Look It Up
One thing that becomes more and more apparent, is that to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists does not require any great investigative ability, worthy of a Bob Woodward. In fact it usually requires nothing more than just looking up the source that the theorist is citing, or a quick check of the supporting facts. Some of our frequent commenters have provided us with some good examples.
First, while arguing against the NIST report, BG posts the following:
British engineers strongly disputed official American claims that the towers became more vulnerable to collapse after the hijacked aircraft scraped vital fire protection from their steel frames.
While this is an accurate quote, another commenter points out that he is leaving out is the following:
We have carried out computer simulations which show that the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact." Lane said the difference of opinion was significant because clients had begun to demand that designs had NIST-compliant fire protection (NCE 30 June).
So in reality, rather than supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis, these engineers argue even more strongly against it than even NIST did!
Our second example comes from Swing Dangler who posts the following, while arguing that it would be out of character for Al Qaeda to not claim responsibility for a terrorist attack:
Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for arming Somali factions who battled U.S. forces there in October 1993, and who killed 18 U.S. special operations forces in Mogadishu in October 1993
Source:CRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS Web
Order Code RL33038
Al Qaeda: Profile and Threat Assessment
August 17, 2005
I found this interesting, because I remember following the events at the time, and read the book Black Hawk Down, as well as watching the movie. I even remember reading Mark Bowden's original newspaper series on the events. I don't recall any mention of Al Qaeda claiming responsibility at the time. In fact the term Al Qaeda was not even in widespread use until the 1998 embassy bombings.
A quick web search backs this up. Osama bin Laden did not claim a connection to the attacks until 1997, 4 years later:
In October 1993, 18 U.S. servicemen involved in the U.S. humanitarian relief effort in Somalia were killed during an operation in Mogadishu. One soldier's body was dragged through the streets.
Bin Laden was indicted in 1996 on charges of training the people involved in the attack and in a 1997 interview with CNN, bin Laden said his followers, together with local Muslims, killed those troops.
For comparison, bin Laden stated that Arabs were responsible for 9/11, in an interview only a few months after 9/11. Interestingly enough, in this same CNN article, bin Laden also denies a connection to the embassy bombings:
On August 7, 1998, eight years after the U.S. deployment in Saudi Arabia, a pair of truck bombs exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Bin Laden has denied responsibility, but prosecutors allege his culpability is evident on faxes sent by his London cell to at least three international media outlets. They also point to incriminating statements by certain alleged embassy bombers who are admitted al Qaeda members.
So much for the theory that Al Qaeda always takes credit for its attacks. In fact, it is easier to find cases where they deny responsibility.