and do the research for yourself.

Be advised, I didn't write the article.
Writer a letter to Mother Jones.
Besides,
911 truth, is full of conspiracy "theory"





Edit to add......


The rest of the article is actually I think 6 more full articles on different subjects all tagged together.
You can access them by using the link provided above.

sorry if i seemed angry - been dealing with naysayers for four days straight... I'm still on defense mode. The link is to the most scientifically damning argument for controlled demolition out there right now - I heard Gage on saturday, and will no longer entertain the concept that planes or jet fuel brought down the buildings.

I've seen all footage that has been released to the public...There was no sheared off wing.

The Trade Center was closed for 2 weeks prior to 911

People have found evidence or thermite and thermate

An experiment was conducted under similar circumstances with a hotter burn and the conclusion was that if anything the fire would have warped the floor trusses 1/16 of an inch (not enough to cause the supposed pancake theory)

Each floor would have met with resistance that would have slowed the collapse slowing the 8 and 10 second falls of the buildings

In all of the photos showing flight 93 THERE ARE NO PLANE PARTS and as a side note: I have seen a satellite image of the plane site from the late 90's that clearly show the same patterns on the ground except for a crater

All lies except for the black box as there is no way for us to confirm. The government was conducting 5 exersizes that had confused NORAD and this explains the mention "Is this real". No Jets were launched until after the 2nd plane hit as a side note: This goes against airline and air traffic protocol as instead of searching they would have had to alerted NORAD first.

This is all fine and dandy except for the fact that none of the hijackers turned up on the flight manifests.
What I find interesting about these foolish investigations is that if I can find out the information doing a little research then how can these magazines come up with these foolish symposis of what happened. Somebody is trying awfully hard to hide the truth from the people..;.

There ya have it!
Conclusive proof of conspiracy.



The FACT is, very, very little of any of the so called proof the conspiracy theorists Present is actually proof of anything.
The building fell in 8 seconds. That's not natural. Must be a conspiracy.
Puffs of smoke, must be demolition explosives.
I saw no sheared off wing, so it's a conspiracy. (even though ALL the footage is less than high quality)


And when ever the conspiracy debunker's present solid evidence, solid enough to be considered proof, y'all refuse to even consider the possibility that even though Bushco has refused to give us all the information, odds are real short that 95% of all 9/11 conspiracy is pure horse shit. Much of which was probly started by Bushco to throw off any possible investigation by credible people, and as such it gets right in the way of finding THE TRUTH. Simply because something so terrible simply couldn't have been done to the all powerful us, by a bunch of cave dwellers that can't even make a good clear video of their leader. SO instead we manufacture what we consider to be bad guy perceived worthy of the severity of the crime.

Yes, there are bad people. But y'all get so wrapped up in connecting dots that are not there, ya lose sight of the ones that really are! Have you ever heard of hiding in plain sight? Did you know that many people think the US govt PROMOTED the whole UFO sighting phenom back in the 60's to use it hide their secret airplane project in? Didja ever think that these people are expert at manipulating "the people", and that all the 9/11 conspiracy is one hell of a great place to hide other little secrets?

Do yourself a favor. Don't trust your eye sight so much. They found DNA inside the Pentagon that matched some of the passengers of flight 77. Sorry boys and girls, but that's called real solid proof. They got the black box from flight 77. More solid proof. However, you look at some very low quality, stop frame surveillance vid and think you know enough to make a decision about the truth.




Remember, I've said it's plainly obvious that Bushco isn't telling us everything.

There you go, questioning it again...

where'd this guy go?


did you watch any of the video i posted?

jet fuel COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS! It doesn't burn hot enough.

The only reason we don't have anything but "stop frame surveillance vid" to use for support is because the actual footage of what happened at the pentagon was seized, leaving us with whatever "evidence" they decide to release. If you show me a plane hitting the pentagon, I'll believe a plane hit the pentagon - until then, everything's way too questionable to be believed, in light of the facts - yes, I said "facts" that get in the way of the official explanation of the WTC.



do you mean things like the seven BILLION insurance policy that was purchased shortly before the trajedy? or how about the SEC files about enron being held in building seven that the owner of the building is on video admitting that they intentionally demolished? How could they have done that without setting charges days, even weeks before the event? Why was CNN and BBC reporting on building 7's collapse twenty minutes before it happened?

He admitted intentional controlled demolition, sky.
He admitted it.

Do the research - it doesn't take very long.

Seuss,
You can talk yourself blue in the face. The reason most people believe that the government would not do something like this is because #1 They DONT know history #2 The believe what they see rather than using their God-given intuition #3 The same people who propagated 911 are the same people who are educating our kids. What I fail to understand is why people still believe the official story on the Pentagon. I mean you can't be serious. The have over 80 cameras on the pentagon and the one they release still don't show a plane? Forget about the fact that the pentagon has an automatic patriot missle system that tracks anything within a 50 mile radius of the Pentagon or the battery of missles strategically placed within that perimeter in the event of an attack on the Pentagon. And lets just all forget about: the strategic defense initiative undertook by GHWB under the Reagan admin. or NORAD. It's all good though: 19 hijackers with boxcutters defeated our 40 billion dollar air defense system.

Got any documentation for these claims?








Thank you for making my point.
As in, it's just impossible that something so simple and basic could overwhelm the most powerful nation in the world,
and result in over 3000 deaths in just a few hours.

as if the giant with all it's powers can't protect it's self from the fleas.

Prove it. That a 110 story building CAN fall in 8 to ten seconds WITHOUT assistance. Where are the scientists that back the claim up that this was NOT a controlled demolition.

FACT: The displaced material from the initial collapse on the upper floors should have lightened the downward load on the lower floors. This load was transfered to an outward force, not downward.

FACT: In order to recreate the collapse, ALL structural resistance from the floors below the crash and fire site will have to be compromised BEFORE the collapse.

QUESTION:
What caused the lower 50 floors to collapse at free fall speed?

There were no fires to weaken the structure below the impact points. There were no plane crashes on the lower floors. The building load was significantly lightened by the outward displacement of material on the upper floors during the initial collapse.



Notice the building debris being thrust outward. The load of the building itself, is being displaced in this photo. Note the red arrow (approx. floor 40) and the "puff" of debris preceding the collapse of that location the arrow points to. If it is not explosives, then what causes isolated instances of "puffs"? Is the interior collapsing before the exterior?


Sky,
You cite a hit piece that relates back to the puff piece written by Popular Mechanics as it source of excellence and expertise. Care to cross check the evidence with other sources that don't parrot previously debunked talking points?

We can all agree that the US govt (or elements) had foreknowledge, though, right?
I think ther are enough facts floating around to prove a conspiracy without resorting to theories - not that it isnt useful to develop and test the theories, but if you're going to try to convince folks, I think its best to stick with more plausible evidence.
I believe plenty of things, but I sure can't prove them all.

No, we can strongly suspect.
My personal opinion is that I believe there were those who knew, and let it happen.


I also believe plenty that I can't prove, which is why I think it better to focus on what I can!
Perhaps in this way layers will be revealed that will make some of the other things provable?

I have to agree with you there. Like I said I'm all for exploring theories, but I make sure the first thing I talk tosomeone interested in this about is something like the coincidences (bush/bin laden ties, NORAD exercises, John O'Neil etc) and the very strange (expert piloting moves, NORAD inaction, no pentagon defences, the orders to cease investigations into the hijackers prior to 9/11 etc etc etc), and let them form an opinion before discussing the tower collapse, and motive, means and opportunity...

Sky, i ask again... did you watch any of the video?
its a simple question, please answer it.

Its an expert - an architect.

want other experts questioning the story?

look here

are these hundreds of people crazy?

I haven't had the time or inclination yet Seuss.
I will watch it though, (eventually) just don't expect me to have some sort of eureka moment.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but yes, it's possible for hundreds of people to be crazy.
How many Americans believe they have been abducted by Aliens?


Seuss. Reread what I said.
I do not accept "the official version" as fact.
I DO believe the government is deliberately not telling us a lot.
I DO NOT believe WTC 1 and 2 came down as a result of demolition explosives.
I do believe WTC7 needs better explination.
I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a missle.
I DO believe it odd that during the attack, George just sat there in that school room looking like a deer in the headlights.


In short, yes, there are some oddities. And there is a shit load of speculation that isn't worth a damn!
That in fact, gets in the way of finding out exactly what the real story is.



Fantastic claims, require fantastic evidence.



edit to add....

It's an expert, an archetect.

Seuss. Are you not aware of the fact that Bushit has routinely hired "experts" who guite convincingly tell us global warming is hooey? Don't you suppose if someone took the time they could find someone to say just about anything, for any reason?


An architect. So what? But I haven't seen the vid yet so I really can'ty have an informed opinion.
Except, I heard it before dude.

I just don't like watching TV static. Got real stuff to pay attention too.

Architects are NOT experts on building collapse. You need a structural engineer for that.

I just love how conspiracy theorists become instant experts. The rest of us have to study for years, they use their "God-given intuition." Thanks for that line, Mr. Brewer. Nice to know that engineers didn't really have to study all that engineering; they could have just used their "God-given intuition."

Unfortunately I've worked with several architects, and it is largely true that their knowledge of engineering is basic at best in most cases. I've studied engineering and while I do have a lot of trouble believing a properly designed structure of that nature could suffer a total collapse, I havent studied at anywhere near the level which would allow me to prove anything.
The massive steelwork and fireproof stair and elevator cores should have offered more resistance. Its true that you dont need steelwork to melt for it to fail structurally, but how could all the major columns deform and fail at a close enough rate to facilitate a near vertical collapse? I think the pancake theory is BS. Building 7 (and its omission from the report) is the best evidence of demolition.

Perhaps it only means that you haven't yet seen enough evidence?
The human mind has an amazing ability for filling in missing pieces to deduce what the image is.
Unfortunately, it can also be mistaken.


Personally, I have seen credible evidence to explain nearly all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
None the less, there are many unanswered questions, and the fact that they are deliberately unanswered leaves open the conspiracy door for anyone that wants to step inside.


Incredible accusations require incredible evidence.
Supposition based upon what I think I see, simply cannot replace facts.
Neither can truth based upon what I think I already know, which does not recognise what I do not yet know.

Sky I like you because you remind me of my great-uncle. No matter what proof you offered, no matter what was seen, and it didn't even matter if you were right or not he would stick to his argument at all costs. I could talk myself blue in the face but he stuck to his guns. BUT, he was a genius. He had developed a way to manipulate a carburator to gain an extra 10-20 miles to a gallon. The problem is sky that if I follow your path of logic: that there may or may not have been a conspiracy then a conclusion will never have been reached and those really responsible will never have been found out. The people who are crying conspiracy are people who wish to know the truth at all costs. There is plenty of evidence of a conspiracy but there is NO evidence of OSL or alchaeda involvement in 911. So if there was no conspiracy then WHY have we never been shown the evidence linking these people to 911? If a plane hit the Pentagon, then why have we NOT seen the footage? If a plane crashed in Pennsylvania, the WHY have we not seen plane parts at the crash site? If the planes made the towers fall, Then why have we not been given a legitimate cause of collapse? If it really happened the way they said it happened, then WHY did NORAD or any other intelligence or defense respond to the hijackings? The questions go on and on. People are still dying because of what happened on 911. If 911 was not done by alchaeda, then Why are we killing Afgans and Iraqis? And if they did do it, then WHY have we not been shown the evidence? Do you realize that if I go to court for a crime without evidence I could not be found guilty? And if I was found guilty then a serious injustice HAS taken place.

Do you realise this isn't a court case? And most of the conspiracy theorists don't wish to know the truth at all costs, they are convince they DO know the truth (whatever their theory is). And their proof is a couple of grainy photos and their "God-given intuition."

Doesn't work JM, because you make the assumption you are correct and I am wrong, and you choose to frame your reply to reinforce this assumption, which I refuse to take ownership.

Perhaps your great uncle knew more than you give him credit for,
and just maybe he knew you were an idiot and didn't have any desire to hurt your feelers?

why the name calling?
Just cause the guy questions what the government tells him, and has the balls to question how incredible it is that this would have happened synchronistically creating the "new pearl harbor the PNACers wanted, doesn't mean he's an idiot, it means he's inquisative. That's a hallmark of intellect.

Do you have any idea how many people I've met in over sixty-plus years, who knew the guy who invented the carburator that greatly increased mileage? Usually he was bought off by the big auto makers.

The intention may only be known to me, save to say it was no accident.
The fact that you don't grasp the reasoning, doesn't mean a lack of intellect. At least, not on my part.

True story, yet the most savey of debunkers have to acknowledge that big oil did snatch up the Nazi formila for synthetic oil and hide it away in a vault for decades.


The deal is, again, that there are conspiracies in the real world.
The problem is that the too much effort spent chasing wild gooses,
lowers the time spent hunting down the keepers.

Yep, everybody knows Jim Bede.

see, sky, that's the weird thing...
You rarely hesitate to call people names, but when they're defended, you take it as a personal affront. I wasn't calling you an idiot - that's your tactic. i was merely pointing out the fact that you started acting forty years younger than you are. I never insinuated a lack of intellect on your part, I just vouched for jm's actions as intelligent... I'm not saying that all of them are, just that one.

How do you read this kind of crap into people's comments? Your ex must've done quite a number on your psyche.

Sorry grasshopper. Some things become evident only to some people.

All of my ex's taught me bunches, and I'm grateful to them all.

It's not about reading stuff into the comments Grasshopper, but if I explain it to you then you can't discover it for yourself,
and the lesson will be forever lost.

Check this out fella's
I posted a comment that explained why I don't believe the official story about 911 and the unanswered questions regarding this event. The reason it's important that we continue to search for the truth is because 2 wars have been fought due to that attack and unconstitutional legislation has been enacted. If the people we have accused are not responsible then there is something seriously wrong with America. Sky, I have no idea why you attacked my post as it was an inquisitive post. The only reason I could possibly think of is that you are really a Bush supporter trying to discredit anyone who blasts what they have done. If your going to be against something or someone then be against them and seek out the information necessary to present your argument. But don't attack me on a post that I don't mention any way that I think 911 happened. YOU SOUND LIKE FOX NEWS!!! Don't attack the message, attack the messenger