Monday, May 22, 2006

Lame Attempt at 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story

One of the commenters over at Liberal Avenger brought up the 40 reasons outlined at

It's an incredibly weak effort; surely they should have picked the 10 best? Some have some arguable validity, here are my potshots at some of the others:

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

Note that by the third "reason" they're reduced to "asking questions". BTW, Hanjour overshot his first approach at the Pentagon, which was why he had to execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver.

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?

At 10:03. No, it does not wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight. No, Flight 93 was not shot down. There would be no need to hide that fact if it were true.

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

See? It's just questions which have already been answered. Suppose we ignore the Airfones for a moment (since the CT crowd never acknowledges them). And suppose we accept that AK Dewdney's fine research for Project Achilles is indeed correct on this point, that at 32,000 feet the odds of getting through were less than 1 in 100. How long will it take, say 20 people hitting redial on their phones before a couple get through? A few minutes maximum, I'd say. And that's before we get into the fact that the planes were all at much lower than that altitude for most of the time that they were hijacked. As for the other two questions, there were 22 hijackings attempted that day but 18 were prevented by the timely efforts of the Justice League of America, and there were thousands of flights diverted that day when the national ground stop was ordered.

11) Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

Can we say something obvious here? If you note in Item c that the airline put options have been explained then why do you include them in your suspicious activities in Item a? And Item b is a nutty thing that comes in for brief attention in Loose Change at about 1:15:00:

Reuters reported that Convar, a German computer company, is responsible for helping companies and accountants of New York to restore their data from over 400 hard drives that were recovered from the World Trade Center's rubble. Convar recovered information from 32 different computers that suggested insider trading took place on 9-11.

This claim makes no sense. First, suppose a bunch of insider trading did go on on 9-11. Would the guys doing it forget that they were in the building that was going to get hit? Second, there would obviously be records of this trading elsewhere, otherwise where's the profit? So the supposed value of destroying the computers is nil. This is the kind of stupid stuff that makes me wonder if any of these guys understands basic financial markets and how they work.

New people are added to the conspiracy at #23 (Eliot Spitzer, New York Attorney General and current gubernatorial candidate). And the media:

28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?

Yeah, hey media, why don't you mention the Truthers have the president of Iran on their side? Sheesh, we took flack for noting that Dylan Avery had a new fan, but 9-11Truth wears it like a badge of honor.

By the time they get into the 30s the Truthers have abandoned any idea of making sense with their questions:

35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

No, 9-11 caused a stock market crash, although of course that took place days later because the market was quickly closed.

37) The "Little Game"
Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?

This may be a minor thing but the WTC was not privatized. It was leased on a long term basis to Silverstein. The transaction had been the subject of a protracted open bidding process.

On the Screw Loose Change Nutbar-o-Meter, I give it a:


At 22 May, 2006 20:39, Blogger nes718 said...

Hanjour *overshot* his first approach at the Pentagon, which was why he had to execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver.


Also, check out THIS article.

At 22 May, 2006 20:42, Blogger shawn said...

Cite a good source for once.

Prisonplanet is one of the worst sites you can use to support a point.

The insider trading conspiracy theory is one of the funniest of them all. Far larger sums have been made using insider training and they never orchestrated a massive terrorist attack to cover them.

At 22 May, 2006 20:51, Blogger nes718 said...

Far larger sums have been made using insider training and they never orchestrated a massive terrorist attack to cover them.

No, you have that backwards. The insider trading was a result of "someone" knowing the attacks were going down. The real reason for the attacks was to create the "War on Terror." The insiders thought they wouldn't be detected and could make a quick buck.

Mike Ruppert covered that angle long ago and a lot of good pieces were written about them then. I think you can look them up by google: [put options promise 911]

At 22 May, 2006 20:51, Blogger nes718 said...

Cite a good source for once.

That's relative. Use your brain to validate or not.

At 22 May, 2006 20:56, Blogger nes718 said...

"Lame Attempt at 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story"

Seems like a loosing battle.

At 22 May, 2006 21:13, Blogger nes718 said...

Many of these were also refuted years ago in Bill Herbert's blog.

Refuting is not an investigation and the SEC pretty much doesn't want to rock the boat either. I think a lot of the "insiders" may have been Israeli or CIA related Americans.

At 22 May, 2006 21:23, Blogger shawn said...

No, you have that backwards. The insider trading was a result of "someone" knowing the attacks were going down

Oh man, you just destroyed your whole argument (not just on this point, but all). You've stated time and time again that it would only take a small number of people to pull this off. But some day traders were on the plot? That speaks of a conspiracy far larger than a select government cabal.

At 22 May, 2006 21:23, Blogger shawn said...

70 million is less than 1/3 of Americans, nesnyc.

At 22 May, 2006 21:35, Blogger Unknown said...

On a separate topic, in reference to the video that is all the rage that just came out, Malkin's Hot Air Blog contain the following admission:

Update: Some Googling reveals that the 3rd Ranger Battalion has indeed been to Iraq. So they got that detail right, at least.

This comes after one sees much activity and alarm about the video of one serviceman's description of how he helped bring democracy to Iraq.

At 22 May, 2006 21:38, Blogger nes718 said...

70 million is less than 1/3 of Americans, nesnyc.

And growing all the time, thankfully.

At 22 May, 2006 21:41, Blogger nes718 said...

BTW within nesnyc first article, the author is likely a man named Sagadevan who hasn't flown in over 20 years. Everyone rips on him for his bogus ground effect comments.

The "ground effect" is not the main point of his argument. A 100 ton plane traveling at 500MPH + would indeed create massive turbulence at near ground level. What do you say about that?

At 22 May, 2006 22:04, Blogger James B. said...

BG, that guy is totally bogus. Anyone who is in the military can spot it in a minute. Both Pat and I are covering it on our blogs.

At 22 May, 2006 22:27, Blogger nes718 said...

Furthermore the photos of the light poles show them clipped by the wingspan of the plane. One fell on a taxi. Unless of cource you believe in magic posts that clip and bend by magic.

Here's what I think of the light poles:

1. Wings/fuel tanks damaged
2. Light poles, electical



At 22 May, 2006 22:42, Blogger James B. said...

They were left there by the light pole fairy.

At 22 May, 2006 23:11, Blogger nes718 said...

Your suggesting/assumming they were hit hard enough/right spot etc. to rupture/ignite the tanks.

This also doesn't address the problem of the clipped/ downed poles.

There's a reason why 911blogger etc. try to distance themselves from the no planers.

Best Scott

I agree. I could be a red herring. But logically speaking, the wings are constructed of lightweight sheet metal and house the fuel tanks. There 5? light poles and 5 chances for the wings to rupture. There is a very good chance that at 500MPH (even 345?) at least one of the wings would have ripped in two thereby igniting on or shortly after impact OR fuel leaks all the way up to the crash zone at the wall of the Pentagon. That trail would have vaporized and ignited at least half way up the lawn.

At 23 May, 2006 04:10, Blogger FatOllie said...

Not so many years ago, if a plane had a mechanical problem shortly after takeoff, large quantities of fuel would be dumped in order to reduce weight and fires did not result. That's not done anymore (at least that's my understanding) because of environmental concerns.

Jet fuel doesn't behave like gasoline. It doesn't really ignite all that easily unless you get a large surface area exposed to the air and then it still requires a pretty hot ignition source. To get it to burn real fast, you have to atomize it and compress it. I don't think that rupturing a tank with a light pole would be likely to cause a fire and certainly _not_ an explosion.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Can any of the CT folks give one example in modern history in which a wing tank punctured by a non-incendiary foreign object leaked jet fuel into the atmosphere resulting in an explosion or fire? Surely there must be many times when wing tanks have sprung leaks, being made from "lightweight sheet metal" and all.

We know that you can ignite a partially filled tank with a persistent and hot electrical source, and crashing an airplane into a large building can certainly sufficiently disperse the fuel and create enough heat for ignition, but simple mechanical penetration and subsequent leakage? I doubt it.

At 23 May, 2006 05:36, Blogger Chad said...

Light poles are electrical nesnyc. That's very good. Unfortunately, even if that was relevant at all to the argument (which it isn't) most light poles aren't needed to illuminate the roadways between the hours of 9 and 11am.

Meaning... they weren't on.

At 23 May, 2006 06:04, Blogger Pat said...

BG, the Milbloggers nailed little Jesse Macbeth in a couple hours. He's another Jimmie Massey.

At 23 May, 2006 06:05, Blogger FatOllie said...

The Concorde tragedy is also an example of a fire resulting from a punctured fuel tank. Apparently, the fire was ignited by the engine. So, it's possible and I was wrong. Sure wish I could blame it on the Jews.

At 23 May, 2006 06:45, Blogger Unknown said...


With regard the Jesse M., I respect the serious dishonor that all the commotion is about. For all of those who have served honorably, of course this would be an outrage.

I have no idea about what is going on with Jesse M. What matters is how accurate his descriptions are.

He seems to be risking greivous bodily harm; I don't say that makes him heroic. It only raises concerns that senseless violence begetting senseless violence.

In my mind the most regretable aspect of this is the logical connection this type of ugliness at a low level arisies from dishonest, illegal leadership from the highest executive office of our Nation.

At 23 May, 2006 07:33, Blogger shawn said...

What matters is how accurate his descriptions are.

Fake but accurate, the clarion call of the antiwar crowd.

At 23 May, 2006 07:39, Blogger Unknown said...


about Jesse,

Perhaps I haven't seen the evidence you have. It's not that I find him credible. However, I haven't seen evidence that it is impossible that for him to have been in Iraq, and to be relating a version of events he experienced.

Maybe he's a "honey pot" to discredit Libs, anti-Admistration people. I doubt you believe that's possible.

The evidence that war crimes have taken place is clear. I believe every person who serves or has ever served in the Armed Forces is dishonored by the corrupt illegal actions of this Adminisration.

If anyone wants to somehow redirect their rage toward this Jesse guy, as if he deserves the most anger, it's just a sad misdirection of emotion.

At 23 May, 2006 07:59, Blogger James B. said...

He seems to be risking greivous bodily harm;

You are damn right he is risking serious bodily harm. He lives in Tacoma, if he comes across a real Ranger from the 2-75, he is going to get his ass kicked.

The saddest thing isn't that he is faking, it is that the anti-war left is so eager to slander US troops that they buy this ridiculous performance hook line and sinker. Who knows how many other people are out their lying, that have at least managed to do their research, obviously they don't care about the truth.

This actually ties in with the conspiracy theorists. It shows if you believe in something this religously, you will overlook even the most obvious evidence to the contrary.

At 23 May, 2006 08:09, Blogger Pat said...

BG, so it's not the truth or accuracy, it's the seriousness of the charges? We've had some experience with that rationale.

At 23 May, 2006 16:04, Blogger Alex said...

Funny thing about Abu many ways it was a POSITIVE thing for relations with many Iraqis. I had a chance to chat with a couple Iraqis a while ago, and what they said just blew me away. I can't remember it word for word, but it was basicaly along the lines of...

"Abu Gharib was bad, sure, but when President Bush apologized to us, we just couldn't beleive it. Here he is, the man in charge of the most powerful nation in the world, apologizing to the people of Iraq for something that a few criminals in his army did. Sadam ordered killings all the time personaly, and I can't imagine him ever saying 'sorry'. At that point we knew Bush was a good man."

Once again, it's not verbatim, but many Iraqis were very impressed that the president of the US would apologize for the dishnonourable conduct of a handful of soldiers. I thought that was really cool. It's a good example of just how different our societies are.

At 23 May, 2006 17:27, Blogger shawn said...

joan, most Jews don't deride their women for their "uncleanliness". The problem is most religions moderate themselves. Islam in the Middle East has not. They never had their Reformation.

At 23 May, 2006 21:19, Blogger nes718 said...

The less education you have, the more likely you believe in some sort of cover up.

It can also be argued, the more education you have, the more indoctrinated to the system you are.

At 23 May, 2006 21:29, Blogger shawn said...

It can also be argued, the more education you have, the more indoctrinated to the system you are.

Odd, many colleges are Leftie indoctination sites now. I believe the people in power now are "rightist".

At 24 May, 2006 18:18, Blogger shawn said...

HAVE YOU been to a college?

I went to one of the most radically left colleges in the country.


Post a Comment

<< Home