9/11 Fact Sheet | 911Blogger.com

Blogads

Banner Exchange

Submitted by GeorgeWashington on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 12:45am.

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

1. Isn't 9/11 a partisan political issue, where extremists in one party are simply trying to smear the other party for political gain?

No, credible people from across the spectrum question 9/11 (Internet Explorer required). See also this website.

2. Isn't it disrepectful to the victims of 9/11 and their families to question the events of that day?

No. Many of the families of the victims question the official story and are demanding that the truth be disclosed.

3. Isn't it clear that Mulsims carried out 9/11, and the war on terror is a clash of civilizations and religions? Therefore, isn't 9/11 skepticism harmful to our faith?

Actually, 9/11 truth is a vital issue for all people of faith. That is why prominent Christian theoligians state that 9/11 was an inside job, and prominent Jewish scholars and rabbis say that uncovering the truth of 9/11 has the power to bring positive, lasting change to our nation and to our world.

4. Isn't this kind of thinking really a psychological problem? And isn't it promoted by anti-semites?

Not at all. Some very prominent psychologists question the government's version of 9/11, as do many people of Jewish faith. See also this petition.

5. Aren't conspiracy theories anti-American, and isn't all the questioning of 9/11 part of what's wrong with America today?

Questioning our government is part of what it means to be a patriot and to love your country.

6. Doesn't questioning 9/11 distract from much more important issues facing America today?

On the contrary, it is one of the very most important issues facing our country, and is closely connected with other problems we face.

7. But the government would NEVER hurt its own people. At least not intentionally.

Actually, the U.S. government -- and many other Western governments -- have done so before. Initially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually approved a plan to carry out terrorist attacks and kill U.S. citizens and blame it on Cuba, as a justification for invading Cuba. And a government informant has stated that he tried to stop the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but that the FBI intentionally let the bombing happen. There are many other examples of other governments killing their own people for political gain, and the U.S. government doing killing its own as well.

As additional examples of the U.S. government letting U.S. citizens die based upon deceptions, many people breathed in highly toxic dust near ground zero, after the government knowingly misrepresented the risk, going as far as discouraging first responders from wearing masks. The U.S. government also misled the American people into the Iraqi war, causing thousands of American deaths.

8. Terrorists crashing planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly unexpected in 2001, wasn't it?

No, it was not unexpected.

9. But there is always confusion in any battle situation. Wasn't it the "fog of war" which prevented a successful response to the 9/11 attacks?

It was not the fog of war. Instead, it was the multiple war games, including hijack exercises involving real planes, and the injection of fake radar blips onto air traffic controller's screens which prevented the good people in the military from stopping the attacks from succeeding against their targets in New York and at the Pentagon.

10. Wouldn't a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people have been necessary to carry out 9/11, and wouldn't someone have spilled the beans by now if there really was a conspiracy?

Not necessarily. In fact, a small handful of people could have pulled it off.

11. Let's get back to the government's failure to stopping or intercepting the attacks. If the U.S. government wasn't perfect in stoping the 9/11 attacks, wasn't it due to a series of innocent mistakes or -- at the very worst -- incompetence?

Initially, the incompetence argument doesn't really pan out, and appearances may be deceiving. And there are many examples of the U.S. faking intelligence in order to promote its political goals.

Moreover, the government has not acted like it is trying to close vulnerabilities or fix problems which supposedly were unforeseeable before 9/11. Why wouldn't such vulnerabilities be corrected if they were the real cause of 9/11?

And there has been a clear government cover-up of the facts of 9/11. Why would the government work so hard to cover up the true facts of 9/11, going so far as to repeatedly misrepresent the facts and change its story, if incompetence was the only problem with the official story?

And, apparently, fake evidence was planted to implicate certain people for 9/11. Why would fake evidence be needed if the offical was true? Do innocent people plant fake evidence?

12. Didn't a government agency come clean about their mistaken timeline, solving the whole 9/11 "conspiracy" once and for all?

Norad's newest "confession" is just the latest of multiple, completely conflicting versions of what happened on 9/11 (also listen to this interview).

Moreover, the latest statements by the military simply attempt to scapegoat one government agency, since the previous attempts to blame other agencies made no sense.

13. Isn't talk about "demolition" of the Twin Towers just a crazy theory by a couple of nutty people?

In fact, a lot of credible eyewitness testimony supports this theory, and more and more credible experts are discussing this theory every day.

14. But no one could have planted all of tons of explosives needed to bring down the Twin Towers without people noticing, right?

No, that is not true.

15. If rogue elements within the U.S. government did cause 9/11, why would they have used bombs to bring down the Twin Towers, when crashing planes into the buildings would have been sufficient to act as a "Pearl Harbor" type justification for war?

Apparently, for its shock and awe effect, which made for a very overwhelmed, afraid, and thus compliant population.

16. I've heard claims made by the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" which have turned out to be false. Doesn't that invalidate the whole 9/11 thing?
No, for two reasons. First, there are so many lines of evidence which overwhelmingly prove that 9/11 was an inside job, that even if one or two theories are disproven, the basic thesis still stands.

Moreover, there are some people who are simply sloppy in their thinking, and who throw out unfounded theories which do not stand up to scrutiny. In addition, there are, unfortunately, disruptive people who are working hard to make crazy claims to intentionally discredit the movement. This is a traditional tactic for undermining those who question the government.

» login to post comments | printer friendly version

» login to post comments | 0 points

Just a comment.

After reading through the posts & comments, I have to say. These lars & abg characters are a great addition. I commend whomever decided to get a couple of simpletons to post their tripe & prove how moronic the official story & its supporters are.

Kudos.

Submitted by Big_D (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 12:59am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

True

These guys inject some much needed comic relief into this blog. I can't wait to see what these half-wits come up with next.

Submitted by strom on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 7:43am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Actually reality bites you hard

I interject facts and you haven't refuted either me or the other guy.

Here's a fact that no one can debunk:
New Analysis of Explosives at WTC Towers

No explosives, no "9/11 was an inside job.

This Washington guy repeatedly commits logical fallacies and avoids providing evidence that the towers were brought down by explosives or that the governement DID commit anything to cause the attacks or knew they were going to happen.

As always, it leaves you less-than-half wits flapping in the wind to our great amusement, strom.

Submitted by lars (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 7:52am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

I love this nugget from Implosion World

"Many unprecedented things happened on 9/11. To draw any specific correlation between how many buildings were destroyed and the reason for their collapse runs counter to logic and common sense." (p. 10 of your flimsy Implosion World hit peice)

Actually, this is how you court jesters approach every single anomally which occurred before, during, and after 9/11. "Don't make correlations, because it's just stupid to do so." Yet, the doofball writing the above paper relies on all kinds of correlations and assumptions. And, he dismisses evidence which is obtained from numerous sources.

For instance, the Implosion World representative, instead of tackling head on the multitude of witness testimonies concerning explosions, he dismisses them outright, because they don't mesh with his theories. He also dismisses the many claims of molten steel at Ground Zero, and does not address photograhic evidence and thermal satellite images showing the extreme temperatures at the building sites.

He also gives absolutely no insight into Building 7.

The guy is a loser. His paper was directed at people like yourself, who already live in a dream world. He knows his arguments don't hold water. He damn well knows that without controlled demolition, even if the towers possibly could have fallen, they would not have fallen at even close to free fall speeds.

I bet he looks at those videos of Building 7, and secretly thinks to himself , "That was a flawless, textbook implosion."

Submitted by strom on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 8:55am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

You're dreaming

You have nothing to back up your claims accept for a bunch of amateur conspiracists who've alredy been debunked.

Incredible that you would expect us to believe unqualified people instead of qualified experts. But that is the nature of the illness of pathological denial. Just dismiss everything that doesn't fit your desperate conclusions.

Your claim that by just looking at a video that looks like an implosion only makes a laughing stock of your claims, particulalry since the videos clearly show that it took around 14 seconds for wtc 7 to collapse.

You need to wake up and come out of your dream world, strom.

Submitted by abg (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 9:32am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Wake up and come out of your dream world, abg.

It's quite arguable, as evidence abounds... that YOU are the one holding onto a rather desperate, and particularly dangerous conclusion; That the U.S. Government is in the service of, and within answerability to, the American people.

The danger is when people blindly trust in an untrustworthy protector, compounding danger with danger when that same "protector" is drunk on power and its illusion of control.

Submitted by Erin S. Myers on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 9:43am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

14 seconds?

Seriously, stop watching the video in slo-mo. Even assuming that the building fell in the time that you state (which is an amazing stretch), 14 seconds is extremely fast, and it's brevity highlights the indisputable fact that resistance was removed from the path of the falling structure. Demolition explains this well.

Really though, why don't you just go hang out on Conspiracy Smasher's blog, where you'll at least find a little comraderie and support for you're laughable arguments. Otherwise, your weak explanations will just continue to fall apart like wet toilet paper in the illuminating light of truth and fact.

Submitted by strom on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 9:54am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

More like 13 seconds

An analysis of this conclusive CBS video shows that the total collapse time is closer to 13 seconds than 14 seconds.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4AYBbvtnSp4

It is obvious from the penthouse collapses that internal collapses were taking place well before the building failure.

As for it being extremely fast, all buildings fall very fast, because of gravity. When the support provided by the internal structure was finally exceeded the building collapsed at the speed of gravity.

But 13 seconds is recorded as the collapse time for WTC 7 since it is the total time of the collapse. BTW, the theory that explosives brought the building down has been conclusively shown to be false.

Submitted by tom spencer (not verified) on Wed, 09/20/2006 - 7:26am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

It's pretty obvious you are

It's pretty obvious you are a shrill. You'd think the government could produce a better psuedo-poster, but you are proof that they can't. The whole 'crazy' bit is getting old. The Bush Admin is in deep shit, no amount of psuedo-posting can save their asses now.

Submitted by 9 (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 1:36pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Ok, I've read through this

Ok, I've read through this report. How convenient it must be to simply dismiss all the witness testimonies that doesn't support their own debunking, yet come up with anonymous sources that do.

1.Have they made the seismographic data available?
2. They assume the towers would have to be rigged with explosives between the time of impact and collapse.
3. They admit to not having an adequate explanation to what happened to WTC7.

Submitted by fhb on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 8:59am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

troll

Submitted by 9 (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 1:31pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Not so fast my friend

Jim Hoffman has issued a first draft of his rebuttal to Blanchard here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 9:41pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

If NIST can do a fact sheet,

so can we.

Submitted by GeorgeWashington on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 1:31am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

a small handful

Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts: “It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.”

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

Pyle’s argument is fallacious and contrary to the precedence set by various criminal organizations, spy networks, assassination squads and even organized religion. The total number of whistleblowers in criminal organizations [e.g., the Italian or J*wish Mafia] has never exceeded a few throughout the many decades despite all of the atrocities committed by such organizations against the society.

Submitted by an observer (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 6:20am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Not to mention that he's a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TEACHER

My Con Law teacher is an expert at First Amendment rights, the Civil Rights Movement, and pre-eminent domain issues. But I highly doubt he is qualified to make arguments concerning how many operatives it would take to pull off a technically complex covert operation, or whether those involved were capable of keeping a secret.

Further, as a trained legal professional, he could effectively argue either side of the issue. That doesn't make him right.

This weiner just wanted his name in the article.

Submitted by strom on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 7:39am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

a small handful

The best way to counter the ridiculous "it would require too many people" malarky is simply this:

"If it would require too many people, then how did a few 'Islamic Fanatics' and one boss man (Osama Bin Missing) pull it off? Are you suggesting that the only way to keep an operation of this magnitude secret is to plan it from the privacy of an Afghani (sp?) cave, as opposed to a good ol' American, oak-panelled office?"

Stops debunkers in their dumb-ass tracks. You'll get the "but, but, but,..." response every time.

QED

Submitted by Mel (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 10:17pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Nice work,

but I suggest offering a highly compartmentalized (aka small group) insider explanation doesn't fit with the rest of 'fact sheet' Q and A.

It simply isn't a fact, it's conjecture even if well thought out conjecture. The tendency to derive second, third, etc, derivative conclusions like this is potentially damaging. All of the arguments can be won using facts, even dispassionate facts!

Submitted by Anti-Lars (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 2:09am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Time estimate

How long would it take for a team of

a) 10 experts
b) 20 experts
c) 50 experts
d) 100 experts

to wire up each of the Twin Towers and prepare them for the demolition?

Submitted by anonym (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 2:43am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Why not just....?

Why bother? Why not just pour some gas on the floor of every high-rise and bring them all down?

They say you need to wire the whole building if you're using thermate, but why not just use a little kerosene on the top floor instead? Apparently that's all that's needed.......

Fucking bastards.

Submitted by Visitor on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 3:01am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

War Games Plus One

Again, the mention of the war games is excellent. It's the topic that the regime and debunkers most want to avoid.

IMPORTANT: At the time many of the descriptions of the war games were written (including the link cited here), we knew about five war games. In fact, since then another has been discovered, and there may have been even more. So make that SIX war games, which further bolsters our case that THIS is what allowed the "hijacked" aircraft to proceed unmolested.

Submitted by Rice Farmer (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 3:17am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Yes, to which some people

Yes, to which some people answer: "They knew about the drills, hence have choosen that day. That does not proove a conspiracy".

Submitted by em7 on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 3:54am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Paralyzing Air Defenses

That alone doesn't PROVE anything, except that no military commander in his right mind would allow so many drills to be carried out simultaneously. Air defenses were in fact paralyzed by the drills. And the shredding of the tape of testimony by air traffic controllers is all the more damning.

Submitted by Rice Farmer (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 4:41am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Flip-Floppers

Some "guys" claim to hate the government when they think the income tax is the only thing keeping them from dating Swedish bikini bimbos and driving Hummers. Then they turn around and give the government a long slow Monica Lewinsky when it's carrying guns and killing brown people. Don't bother them with evidence, physics, or logic--it's all about their own dicks and egos and their celebrity worship of thugs with more money and power than they have. It's all about proving their obedience to authority. Reality is whatever they're told it is by that authority, whether it's the boss, the church, or Dick Cheney. Life's simpler that way.

To quote Mark Twain: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." And while it might be fun to annoy the pig, there are better uses of our time and energy.

Submitted by Timber (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 11:23am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Trillions of Dollars

I bring up the missing trillions with people a lot, to try and give them a perspective on the amount of bribes that could have been handed out during all of this... It seems people have a hard time actually comprehending a 'trillion dollars' (much less three), it's difficult to understand where that money came from, and it's also damn hard to imagine what they could have spent it on. I would guess that I'm one of those people...

Anyway, for some reason I was thinking about Contact, and that whole scene (er chapter) where they talk about how much the machine cost, and how the US could justify building a second one for twice the cost. The final price tag for each one was a third of a trillion, or $600 billion total. I think that was also around the original NASA price estimate for a mission to Mars, which freaked out Congress and killed even the slightest chance of it ever happening. I can't think of anything else equivalently expensive, much less something five times as costly (fictional or not).

Of course it's easy for money to disappear 'electronically' these days, so for all we know it got churned though corporate stock games and shoveled off-shore (perhaps partially through computers destroyed minutes later in the WTC). But it's also kinda cool to speculate what kind of crazy shit they could have built... Like underground superfortresses with crazy government agencies we don't even know exist (bigger and deeper and more evil than the ones that already exist), that kinda stuff. Maybe they built Cheney a new heart that runs on antimatter or something. Or dark matter, more likely... Any other ideas?

Submitted by Anoonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 5:20am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

See this story

http://digg.com/world_news/2300000000000_Dollars

2,300,000,000,000 is the amount of Dollars STILL misssing. I haven't heard of any investigations or any news updates from the main stream media since about five years. 2.3 trillion Dollars is 8000 Dollars for every human being in the U. S.! You can bribe 2.3 million people by giving them one million bucks EACH. It is the 2.3 times the yearly U.S. budget!

Rumsfeld admitted that he (the DoD) can't account for 2.3 trillion Dollars one day before 9/11. And this is just an "estimation" - we know what this means.

Submitted by Flood (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 8:28am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

What 2 Trillion Dollars Looks Like....

Here is an illustration of a man, standing next to his car, parked next to a pile of 315 billion one dollar bills:

http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/

I had nothing to do with the creation of the above. However, a while back (before I heard the new figure of 3 trillion) I extended the above illustration to make the pile 2 trillion dollars (for my own edification):

http://www.freewebs.com/alexcarson/2trillion.JPG

If more peole saw this, maybe we'd have a national uproar and get some answers.

Submitted by Alex on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 10:58am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

After all that beating around the bush...nothing

G Washington,

I hope you realize that you need to provide evidence of explosive demolition to make any concept of 9/11 being an inside job a reality.

The question is precisely that you haven't and can't.

No explosives, no "9/11 was an inside job." Not even your hero Jon Gold can do provide evidence.

New Analysis of Explosives at WTC Towers

Submitted by lars (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 7:58am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

lars

Can you please explain to me why the 911 committee said that the people that funded 911 were irrevelant when almost all conspiracy convictions are made through tracking the money?

Submitted by Truth for a Change on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 8:29am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

He can't

He can't explain why it's acceptable that the Bush Administration vetted each and every chapter of the report before its' release. He can't explain why a man who's self described expertise, creating "public myths", was put in charge of the commission. He can't explain why it is acceptable for the President and Vice President of the United States to testify behind closed doors, not under oath, with no recordings, and not without each other. He can't explain why it was acceptable to send Richard Armitage in place of Condoleezza Rice. He can't explain why the perjury that Condi took part in during her testimony is acceptable. He can't explain why limiting both the financing and the time to investigate the murder of 3000 people is acceptable. He can't explain why omissions about Sibel Edmonds, the Wargames, Robert Wright, Building 7, Pakistani involvement, Norman Mineta's testimony, etc... are acceptable. He can't explain why it is acceptable for NORAD to give us 7 stories about their response that morning. He can't explain why the 9/11 Report cited Cheney's arrival at the PEOC by 9:58 when all best accounts have him there at 9:10.

There are a lot of things "lars" can't explain. So instead he calls us names, and lies about us.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Submitted by Jon Gold on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 8:54am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

You've been called on it: present evidence

Your behavior continues to give you away Jon Gold. You sit there and make insinuations yet when asked to back up your claim that 9/11 was an inside job, you can't and you won't.

What are you afraid of?

I think we know. You can't refute the facts and you don't have any evidence to back you up. You can't explain what evidence there is to back you up.

Submitted by abg (not verified) on Tue, 09/19/2006 - 9:37am.

Recent Headlines

Recent Media

Action Items

Blogads

Banner Exchange

User login

9/11 Inquiry Sites

9/11 Regional Sites

9/11 Related Sites

9/11 International Sites

9/11 Memorial Sites

News and Blogs

RSS Feeds

Web Stuff