Episode 90: Disgust Discussed

Ten years have passed since the 9/11 attacks but a large number of Americans still have negative impressions of Muslims. While much of this distrust seems to be related to political ideology and misinformation in the media there are also deeper psychological forces at work. For many Christians, simply reading a passage of the Koran (or Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”) triggers feelings of physical disgust. Atheists are the only other group that face the same kind of popular distrust. That is why the Center For Inquiry is launching a new billboard campaign aimed at challenging negative stereotypes of atheists. The Doubtcasters share the local reaction when one of those billboards went up in their hometown of Grand Rapids, MI. Also on this episode: another installment of Polyatheism and some obligatory reflections on the September 11th attacks.

Listen Here:

Download RD90

Or subscribe and listen in iTunes or any podcast client:


Apple computers: itunes 1click subscribe

Windows: iTunes 1-click subscribe


  1. JVC says

    In iTunes, ep90 is shown as released 8/15/2011 instead of 9/15/2011. It’s making ep89 appear as the latest episode.


  2. Horatio says

    Hello, I love the podcast but this latest one had something that really irritated me. One of you, I don’t remember which, was talking about 911 “conspiracy theories” and how ludicrous they all are. In fact, he even mentioned WTC 7 and the crazy idea that it was brought down intentionally.

    My question is, have any of you actually looked into this before dismissing it out of hand? I originally believed the official theory about 911 but a few years later I heard that a third building came down in NY on that day. Then I saw footage of it coming down. I was really intrigued. I became a bit obsessed and I read everything I could about it. I read articles or listened to testimony from scientists, architects, structural engineers, fire engineers, demolition experts who all said that the idea that this building collapsed because of fire alone is ridiculous.

    When NIST’s report finally came out I I tried to read as much as I could of it and I read critiques of it as well. They do in fact claim that fire alone brought down this steel framed building. This building came straight down at free fall acceleration for a good part of its descent. We can reproduce this effect but only with explosives. To say that random fires did it is an extraordinary claim and I don’t believe NIST produced extraordinary evidence. All they produced is a computer simulation (the single column failure theory), which looks nothing like the actual collapse and they refuse to release the source code for this model.

    When you also read about how standard protocols for investigating fires was not followed and you read about the destruction of evidence (Bill Manning Editor of Fire Engineering Magazine), it seems to me that a sceptical mind has to wonder what the hell is going on here. I believe that my opinions on this are based on hard facts and the assessments of people who are qualified to give expert testimony on this subject. I believe I have a rational mind and a good grasp on reality. I tend to reject wild hysterical claims based on very little. My standards are pretty high for accepting claim as believable. This is why I feel offended by being portrayed as a some crazy “conspiracy theorist” for doubting the official account of what happened on 911.

    Sometimes, to get at the truth, you have to be willing to reassess all of your assumptions about the world you live in even if it is very uncomfortable. A lot of people are unwilling to do that and will settle for easier answers. Of course there are people who make all sorts of crazy claims about 911, like anything else. No one takes them seriously except people who write articles ridiculing 911 sceptics. Makes you wonder if they aren’t just straw men built up to be torn down. In any case, if you aren’t willing to honestly look into this subject, please don’t mention it.

  3. says

    You wrote: “For many Christians, simply reading a passage of the Koran…triggers feelings of physical disgust. Atheists are the only other group that face the same kind of popular distrust.”

    Today an op-ed in the New York Times reported that “disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing…Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent…It is even less popular than much maligned groups like ‘atheists’ and ‘Muslims.’

    I mention this because it is interesting to note that while Tea Partiers may have U.S. approval ratings that are overall lower than atheists’, this does not entail that Tea Party opponents have a visceral feeling of disgust about the Tea Party. That disgust indeed may be more likely to be directed at atheists and Muslims; so your claim that only Muslims and atheists “face the same kind of popular distrust” may well be correct, at least in the United States.

  4. Captain Spaulding says

    Every point you make has been thoroughly debunked. It truly does sound like you are obsessed.

    And when you figure out how people set demolition charges in a busy office building without someone noticing, let us know. (I know, I know. It was a BIIIIIIG conspiracy.)

  5. Horatio says

    @Captain Spaulding

    Thoroughly debunked??? Really? Please do enlighten me… Who is the genius who can convincingly answer all of the points I raised? I think people like you are satisfied with any old explanation no matter how ludicrous. As long as it allows you to say “Ahh well, there you go. that explains it. So what’s on TV…”. Some of us actually need an explanation to make sense and not violate the laws of physics. Is that really asking too much?

    As for setting demolition charges in a busy office building without someone noticing, I think more difficult things have been done. It remains in the realm of the possible as opposed to the idea that office fires can sever all of the necessary core columns simultaneously in order to produce the free fall acceleration we see on the footage. That idea is in the realm of the impossible. But if it make you feel better to believe…

  6. Captain Spaulding says

    “more difficult things have been done”? I truly am not trying to be dismissive, but this is totally silly. You need more than this. It is ten years later, and no one has come forward to make a million dollars telling the story of how mysterious men planted charges? You are not a skeptic. You are a silly.

  7. Horatio says

    @ Captain Spaulding

    Look, an event occured and an explanition has been offered. If this explantion is flawed, we need to reject it. The explanation offered doesn’t account for all the known evidence, for example the FEMA report mentioned fragments of steel that were partially melted. A simple office fire cannot account for melted steel.

    It took one mounth to put out the fires at the bases of WTC 1, 2 and 7. The molten metal is a documented fact. What exactly was burning that long if there was no molten metal? There is plenty of eye witness testimony about molten steel at the base of these buildings. No office fire can produce that. So what does NIST do? It pretends these facts don’t exist.

    As for people planting explosives in the buildings, I don’t know. We aren’t there yet. We are at “does the official story make any sense at all?”. So far I am at “No, it doesn’t”. As for whistle-blowers, There have been some like Sibel Edmonds but the corporate media has completely ignored her. You have this assumption that if one of the pertitrators came forawrd, his story would be in the front page of the NY times. I think he would be ignored and you would never hear about him like Sibel Edmonds.

    Maybe your assumptions are all wrong!

  8. Blair T says


    Forget what you think you know about engineering, physics, and fire – just think about this: What possible reason could there be for conspirators to destroy WTC7?

    Can you think of any plausible reason? – other than to intentionally tip off people like you to the ‘conspiracy’?

    For the record: WTC7 was struck by a large mass of one of the taller towers when it collapsed – then it burned for several hours.

  9. evileyemonster says

    Minor argument about the billboards. Pedantic almost.

    But you can boycott billboard companies and have an effect. Many billboards are owned by media companies like CBS, or Clear Channel Communications. And if they boycott the company.. it can do damage to other parts of their related parts.

  10. hamid ajami says

    Dear Christian Doubtcasters:

    You wrote: “For many Christians, simply reading a passage of the Koran…triggers feelings of physical disgust. Atheists are the only other group that face the same kind of popular distrust.”

    Wow, in my native country atheism as well as in most Islamic nations, atheism is punished by death or imprisonment under color of Islamic law. Now we have American liberals trying to put atheism in some type of coalition with Islam – an ideolgy that holds atheism as the worst of belief systems and still persecutes atheists with violent supression. (?!) Truly bizarre, crazypants stuff from a bunch of guys who have never lived (or visited) in the Islamic world.

    I was raised reading the Quran and can say that, not just Christians, but any rational person who accepts even a modicum of human rights should have feelings of disgust triggered when reading the retrograde book.

    Islam is an ideology and Muslims are followers of the ideology and not an ethnicity. My ethnicity is Kurdish/Azeri, and I remain so even though I no longer believe in the tenets of Islam. In reality, you are being racist when you conflate my ethnicity with a religion. What if I still called you Michigan white guys “christians” with little respect for your actual belief system? Or called immigration from Mexico – christian immigration? Because Islam is an ideology, it is not racist to attack it and reject it – to find it distasteful, anymore than say, I find certain schools of radical freemarket economics really dangerous and fucked up. It is an interesting aspect of Western liberals that one in your group can be openly critical of any ideological system except for a religious one that tends to be held by brown immigrants, then multiculturalism seems to kick in and that ideology becomes fetishized as an ethnic identity. Take your post and replace the word “muslim” with “mormon” (another group with similar low ratings but who happens to be perceived as white and christian) and you will see how odd and fawning your post seems to me as an immigrant ex-Muslim.

    On some level it is not your fault as many Muslims play this up. I have even been privy when they mock you about this – “just say it is your religion and the كفّار (you guys – i wont use the english of this word anymore) will even apologize!”

    Since Islam is an ideology please stop denuding it of its content and attempting to make it into a benign ethnicity -which it isn’t. I ask you to consider this ‘christians’. i also ask you to not look so foolish as to align yourself in anyway with an ideology that holds you beneath its heels. to us, you look very weak for this.

  11. hamid ajami says

    Sorry but I had forgot to put this sentence into post:

    The distrust of Islam is rational if the distrust is based on the content of Islamic teachings in most schools of Sunni and Shi’i. Also, please don’t simply make this huge leap in reasoning and assume that all distrust of Islam is because Americans are just racists. Maybe some of them have learned about the Quran what it says about women? Or maybe the hadiths and what they say about no free thinking, persecution of homosexuals and other such things that it is rational to be distrustful of? Maybe the Americans see Muslim women being forced to be invisible or half seen in public so that the men that control them don’t have to worry about other men lusting after them? Do you guys not find such beliefs and practices also distrustful?

  12. says

    You know, I was going to come here to rip into the hosts for blaming 9/11 almost entirely on religion, showing again their astounding ignorance of global politics and the far more likely case that this was motivated by terrible US foreign policies. On that point, I’m not saying that Islamic fundamentalism isn’t partially to blame, but I don’t think that’s the only thing to blame, and I think it’s far more likely that Islamic faith is used as a justification of the attacks and not the motivation, much in the same way fundamentalist Christians use their faith as a means of justification for the disgusting things that they tend to do and say.

    However, since we apparently have a truther here, I feel it much more appropriate to defend the show. I honestly can’t believe that this stupidity continues.

    Horatio, my brother-in-law is a contractor. Let me tell you some of the things I know. If the World Trade Center buildings were brought down via demolition, then this was some of the most impressive demolition work ever done. For one, the “demolition” appears to have been done upside-down on purpose, because when you normally demolish a building, you do so by destroying the base. The WTC buildings started crumbling from the top-down, coincidentally from the very parts of the building that were hit by the airplanes. No demolition has ever been done in this fashion. This is either the most amazing demolition project ever done, to make the buildings fall as if by the impact of airplanes … or the buildings actually fell due to the impacts of airplanes. Hmm… Occam’s razor, trim that fat!

    I can’t believe people are still arguing about buildings 7. Look, the reason building 7 went down is because it was damaged by debris. There are pictures, albeit very rare, that show the building with very clear damage to the side facing the WTC towers. (And by the way, when you demolish a building, you don’t say “pull it”. You didn’t mention this, but I know a lot of truthers do, and those people have clearly been watching too many movies.)

    You brought up FEMA’s report about partially-melted steel. Look, that depends entirely on what is meant by “partially-melted”. You seem to think that it means molten, but it could just as easily mean softened to the point of being malleable, which an office fire (and several hundred gallons of jet fuel) certain can do.

    And it gets even sillier when you stop to think what kind of combustible substance would be required to actually produce molten steel. I’ve seen the theories that thermite was used. Why would they even do that? The amount of thermite required to significantly melt the building supports and cause a collapse is ridiculous. The point here is that to actually melt the steel in the World Trade Center, a conspiracy demolition crew would have to go way out of their way to do something that was extremely unnecessary to bring the buildings down. Why not just use airplanes?

    Oh wait! They did!

    And I’ll further add that if you wanted to fake a terrorist attack, it’s not even necessary to demolish the buildings. Hitting them with commercial airplanes is extreme enough. We were already in enough of a shock while the buildings were still standing. Sorry, but you have the government going out of their way to make the buildings fall down by any means other than the airplanes.

    So anyway, now we’re back to the airplanes. Sorry, but for reasons already laid out by other listeners, the inside job theory doesn’t hold up here, either. First of all, we have recorded calls from the planes of people describing the hijackers. We have the perpetrators’ own words to confirm their involvement. We have photos of the hijackers at the airports. We have manifests showing that they were on the planes. When you “take a look at all the evidence” (a phrase commonly used by truthers), you actually have to look at ALL THE EVIDENCE, including the stuff that you don’t want to deal with.

    The Doubtcasters were absolutely right to be dismissive of the 9/11 Truth movement. I don’t always agree with them politically, but on this, they are dead-on.

  13. says

    I just remembered something. In the above post, I made the point that truthers have concocted an alternate “theory” which has the US government going way out of their way to perform complex tasks in order to accomplish something that ultimately very simple (albeit very mean, deadly, and destructive). Nonetheless, I think it’s entirely appropriate to call such a theory by what it truly is.

    A Rube Goldberg device.

    And I sincerely hope that from now on, whenever you guys hear a 9/11 truther try to explain how the government staged the WTC attacks, you will have the theme from Peewee Herman’s breakfast machine playing in your heads.

  14. curtcameron says

    Just to clear up some of the impressions that Horatio has…

    * The NIST panel of experts seem to think that fire alone can account for WTC7’s collapse. What expertise do you have to say that it couldn’t? Please don’t bring up the “architects and engineers for 9/11 truth” – those people are mostly neither, but are all cranks. WTC7 had an unusual steel structure because it was built over an electrical substation. Fires raged inside it for hours, and the FDNY could only watch it burn; the fires were not fought because there was no water pressure. After several hours, the internal framing of the building collapsed, leaving the exterior perimeter walls but collapsing much of the inside. You can see the structure on the roof collapse into the building a full five seconds before the perimeter walls start to collapse. They stood for those five seconds, but when the stresses were too much, a quick chain reaction occurs where one part fails, then immediately its load is put on the next part, which fails, then their load is placed on the next one, etc. This means that very quickly you have many parts that snap. A building as tall as WTC7 could only fall approximately straight down, because no parts are strong enough to push it sideways.

    * There were no explosives used, or their sounds would have been recorded. When demolition companies take down buildings with explosives, the blasts are EXTREMELY loud. Since no explosives were heard, this led some people to hypothesize that perhaps an incendiary like thermite could have been used. It’s not an explosive, so it wouldn’t make blast sounds! But thermite has never been used to take out buildings, because they need accurate timing, and thermite just burns and melts stuff – it’s too imprecise.

    * There were no credible reports of melted steel at the ground zero site. Melted metal, yes. Aluminum, for one, melts at temperatures easily achievable by that kind of fire. There were people who commented that they saw melted steel, but were in no position to know it was steel they saw, and no testing of it was done.

    * The fires burned underground for a month or so. You said “What exactly was burning that long if there was no molten metal?” Uh, are you under the impression that it was metal burning or something? I’m confused as to what your point is. The fact is that we know what was burning – the towers were chock-full of combustible materials, like plastic computers, wood desks, carpeting, cubicles. This stuff was all fuel for the fires. Why did they burn so long? Because that’s what underground fires do – they’re limited by the availability of oxygen, and because of the insulation of the pile, then can get extremely hot even though they’re not going through their fuel quickly. Did you know that there are underground fires burning right now that have been burning for thousands of years? Underground fires are typically very hot and very long-lived.

    * The fact that the fires lasted so long is solid proof that they could not be due to thermite. Thermite burns hot, but is gone within seconds. Anything melted from thermite would be cool within minutes or hours, so the heat underground that was present for weeks means that it was due to a typical fuel source limited by oxygen availability.

  15. says

    Excellent post, Curtcameron.

    Just to be fair, he didn’t bring up thermite. I did. And I brought it up as an example of how silly one has to be in order to posit that there was actually molten steel at the WTC site. But that’s generally what truthers do. They read something somewhere that sounds like it might be fishy, so they try to make a huge case around it without reading further or considering the full context of what’s being said.

    I think I know what report Horatio is referring to, and if I’m right, then he’s absolutely wrong about melted steel. The report, titled “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, doesn’t say that there was melted steel. It said that the corrosion on the steel had melted and then penetrated the grain of the steel, causing it to erode and weaken. And the article even explicitly acknowledge that the liquefaction had taken place at a temperature much lower than what would be required to normally melt steel.

    And you know how I found this? It was referenced from a truther website by someone who apparently didn’t even read it.

  16. says

    One point I haven’t seen addressed: Bringing down a building with explosives requires cutting and removing walls to access the supporting girders. There’s miles and miles of detonatition wire. It would take months to prepare a building of that size.

    The very idea that it could be done without anyone noticing is ludicrous.

  17. RUss B. says

    Maybe I’m blind to it (and if so please direct me) but you gets seem to lack an “Email Us” link on your new site. Had to go to the old site to find it. FYI

  18. Horatio says

    Well, seeing as I don’t have time to refute all of your arguments, I will address them by category:

    1. Assumptions about controlled demolitions:

    First of all, no one is claiming that there were controlled demolitions planned for that day but they forgot to tell people about it. We are talking about demolitions that are meant to be passed off as something else. If you want to burn down your building for the insurance money, you won’t leave a canister of gas and a box of matches lying around, unless you’re a complete idiot. Similarly, if this was a controlled demolition, don’t expect to find miles and miles of detonation wire. You know, wireless detonators do exist. They aren’t often used because they’re expensive. Also, thermite cutter charges have also been in existence since 1984 and they don’t leave anything behind. In this case, the prime suspect is nano-thermite which has its own properties. Steven Jones and his colleagues have found unreacted nano-thermite in the dust of the WTC. They also found iron micro-spheres which are a by-product of thermite.

    Now you guys make a lot of claims about controlled demolitions and what is possible and not possible. What are these claims based? I know one of you has a brother-in-law who is a contractor. A contractor in what exactly? But there is the testimony of Tom Sullivan, a demolition expert. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with the idea that these collapses were controlled demolitions. In fact he is convinced that that is the only thing they can be. He seems to believe that a skilled demolition expert can take a building down in many ways, From the bottom up , top down, from middle, they can even make it spin. He seems to believe that thermite can be used to take down a building. So, who exactly are you referencing with all of your claims?

    One of you also mentioned the sound of explosives. First of all, a controlled demolition doesn’t produce a loud KABOOM. It’s more like a series of pops. If you listen to the eye witnesses or read the oral histories (which took years to finally get released), there is an overwhelming number of people how reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosions in those buildings in places and at times that don’t fit with the planes + fires story. Are they all crazy?

  19. Horatio says

    2. Assumtions about planting explosives

    Some of you has said “How could they possibly prepare a building for demolition without anyone noticing?”. Well, there was extensive work being done on those building prior to 911. Some tenants were moved around for floor to floor. One former tenant talked about seeing a coating of dust on everything every morning when he went to work. If you go to your office buliding tomorrow and see a bunch of guys in overalls working on something, are going to call the police or are you going to assume it’s normal maintenance work. I don’t know why it is so impossible for you to believe it could be done. Here is what Tom Sullivan believes: “looking at the building [WTC7] it wouldn’t be a problem — once you gain access to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as well.”

    3. Molten metal

    If you look at testimony of the fire fighter at ground zero, it is clear that there was molten metal at the base of WTC 1, 2 & 7. Molten aluminium is silver in colour. What they saw was like lava and there was a lot of it. A steel beam pulled from the ground would be dripping at the end. There are many witnesses who have confirmed this. Maybe you think they are all stupid and they don’t know what they’re talking about, like the people who heard and saw explosions. In the early days, before it was understood what molten metal implied, there were many news reports showing examples of this strange phenomenon. A block of steel and concrete melted together. A cross where two pieces of steel beam were melted together. Giuliani and others talking about temperatures of 2000 degrees below the former towers.

    The South tower had a fire on a few floors. When fire fighter reached the point of impacted they talked about a few isolated pockets of fire. Then the building collapsed to dust, pulverizing everything in it and producing a huge cloud of dust as it collapsed to its very foundation. Wouldn’t that collapse extinguish those isolated pockets of fire? No, the fire then intensifies even though it is covered with debris and devoid of oxygen. Does this really make sense to you? Do you really think normal office fires can do that? You know jet fuel does not have magical properties and even NIST admits most of it burnt out soon after the impact.

    As for Fema APPENDIX C:Limited Metallurgical Examination, I don’t think you really understood it. One of there samples was from WTC7. This was their conclusion: “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulphur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

    Basically FEMA couldn’t explain this strange phenomenon and so NIST simply ignored it. It didn’t fit the computer model they spent five years building…. This is a good example of how they cherry picked evidence that would fit their forgone conclusion. That’s not science it’s fraud.

    Anyway, I’m tired now. I’ll finish this latter…

  20. Horatio says

    OK, one last thing, for all these questions about “why would they bother taking down those buildings, plane crashes would have been enough?” Who knows, there could be a million good reasons for it. Maybe simple plane crashes weren’t shock and awe enough for them. It’s really irrelevant at this point. Give me the power to conduct an aggressive criminal investigation with subpena power (which we never had) and I’ll get you answers. Mafiosos don’t come clean because of a guilty conscience. No, they rat out their friends when they’re facing life in prison. These arguments are silly and pointless. They are only based on your baseless assumptions. Let’s stick to the facts, if you can avoid distorting them.

  21. curtcameron says

    More misconceptions…

    * Steven Jones found unreacted thermite? Do you know what unreacted thermite consists of? Iron oxide (rust) and aluminum. Imagine that – someone found rust and aluminum in the debris of the towers made of steel, concrete, and aluminum! Also, iron micro-spheres are a product of welding. I seem to recall that there was lots of welding that happened at the site, both during construction of the towers, and during rescue efforts.

    * Controlled demolitions make VERY loud noises – a whole series of unmistakable explosions. They’re so loud that they can shatter the windows of nearby buildings. Although people reported hearing loud sounds, they were either talking about sounds during the fires, well before the buildings fell, or sounds as the building was falling. You don’t have anyone who reports hearing the sounds just before the onset of collapse, like you do in all controlled demolitions. But if explosives were used, everyone in Manhattan would have heard them clearly.

    * Again, yes, there was molten metal and red-hot steel in the underground fires. So what – how could that support a conspiracy? Fires burned underground because they had plenty of fuel and enough oxygen. Fires are hot.

    * Both towers had enormous fires on multiple floors. The report you heard about isolated pockets of fire was from a fireman who reached the 78th floor in WTC2 not long before the collapse. The 78th floor was hit by just the left wingtip of Flight 175, so the fires on that floor were relatively small. The enormous infernos were just above that.

    * The FEMA report of corrosion – what about it? Metal beams sat in the debris pile for weeks, with water, soggy drywall, and all kinds of other chemicals. They found some corrosion that they couldn’t determine the source of, and they weren’t sure when it happened – during the fires or afterwards. NIST was able to explain the collapses by the fires alone, so the corrosion was not a significant factor. But so what? Why would you think that corroded beams would be an indication of conspiracy?

  22. Derpington says

    Debating with twoophers has become so incredibly borish to me. I would caution those of you who engage them that they are wearing layers upon layers of thickly-padded head gear so your logical haymakers have no effect. The best you can hope for in this fight is a split decision.

  23. Horatio says

    What Steven Jones found in the dust is not just some random rust and aluminium. It was a far more complex thing than that and constructed in a specific way. These chips were found in all of the dust samples collected. Read his paper on this. It’s a pretty convincing case that these things were engineered. When ignited they explode and they produce the same iron spheres with the same chemical make-up found in all the dust samples collected. These samples were collected from all over Manhattan, from the top of the Deuche Bank building to the Brooklyn bridge. I would say the idea that welding caused this is grasping at straws.

    The volume of explosions during controlled demolitions depends on the type of explosive used. If your only concern is cost, you’ll go for something like RDX which is very noisy. If want quieter explosions, you’ll go for something else, maybe nano-thermite. Yes, actually there is eye-witness testimony about an explosion right before WTC7 came down. There is video footage of loud explosions as well.

    So you admit there was molten metal at ground zero. It’s just a simple fact that office fires could not produce that. As fires go, the fires in the twin towers were not that dramatic. This is basically thanks to the brilliant design of those buildings. The fires were limited to a few floors, you could barley see any flames and there was thick black smoke being produced. There is zero evidence of any kind of inferno occurring in those buildings and the vast majority of the building was intact. How do explain that all of those intact floors gave way at near free fall acceleration? And how do you explain that fires nearly 100 stories up would survive the descent and create an even hotter inferno at the base. It make no sense. There is one explanation: explosive and incendiaries like thermite or nano-thermite. They can create such incredible heat and they don’t need outside oxygen to burn. This can explain the strange phenomenon we saw. Normal office fires simply can’t. If there is molten metal at ground zero, as witnessed by many people, the official story can’t be true.

    So FEMA gets its hands on a piece of a steel beam which has been turned into Swiss cheese and they have no explanation for how this happened. They notice the sulphur but they have no explanation of where it came from… And this is irrelevant to you because NIST has come up with a computer model that explains it all. A computer model that should be a poster child for GIGO (garbage in garbage out). I have a question for you, what percentage of the steel from WTC7 had this Swiss cheese characteristic? 0.1%, 20%, 40 %? Who knows? Because so much evidence was destroyed before it was thoroughly examined. We should know that number. We should know what caused it. We should know exactly what was at ground zero. Was it molten steel or molten aluminium? There should be no doubt. There is doubt because standard procedures weren’t followed. Evidence was destroyed. If this doesn’t raise a red flag in your head then I don’t know what will.

  24. Horatio says

    @Derpington You know, I wasn’t going to respond to asinine comments like yours but you sound like such a pompous ass, I have no choice. Basically three incredible, unprecedented events occurred in one place on one day. Three steel framed high-rise buildings collapsed to their foundations at near free fall speed. If it had happened once, maybe, twice, what are the odds?, but three times? Then you hear that standard protocols weren’t followed and evidence was destroyed… Then you’re told that all this destruction was caused but a little bit of structural damage and office fires… And you don’t have the slightest bit of doubt or the slightest bit of scepticism about what you’re being told?

    Please don’t talk to me about logic because clearly you are a buffoon who doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together. You don’t have the foggiest notion of what logic means…

  25. Robin says


    Please be honest here. This was not a “normal office fire.” Planes (big ones!) with almost full fuel tanks crashed into the towers at full speed, damaging key structural elements of the towers. Do you deny that? And you claim, “what are the odds?” as if they were completely unrelated events. Well, in two of the three cases planes flew into the freaking buildings in a similar manner. And WTC7 was hit with debris. (That’s like saying, I punched two guys in a bar and both of them punched me back. And their other friend punched me too. What are the odds?) And the one that suffered damage lower on the building collapsed first, just as one might expect. If you basically wiped out a few floors of a high rise tower and heated the remaining steel in a fire, wouldn’t you expect that the remaining steel would lose some of its structural integrity? It doesn’t have to fully melt to become weakened. It just has to be weak enough that the weight of the floors above it cause the floor below to collapse, and then there’s no going back. You’ve increased the mass bearing down on floors below, and the building will collapse, with each floor collapsing more quickly.

    That’s what I saw. When the first tower collapsed, I thought, oh, shit, the other one is probably going to go too! Get everyone the hell out! Did you not think that? Did you say, oh, well the other one probably won’t collapse unless the buildings have been rigged with explosives. I am not a structural engineer. I’m a biologist. But I think the simplest explanation is that some extremists hijacked some planes, flew them into towers, and the ensuing fire weakened the towers enough for them to collapse. Did the US government fail in stopping it? Probably. Did they try to cover up their incompetence? Sure. Did they hire the hijackers? That would be a whole lot easier than rigging the towers for detonation, but I doubt it. Did they involve dozens to hundreds of people and kill their own civilians in a plot to send us to war and make money? Probably not.

    Horatio, I think most of the people arguing against you would be willing to accept your theory if it actually stood up to scrutiny. But when you use terms like “nano-thermite” (how is that different than regular thermite?), you make it sound like you’ve already come to your conclusion and will only accept evidence if it fits with your theory. I know you’ll say I’m guilty of the same thing, but at least my theory is simpler, so I’m going with that.

  26. curtcameron says

    Horatio, as much as I’d love to keep slugging it out here, I don’t think that the Reasonable Doubts blog is the proper place to do it.

    The fact that you’re saying the fires in the Twin Towers were not that dramatic (are you kidding me here?!?), and that molten metal weeks after the collapses is evidence of explosives, and that Stephen Jones is a credible source, all tell me that you’re not that familiar with the real evidence. You’ve been indoctrinated – you’ve gotten your info from the William Lane Craigs and Duane Gishes of the argument. You need to open up your mind.

    I won’t continue to debate the technical details here, but I will suggest a proper setting to continue: the Great Debates section of the Straight Dope Message Board.

    That place is like an island of critical thinking, in the ocean of stupidity that makes up most of the Internet. Be sure, before you start a new thread, to search for past discussions. I’d suggest a search for the word “thermite.”

  27. Horatio says

    I agree, this isn’t the place for this debate and it wasn’t my intention to have a debate. My point was that there is good scientific evidence for questioning the official story of what happened on 911. And there are many scientists, architects, engineers that do doubt what we are being told about those events.

    However, the so-called “debunkers” or “911 believers”, I’m not sure what to call you, consistently resort to name calling. In so many articles I’ve read by these people it’s about 80% of the content. But why are so many scientists, etc coming forward to speak out about this. It takes guts, they’re putting their careers on the line. Could it be a massive conspiracy? No, you don’t believe conspiracies exist. Obviously, they don’t know anything about science or engineering. But you have people like Steven Dusterwald, Ronald Brookman, Michael Donly and many more who are structural engineers and you also have people like Lynn Margulis, a scientist and recipient of the National Medal of Science. She must know a thing or two about science… Well, they must all be crazy, then.

    You don’t find this reasoning intellectually lazy. You can disagree with them but to denounce them as crazy or indoctrinated or (we have a new one here) the equivalent of creationists!?! You don’t think you’re sounding a bit dogmatic. If your arguments are so strong why stoop to this level. To me it only proves that your arguments can’t stand up to scrutiny so this becomes your last stand “People who question the government on 911 are tin hat wearing cooks”.

    Thanks for the link though…

  28. Horatio says

    Thanks for proving my point Ben. You are a perfect example of what I’m talking about. You can’t form an intelligent argument to save your life but name calling… That’s your level, alright. A classic true believer.

  29. Agnostic-fox says

    Hello all,
    This may or may not seem relevant, but I’m in w rough spot and need some advice. I am a former lay preacher that decided that he should know the stuff he is claiming is truth…read the bible…saw the issues (originally Hebrew scripture to Christian scripture inconsistencies and the contradictions within the NT). I am currently compltely losing faith in any god, although at first it felt like I was going to be embracing the OT…there lies other issues I soon realized…especially after giving in to curiosity and starting to listen to atheist podcasts. By the way, I enjoy yours the most…ask an atheist is #2 on my list. Anyway, my wife is holding on as much as she can. Things got so bad in our arguments that there were holes in the walls, furniture breaking, and verbal and physical abuse from both sides. I got fed up with this process and started working on my anger through reading as many anger books as I could…helped and much better the, except I still get sucked into the arguments. I’m trying my best, but we can’t get passed the arguments…we can’t go maybe a few days without arguing no matter what I try to do. What can I do? I’m trying to let her do what she feels isnright for her and the kids…doesn’t help because I’m told I have to be the leader…I try to just go with her where she is comfortable and put my feelings aside (as difficult as that would be for me, it would be easier than this)…she isn’t happy knowing I don’t believe in what we are attending and refuses. There is honestly nothing I can do to make anything better. I can’t be honest about my true feelings of doubt (she still thinks I want to get into Judaism to some degree). I can’t lie anymore…my whole issue with xianity and the bible was integrity, so I can’t sacrifice my own.

    I could get into more, but I’m sure you can see where I am. How this may be related to this podcsast is that my wife thinks I will become the devil himself without godless. That sign is wrong…there is nothing worth anything without god according to her. What can I do? I’ve even tried what someone calls authentic self representation to an extent…enough to let her know my doubts, but not the full extent because of responses. I’m willing to try anything…any advice is appreciated.

    Thanks again for all you do and the podcast. I’m hoping I get through this and can help others as you do.

  30. Agnostic-fox says

    Sorry about the typos and a few broken sentences…typing quickly, in secret, on my iPad…gotta keep things low for now. Thanks again

  31. Horatio says

    This article is about an idea which has been proposed to explain the evidence for explosions in the WTC buildings on 911. The idea is that molten aluminum reacting with water can create violent explosions. It’s an interesting idea but to say this debunks anything is silly. Either you’re not familiar with all of the problems with the official theory or you don’t really understand the meaning of the word “debunk”.

  32. curtcameron says

    Joe, the guy in that article is a little nuts himself. We know that explosions weren’t responsible for bringing down the Twin Towers because you can clearly see in videos where the exterior wall is gradually bending inwards at the point the collapse starts. The floor joists were still connected to both the interior columns and the perimeter beams, the heat from the fires caused the supporting trusses to weaken, the floors sagged under their own weight, which caused them to pull inwards on the perimeter wall. Once those columns weren’t straight anymore, they couldn’t take the great weight of the building above and the collapse started at that point. The guy in your article was talking about molten aluminum exploding when it came into contact with water, but that clearly goes against the evidence.

  33. curtcameron says

    Agnostic-fox, you need help to get through this. You need to remind your wife that you’re going through a crisis in your life, but your integrity is something that you hope she values in you, and you want her love and support while you work through this. And then get help! Go see a counselor (not a “christian counselor” though – that won’t help).

    Another thing that I think you should do is contact Rich Lyons at the Living After Faith site – he’s already been through the same thing you’re looking at, and I think he can help you. The site is here: http://livingafterfaith.blogspot.com/ , and his email is rich@livingafterfaith.com. The Reasonable Doubts podcast/blog is for the critical examination of religion, but Rich is there especially to help people get through what you’re going through.

  34. Art says

    The one thing that helps is for people to actually read and understand the official reports in their entirety. It is a weighty undertaking but once done you can eliminate a whole lot of the speculation and false assertions common to the Truther movement.

    Most of teh issues raised as anecdotes in Truther literature are addressed in the official reports. The facts go a long way toward answering questions but the reports have to be taken as a block of information not absorbed secondhand where a combination of quote mining and error can lead to misapprehension of the established facts.

    The assertion that the WTC7 fell at standard acceleration are false. The actual timing is pretty close to what you expect once the system was modeled. The support brackets holding the floors just don’t absorb much energy and they fail nearly instantaneously once a few stacked floors, falling as a single mass, hit the floor they are holding.

    Where the sulfur came from in WTC7 is no mystery if you read the reports. WTC7 was the emergency management headquarters and was tricked out with large generators that were fed by large below ground tanks full of diesel fuel.

    The fuel system was poorly designed as it was set up to maintain fuel pressure up where the generators were. With the fuel piping broken open the pumps down by the tanks kept feeding fuel up trying to raise the pressure on a broken pipe.

    An entire floor of WTC7 was essentially converted into a diesel burner as fuel pumped up pooled and caught fire. A burner that was left to run for hours. Thousands of gallons of diesel burning. And guess what diesel fuel has relatively large amount of in it in 2001? Sulfur. Heat steel and expose it to concentrated smoke from a massive burning of high-sulfur diesel and you get decomposition and erosion. No great mystery.

    More modern diesel is, in most areas, low-sulfur.

    Time and again these issues have been addressed. They only come up because the questioners are lazy and haven’t bothered to get and read the official reports. Most people complaining about the reports haven’t read them. They get both the complaints and accounts of those reports from the same internet sites. Hint: if the site it mostly centered on conspiracy theories and coverups you likely can’t trust them to report on the official reports they are criticizing.

    This is very much like creationist sites that never, ever, get evolution right. They have made a living out of not understanding, and helping others not understand.

    I used to fight this stuff point-by-point, often with excepts from teh various applicable official sources, but it never ends. I’ve gone over the same explanations many times before and yet eh same objection rise like the undead. Like so many things, if they can’t be bothered to understand the official assertions and how they were arrived at they can’t be taken seriously.

    I know, I’m going to get the same sad lament I always hear: ‘But I really understand science, and I really have spent time reading (usually termed “researching” the issue) (A degree from Google-U) and I believe what I say.

    My answer is – No amount of research will do you any good if the sources you are going to are not reality, fact, evidence, and science based. Read the official reports from the various agencies. Most are downloadable as PDFs. Read them. It is going to take time. You will have to go through many thousands of pages. Speed reading and the ability to skim helps. Take notes.

    Avoid the videos, the stuff from Truthers, and anything that comes from anyone associated with Alex Jones. If they report the building fell too fast of that it is a mystery where the sulfur came from it is up to you to uncover the lies. You have no right to be spoon fed the truth. Particularly if you haven’t bothered to go back to the source materials.

  35. Horatio says

    Hi Art,

    You know you almost make it sound convincing but I have to take issue with some of what you’re saying. You say there was no free fall acceleration but NIST finally had to admit that, yes, for 2.5 seconds (8 stories) that building did come down at free fall acceleration. Yet, here you are saying it’s false. Maybe you only read the preliminary report where they claimed there was no free fall but when questioned they had to admit it did occur (they had no choice because even a high-school physics teacher, like David Chandler, can prove it happened) but still they claimed it fits into their model, when it doesn’t. This kind of revision doesn’t bother you?

    As for the sulphur, you claim it came for the diesel fuel. It’s an interesting theory. Is there any proof to support it? NO. There are national guidelines for investigating fires. In these guidelines it says that if there is any evidence of sulphur or melted steel, you should look for evidence of explosives or incendiaries. They also mention thermite. Was this done? No.

    Yet NIST claimed they found no evidence for explosives. When asked if they had looked for evidence of explosives they said “No, if you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time”. Doesn’t this put their objectivity in question. When asked about molten metal, John Gross said he had seen no evidence of molten metal or hearing anyone claiming such a thing. The evidence of people claiming to have seen molten metal at ground zero is overwhelming. That John Gross said he never heard of it is unbelievable. He doesn’t want to hear of it. And this is the guy giving you your answers…

    Now you’re telling people to read the NIST report (I’ve read some of it and it is long, unreadable and repetitive) but to avoid basically everything else. I don’t think this is a recipe for getting at the truth. Does NIST provide explanations? Yes. Are these explanations believable? Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? You seem to have no problem believing but other, qualified people have called the NIST report scientific fraud.

    NIST have done enough to put their credibility in question yet you are advising people to avoid “truthers”, because they are intentionally misleading people. I think you’ve got that backwards. NIST is intentionally misleading people and the only way anyone is going to get to truth is by reading critics of NIST.

  36. Ewan Macdonald says

    As for the sulphur, you claim it came for the diesel fuel. It’s an interesting theory. Is there any proof to support it? NO.

    The generators in WTC7 were powered by no. 2 diesel. That is, today, a largely deprecated standard. Why is it deprecated? Because it’s been overtaken by… ultra-low sulfur diesel. This happened between 2004 and 2007 (in the USA, 2006, with completion in 2010.) In 2001, much of the world was happily heating and generating with no. 2 diesel, which had a high sulfur content. This includes WTC7. Which accounts for the sulfur present.

    So, thus far we’ve had:

    Thermite (rust)
    Sulfur (sulfur)

    Any other startling revelations? Where do the lizardmen come in?

    Like the guy who posted earlier, I have no trouble whatsoever imagining some level of cover-up after the fact – to avoid accusations of incompetence – but the idea that the government/security services/lizards went to the trouble of flying planes into buildings to trigger their explosives – which were in turn cunningly disguised as things that would already occur in the buildings – is just beyond crazy. You said it yourself: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far everything you’ve brought forward has been laughably pedestrian in its stupidity and credulity.

  37. Horatio says

    *Sigh* This is typical 911 true believer reasoning…

    Yes, you’re right Ewan. The idea that our ruling elites would stage a false-flag terrorist attack in order to launch endless wars of aggression is crazy. Our rulers don’t wage criminal wars of aggression. Well, actually they do, don’t they? But the war in Iraq was about destroying Saddam’s WMDs… wait, no, it was to bring democracy or something. It certainly wasn’t about oil or the billions made by a handful of greedy corporations while bleeding the tax-payers dry, killing thousands of Americans not to mentions well over a million Iraqis… or was it?

    But if 911 was a staged event, surely our scrappy media would have exposed it long ago. Think of their stellar performance during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. They were cheerleaders for war, they spoke with one voice and faithfully parroted government lies. But hey, they were a few disingenuous mea culpas afterwards.

    But you can’t imaging our oligarchs pulling off 911. So, let’s forget about all of the eyewitness testimony about explosions or molten steel. Steel framed buildings coming down at free fall speed because of fire, sure why not? Destruction of evidence… Yawn. OR maybe you don’t know shit about the world you live in and your assumptions about it are utterly meaningless drivel.

    BTW, to say that something which looks exactly like a controlled demolition is a controlled demolition is NOT an extraordinary claim. Saying that this complex procedure was achieved by random fires is an extraordinary claim and all we got in the way of evidence is a silly computer model which doesn’t even accurately reproduce what we see on the footage. But you’re happier believing this extraordinary claim and if it comes from officialdom, you don’t question. Only crazy people do that.

  38. Horatio says

    “In regards to Horatio, I think we’ve wasted enough time on this “skeptic”.”

    I don’t mind being referred to as a quotation skeptic by you lot. Clearly I’m not in your league of scepticism, maybe one day. Who knows? First, I’ll need to get some serious ideological blinders. Then, I’ll have to learn that when the “conspiracy theory” label is attributed to something, the proper response in to regurgitate all of the stereotypes I’ve learnt about “those people”, right on cue like a good Pavlovian dog.

    But how to know if something is a conspiracy theory? If someone says that people in the government were illegally selling arms to Iran in order to fund a terrorist army in Nicaragua, That’s got to be a conspiracy theory. It’s got the government doing illegal things secretly… But wait, that was talked about in the corporate media and a fall guy was found and sent to prison (he’s now on Fox News). OK, if the corporate media talks about it, it’s not a conspiracy theory.

    What if someone says that the CIA were (maybe still are) trafficking illegal drugs into the US in order to fund those Nicaraguan terrorists and who knows what other black budget that needed topping up. That has got to be a conspiracy theory even though Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury did an excellent job documenting the whole thing with some pretty hard evidence to back it up.

    However, the corporate media viciously attacked Gary Webb, not the evidence that he brought but him. They eventually forced the San Jose Mercury to distance itself form the story and post Gary to the proverbial Palookaville. There were even congressional hearings into the matter lead by Senator Kerry who found that “the Contra drug links included…payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies.”

    Maybe scratching the surface but still a pretty damning conclusion. The corporate media responded by basically ignoring the whole thing. So, if the corporate media rejects it, it has got to be a conspiracy theory, right? I think I’ve got it now.

    So, if someone tells me that the CIA is involved in drug trafficking or that they are largely responsible for the crack epidemic of the 80’s, I will respond with such brilliant observations as “Come on, drug trafficking would require dozens or hundreds of people, planes and things like that. How could they possibly do it without anyone noticing? It’s a ludicrous idea” or “Yeah right, the CIA dealing drugs… with the help of lizard-men, I’m sure…LOL”.

    I think I’m ready now. It won’t be easy. I’m used to judging claims on their own merit without all of this mental baggage but I’ll try to hone my reflexes in order to join your little clueless club…

  39. curtcameron says

    Horatio, no one wants to read about your 9/11 conspiracy bullshit here. This is a place for discussion of religion. If you want to have a 9/11 discussion/debate, the Straight Dope site that I mentioned earlier is the place to do it.

  40. Ewan Macdonald says

    Horatio, you’re a time-waster. I explained where the sulfur came from. You completely ignored it. You are the very definition of an “unsinkable rubber duck” and I haven’t the time, expertise, or desire to deprogram you. Goodbye.

  41. Horatio says

    Dear Ewan,

    You can “explain” that the sulfur was from the gypsum, as was first proposed, or you can “explain” that it was from the diesel fuel but in reality you aren’t explaining anything. What could have explained the presence of sulfur on the steel would have been a thorough examination of the steel as FEMA recommended. This was not done. The steel was quickly destroyed instead. This is the point you are completely ignoring.

    I’m no more a time waster than you are, dumbass. I’m simply responding to comments directed at or about me. Why are you wasting people’s time with your pointless comments? Go back to deprogramming your rubber duck. With any luck he’ll manage to deprogram you.

  42. gwen says

    Nothing like a podcast on 9/11 to bring out all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Don’t bother to refute their logic, being a 9/11 ‘truther’ has NOTHING to do with logic. It is a waste of your time.

  43. Horatio says

    Now you see, people just keep calling me back here and when I see ignorance I must respond. The bottom line, Gwen, is that there are many serious problems with the way 911 was investigated and there are many serious problems with the explanations given for what happened. The list of people questioning what we’ve been told and demanding a new investigation is long and getting longer.

    As I’ve stated in earlier posts, this list is full of scientists, architects, engineers, firefighters, pilots, former military & intelligence people, Victims’ family members, etc. Now you can put your head in the sand, pretend everything is fine and call anyone who wants a new investigation crazy or stupid, but don’t kid yourself that you’re being in any way logical. To me you just sound like someone who is being manipulated with terms like “conspiracy theory”…

    No matter what you believe about the events of 911, we’re clearly talking about a conspiracy. An attempt to explain a conspiracy is a theory. This is true if we’re talking about 19 Jihadis + Bin Laden or not… Try seeing beyond simplistic labels and think for yourself.

  44. curtcameron says

    Horatio, why don’t you go down to the bus station and tell everyone there about it. I’m sure they’ll be more interested in hearing this bullshit than we are. This just isn’t the place to discuss 9/11 conspiracies.

    If you want to have a discussion with people who will engage you, head on over to the Straight Dope.

  45. Horatio says

    Well, Curt, I’m beginning to think this is the place for this discussion. From what I’m seeing from you 911 true believers, there is clearly a lot of cultish dogmatism in your thinking. I really don’t see much of a difference between the way you people use the label “conspiracy theorist” and Scientology’s label SP (Suppressive Person). The purpose is the same. When this term is attributed to someone, the faithful are meant to turn off their brains and aggressively denounce the person in question.

    In Scientology, you don’t question the words of L. Ron Hubbard and for you people questioning the holy truth handed down to you from officialdom (government, corporate media) is equally sacrilegious. Besides, if you want to stop hearing from me, simply talk about something else. It’s pretty simple really.

  46. says

    Horatio, you aren’t getting the message. Nobody here wants to continue to argue with you about 9/11 building collapse conspiracy theories. As curtcameron said, this is not the place for it, and judging by your recent postings,you do not understand this.
    You also seem to be coming round to the point of view that attempts by others to end this discussion mean you have “won”. You haven’t. People here have simply tired of trying to hold a dialogue with a brick wall.

  47. Horatio says

    Graham, so you revive a discussion that’s been dead for a week in order to tell me that I should end the discussion!?! That’s brilliant… That’s just absolutly brilliant. Thank you for that priceless comment.

    The reason I commented on this blog in the first place was say that there are very good, scientic, rational reasons to doubt the offical story of 9/11 and I object to the brainless parrotting of the usual “crazy conspiracy” clichés, as was done on this episode, by people who clearly only have a superficial undersatnding of the topic.

    People then commented on my comments and I replied. But somehow, in your tiny mind, I am some evil bastard who is forcing this issue on everyone!!! Really Graham… Thanks again for this utterly pointless comment.

  48. Horatio says

    Crudely, thanks for not seeing me as evil but I have looked at this issue from both sides and all angles. I’m not someone who watches Loose Change and was convinced. In fact, if that was the only thing out there questioning the official theory, I would have rejected the whole thing as well.

    I’m not an atheist because I don’t know the bible. I know it quite well, and that is why I am an atheist. Similarly, I don’t reject the official theory because I don’t know it. I know it quite well and that is why I reject it. I think what NIST has produced is a mockery of science and I think future generations will agree with me.

    I have to admit that I grew up as a leftist, reading Chomsky from a relatively early age. He did teach me that our ruling elite are a criminal class and that the corporate media are their faithful servants. So, the idea that 9/11 was an inside job isn’t a giant leap for me. It may be for people with a different upbringing.

    Now before anyone brings this up, I know Chomsky rejects that idea the 9/11 was an inside job. But what I learned from him is critical thinking and I think his reasoning on this topic is full of nonsense, so I reject it… I don’t think he would disagree with me on that.

    You think I’m mislead, I think you are mislead… I think an honest look at the evidence would prove me right. Let’s have a real investigation and see…

  49. Verimius says

    Wanna know why 9/11 could not have been a government conspiracy? It was brilliantly conceived and executed, that’s why.

    Every one is more or less mad on one point.
    –Rudyard Kipling

  50. Horatio says

    Well, that’s a pretty weak argument. After all the CIA backed Coup in Iran that overthrew the democratically elected Mosaddegh to replace him with the brutal dictatorship of the Shah in 1953 was a well conceived and executed operation. As was the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala, which again overthrew a democratically elected Leader to be replaced by a brutal dictator. And again in 1973 in Chile… Of course, I’m omitting a bunch of other successful CIA operations.

    Maybe it’s only the corrupt puppets that we elect and see on TV that are incompetent because they are paid to be that way, like Obama, a corporate shill if I’ve ever seen one. Maybe the people pulling their stings aren’t so incompetent. Besides, I don’t think 9/11 was so brilliantly conceived and executed. I don’t know were flight 93 was supposed to hit but I don’t think it was in Pennsylvanian. I don’t think WTC 7 was meant to come down at 5:20 PM. Maybe the two were meant to meet?

    Of course there is also the anthrax attacks. In the letters you had your usual Jihadi banter and they were all dated 9/11. Also, you has the weird incident where Mohammed Atta showed up at a bank prior to 9/11 requesting a loan to start a crop dusting business. His behaviour during this meeting was very strange and very suspicious, not the behaviour of someone trying to lay low.

    In any case, after the anthrax attacks there were plenty of corporate media types pointing the finger at Iraq. But then disaster struck, the samples fell into the hands of some honest people. They said that this was not the strain sent to Iraq and that it clearly came from a US military Bio-weapons facility. Then, the corporate media stopped talking about this… Until years later when someone in this industry committed suicide. Everything was pinned on him despite the fact that no one in that industry thinks that the FBI’s story is the least bit credible. Who cares? The guy’s dead, they don’t have to prove anything in court. The corporate media faithfully reported this garbage and never looked back.

    Clearly the anthrax was meant to tie Iraq into 9/11 but it failed… They invaded anyways because of WMD’s or something… So our government are very skillful at creating all of this murder and mayhem abroad but you really think they never bring it home? Noooo, our vigilant corporate media would NEVER let them get away with that… in your dreamland maybe.

  51. says

    Do you mind if I quote a few of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your webpage? My blog site is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my visitors would truly benefit from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Thanks a lot!

  52. says

    I enjoy you because of your own work on this web page. My aunt loves getting into research and it is easy to understand why. A lot of people notice all of the compelling form you convey vital things by means of the web site and as well boost contribution from some other people on the theme so our favorite simple princess is learning a lot. Enjoy the rest of the new year. You’re the one doing a terrific job.

  53. says

    Remember that you should take your child into your local
    retailer, at very least to get his or her size updated.
    This spring they will continue to be seen in animal prints and pastel colours with bows and jewels adding something a little special and a little bit of glamour.

    Thus, the expected growth and demand for CSR providers are expected to


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *