9/11 Truth

Posted by jeremyclarke on September 11, 2006 · General

the world trade centre attackFive years later 9/11 makes a lot less sense to me than it did at the time. When it happened there were immediate visceral answers to explain the events.

  • Why did it happen? There are people who hate America.
  • Easy, of course people hate the U.S., I hate the U.S. and I’m practically one of them. Imagining that people from a country consistently abused and expoited by them (uh… I mean more than in Canada) would want to hurt them isnt’ that hard.

  • Who did it? Doeh Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda
  • He admitted to it in a video or something right?

  • The buildings fell down? That’s crazy, are you serious? Yeah, they were designed to fall like that rather than topple, so they don’t hurt anyone else
  • Oh, I guess that makes sense, if they were designed to fall and fell then everything is okay.

  • What about the Pentagon? Don’t ask about that, it’s secret cause we can’t let them know how bad they got us.
  • Okay, I’m not really interested anyway. I’m gonna watch the clip of the plane hitting the tower a hundred times in a row instead.

Today none of these answers seem to stand up to serious scrutiny, and looking around makes it seem less and less likely that all or any of the official story actually represents what happened. Most of what we got from the government and CNN seems to reflect convenient answers rather than accurate ones. Specifically, I can’t help feeling like they were designed to satisfy any curiosity and distract away from the gaping holes in the official explanations.

The gaping holes, of course, being things like where the non-WTC planes went, as they weren’t at the claimed crash sites. Vaporized?, that seems implausible, and what about the collapse of the WTC buildings, why was the basement so hot the steel structure was molten metal? Wasn’t most of the fuel from the planes burned off in the firebomb seen in the picture above? And how did the fire get to the basement anyway, thats crazy. Not to mention the massive sketchyness of the various warnings to people in the WTC and outrageous stock market activity before it even happened.

The implications of believing that the U.S. government, whether directly or though intermediaries, organized the attacks are so difficult to entertain that I almost want to just ignore the evidence, discount it as misrepresentations by paranoid maniacs along with films by Michael Moore. But that just doesn’t feel right, there are too many holes and not enough transparency on the part of the U.S. in dealing with the accusations, they seem to just hope the “nuts” will go away when they see no one believes them. I don’t think this is going to dissapear though, nor do I think that all the 911 Truth Movement participants are nuts, they just believe something so radical that most people are unwilling or unable to consider it as a possibility.

I’m not done learning about this and haven’t come to any final conclusions, but I think that as 9/11 was a defining moment of our generation and millenial culture, knowing what really happened is of vital importance to any political decisions we as humans and as Canadians make regarding anyone in the U.S. administration who may have been involved in such an obvious atrocity (not to mention the subsequent attrocities for which 9/11 was used as justification).

loose change - a documentary about the conspiracies involved in 9/11If you want a better source than me, the best place to start is Loose Change, a free, compelling, interesting and mind-blowing documentary of the evidence behind the movement and interpretation of how it is interelated. Movies don’t prove things, but this one makes it hard to deny that there is something, if not everything, that those responsible are not telling us about September 11th, 2001. It can be hard to stay clearheaded with a subject as authority-shattering as this one, but the information in this film is more than worth the adverse effects. The best review I’ve heard so far was from a friend over IM, who, while watching it, could only say “Holy fuck! … how could we be so blind???”

Posted by jeremyclarke on September 11, 2006 · General

10 Comments

  1. Willie

    nice blog.
    I too was recently instantly awakened when i watched this movie. it’s hard to deny the obvious laws of physics and the masses of proffessionals who agree the facts need to come out. “terror Storm” is another GREAT one (video)

    lots of good free video to be found on the subject at
    http://www.lonelantern.org
    they have all of Alex Jones’ videos there and alot of other good 9/11 related video for free download too.

    listen to Alex Jones broadcast live every day from his sites. (lots of 9/11 facts/info there too) http://www.infowars.com and http://www.prisonplanet.com. This guy seems pretty smart to me. he is definately outspoken on the subject and has alot of reputable guest on his internet/shortwave radio show.

    September 11th, 2006 at 4:06 pm

  2. michael

    Jer, it’s worth mentioning that the film you’re talking about was made by myspace teens out of loosely researched public domain facts – which anybody using google could find. Yeah, it’s pretty good and has some compelling evidence – but people should look at it as more entertaining than anything.

    And the photo you use at the start of the post looks like it’s had a ‘just for men’ dye job, the smoke has been thickened and blackened.

    September 11th, 2006 at 7:06 pm

  3. Kevin

    Thanks for posting this Jer.

    September 14th, 2006 at 8:25 am

  4. Jeremy Clarke

    Thanks for sending it to me Kevin. I’d seen the movie posted before, but I’d never had anyone I trust vouch for it before that email.

    September 14th, 2006 at 8:49 am

  5. TheUS

    Remember, as Hitler wrote, the bigger the lie the more likely people
    will believe it. As for loose change, you are better off looking
    at the 911research site ( http://911research.wtc7.net ), lots of
    solid information there. The LC film focuses, or did at a time anyway, far too much on the fact that they think something other than a plane hit the pentagon (which a plane actually did hit it, though it was likely guided in, not flown by a hijacker). The more important point is the controlled demo of the
    towers and wtc 7 building, which collapsed and wasnt even hit by a
    plane. Specifically see the previously repressed first responder
    testomonies, etc.

    September 15th, 2006 at 7:19 pm

  6. Forensic Wonk

    Jeremy, the conclusions made by so many people that there were no planes or that the WTC were blown up by the US government are not based upon solid engineering fact or anything more than a need or perhaps compulsion for some people to see conspiracy where there is none. To quote my old animal behaviour prof; “don’t espouse complex theories to explain a simple action” (Made after a student attempted to explain that the animal taking a dump was marking its turf and establishing its domain. No, said Dr Christiansen, it was taking a shit.

    In the case of the WTC collapse, look at the Journal of Minerals, metals & Materials. No. 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11. It wasn’t the plane collision or the fire alone . It was the loss of the floor joist strength that caused a couple floors to buckle and collapse. With out the box column integrity as the floors collapsed, there was no way that an individual floor could hold more than 2 pancaked floors onto itself.

    As for the alleged rocket or missing plane that hit the Pentagon, there are significant parts of the plane leftover and alll parts are easily seen today. the so called supressed images from the Pentagon security camera that caught the images of a missile, was a camer with a “fisheye” lens. When the type of lens is taken into account, the image distortion is explained. Bottom line is that people are pushing out theories that are neither substantiated nor supported by the factts that are plain and visible.

    Ask yourself this, why are none of these conspiracy theories supported by any qualified building engineers, scientists with a knowledge of the building trades (materials, dynamics etc.), forensic investigators and aviation experts? The reason is simple, the conspiracy theories cannot be scientifically substaniated. You can do better Jeremy. What’s next? Consulting tealeaves and spirits from the beyond?

    September 17th, 2006 at 10:24 pm

  7. Jimmy

    Forensic Wonk,

    The “Pancake” theory has already been disproven as a possibility due to the length of time it took for the towers to completely collapse. Type it into Google, and you will immediately be bombarded by countless sites dedicated to debunking that absurd theory. Some will even teach you math so that you can do the calculations yourself!

    And yes, many, many “conspiracy theorists” are backed by engineers and academics.

    Your closing comment, thankfully, shows you as you are–just a typical American Joe who, by his education and place in society, is unable to respect beliefs different from his own.

    All that most reasonable “conspiracy theorists” are asking for is a genuine investigation. We have yet to see one.

    September 18th, 2006 at 12:16 pm

  8. Jimmy

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365839-details/Fury+as+academics+claim+911+was+'inside+job'/article.do

    Here’s an article about academics and engineers who support the conspiracy, and how people hate them.

    September 18th, 2006 at 12:19 pm

  9. Disinterested Observer

    A comemnt is made that the people pushing the 9/11 conspiracy views are not basing their theories on logical scientific arguments. This is countered by the claim that there are indeed qualified people supporting the theories. Reference is made to the “9/11 Scholars For Truth”. I suggest you take a look at theorgainizers and founding members. Not one is qualified to provide an expert opinion on the subject. i.e. they cannot claim to have the expertise or knowledge to support the contention that they understand the science.

    Ok, now I could take cheap shots and pickon the creative arts or theater instructors out of this scholarly 77, but I won’t. Of the 77, the majority of members are from the humanities (Philosophy, Law etc.) I’m sure they are intelligent, but they don’t have the work experience, the academic experience, or the research credentials to comment from a professional expert perspective. Of the 2 claiming to be civil engineers, neither is qualified. Doyle Winterton is an elderly gent licensed as a land surveyor with no advanced diploma and no history of academic or research work. Jack Keller the other civil engineer is a specialist in agricultural and irrigation engineering.

    In respect to the 2 physicists none come fields that lend themselves to qualified discussion of the subject. As to the founder of the group, Prof. Stephen Jones his work on behalf of the esteemmed Mormon University Brigham Young and his current research on fusion involving deuteron and proton beams speaks for itself. I can understand why someone at BYU would be amenable to this conspiracy theory, as the university is founded and run by an organization that believes the angel Moroni in the 1800’s revealed itself to the American prophet Joseph Smith, who then “translated” golden plates given to him by God into english. BYU and its origins and current use/support is worth looking at since there is an old saying in law that if the tree is poisoned then its fruit too is poisoned, in respect to admisability of evidence. I suppose my view of scholars from a Mormon facility may be tainted by their overall views, so I should admit to being prejudiced against cults and institutional racism. (For the record, I am a white agnostic that usually supports political views that are called left of centre.) My motive for posting is to point at that just because people claim to be experts doesn’t mean they are. I also do not believe that that the US government conspired to blow up the WTC and am perplexed by the unwillingness to accept that a large part of the tragedy was brought about by poor emergency communication, the presence of large amounts of diesel fuel in the basements (to run the emergency generators and NYC disaster HQ) and the fact that buildings do burn and collapse when struck by large fuel laden jet liners. For a smaller example, consider the Alexis Nihon fire in the office tower. The fire on 3 floors caused the building to be judged unsafe and to be demolished.

    September 23rd, 2006 at 12:05 pm

  10. TH

    Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country.

    http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/mp3/EP2006.02.07.mp3

    September 23rd, 2006 at 9:28 pm

Add new comment (email only seen by Jeremy)