Appenzell
Switzerland
A Daily Compendium
of Free-Market Thinking
The Daily Bell Newswire - It's FREE!    


News & Analysis

Washington Times Covers 9/11 Controversy

Thursday, February 25, 2010 – by  Staff Report


A lingering technical question about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still haunts some, and it has political implications: How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center. "In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially, exploded outwards," says Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Mr. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than 1,000 of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry. "The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers' destruction. We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials," Mr. Gage adds. –Washington Times

Dominant Social Theme: Something we, the mainstream media, need to mention at least in passing ...

Free-Market Analysis: We have no idea what happened on 9/11. But since 9/11 Commission members have reportedly disavowed the full government's story – and one has written a book claiming the commission was serially lied to by the Bush administration, the FBI, CIA, etc. – we have to conclude that there are elements of the official story that are not entirely accurate. We would think that the US government would want to get to the bottom of such a serious matter, in some way or other.

Now the Washington Times, a mainstream, beltway newspaper, is seemingly opening up the issue again. There was no need to cover yet another "trufers" story and yet the Times has done so – to the astonishment of the alternative blogosphere. We think, not to make a pun, that this is in fact a sign of the times. The pressure to understand what really happened on 9/11 simply won't go away. It is all over the 'Net and is in fact gaining momentum in our opinion.

After the Kennedy assassination there were many questions – and one grainy "Zapruder" film played over and over for decades. But the Warren Commission never disavowed its conclusion, that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman and a bullet that travelled in all directions at once. The 9/11 Commission (some of its members anyway) has.

Because of the Internet, there are literally millions of pictures and comments about the tragic attack. This is a matter of degrees, to be sure, but degrees matter. The impact of so much commentary – and conflicting information – seen by so many, gradually builds up. It becomes a force that cannot be traduced. The circumstances surrounding 9/11 are then qualitatively different than those around Kennedy's death.

We have, for instance, thought long and hard why law professor and Rutger's Dean John Farmer would want to come out with a book that basically accused the entire Washington establishment of lying about 9/11. It only occurred to us lately that Dean Farmer was WORRIED. The 9/11 Commission's conclusions are flawed. Farmer, perhaps sanguine at one point about his role, realized one day that he was right in the middle of what would appear to be a cover-up. So he set out to rectify his situation. Now he cannot be accused. He points his seasoned finger elsewhere.

There is a rude term that describes what Farmer has done. The point is, when your top people begin pointing fingers, the cover-up, whatever it is, is unraveling. Again, we don't know what people in Washington were – or are – up to. Farmer seems to think it was incompetence of a sort, and subsequent denial. But perhaps it goes deeper than that.

But, no, we don't know. And before we receive any feedbacks blasting us for accusing the government of organizing or orchestrating 9/11, we will state for the record that that is not our intention, nor our purpose. We have not a single clue about what actually occurred on 9/11! Nor is it our responsibility – even within the ambit of the alternative press – to "investigate." You try to investigate the CIA, Pentagon and FBI, dear reader. There are, to be sure, sensitivities there that are fairly beyond imagining. Here's an article excerpt about Farmer's book that appeared in the Salem-News:

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies ... In John Farmer's book: "The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue ... The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission. Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report. ... Farmer states..."at some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described. ... The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin." ... In 2006, The Washington Post reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission..."

9/11 has been the proximate cause for two major US wars. The Middle East is in flames and the conflagration may get worse before it gets better, with major implications for the entire world. Given what has occurred – and the nature of the stakes – doesn't it make sense to get a fuller and more accurate accounting of what REALLY took place on 9/11? Doesn't the US government owe it to the voters? Wouldn't any representative government want to give its citizens an honest accounting? There are so many questions beyond the fate of the buildings themselves. Perhaps these questions are based on flawed information! Perhaps they are the outcome of paranoid thinking. The way to put them to bed is with a thorough, impartial and transparent investigation.

The Internet is a process. Those within the US government that do not want to provide a more honest accounting of what took place should realize that there is no damage control (short perhaps of a nuclear war) that will put an end to the general public's need to know. It was too big a deal. And too much has happened since then – including the abrogation of civil rights in America, warrantless wiretapping, assertions of torture, rendition, etc. America has changed. The world has changed. But the official 9/11 story remains the same despite its obvious flaws.

The Internet is a great eroder of power elite memes – like the Gutenberg press before it. People may forget, or in some cases are unaware, that Roman Catholic Church leaders' of the time were confident that the Church's faux-liturgy regarding the purchase of various absolutions ("buying" one's way into heaven as Led Zeppelin has famously put it) would not be exposed. But once people began to read the actual Bible, the truth came out. One couldn't guarantee one's arrival in heaven by buying old bones of Saints. There was nothing in the Bible about it, despite what the Church might maintain or imply. Communication advances are merciless that way. Cover-ups developed prior to the technology tend to fall after the fact.

We've long held that dominant social themes would disintegrate (to a degree) as the Internet began to bite. We have been surprised, recently, how fast this seems to be happening. The themes having to do with 9/11 and the war on terror would seem to be the last to fall because they are among the most important to the elite and help protect the military industrial complex – in America especially. But what we projected might happen in five, ten, even twenty years time seems to be happening a lot more quickly now, perhaps because the economic crisis has so focused people's minds and made them more apt to question official judgments.

Conclusion: Yesterday, the Washington Times covered an important 9/11 story once again. It was supposed to be dead by now. As dead as Jack Kennedy. Yet articles and research regarding 9/11 are posted to the Internet every day. They are like drops of water that erode the hard shell of the established government narrative.

Post Feedback

We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.






View Feedback

Posted by Boatman on 2/25/2010 7:39:45 AM

I see the loudest architect is from communist san francisco.....10,000 gals jet fuel n fire=red hot weak steel 1 million tons of steel sitting on top of it=collapse.......get off of it.........NEXT.....

Posted by WatchingOut on 2/25/2010 8:51:48 AM

Who should "get off it?" The Washington Times? Dean Farmer of Rutgers?

Posted by V. Heddins on 2/25/2010 9:19:06 AM

No rational person could have taken the 911 commission to be anything more than a Broadway performance and the scientist in this case need to be answered with facts.

I have noticed that over the years many facts have been scrubbed from the Kennedy assisnation such as who financed Jack Ruby's strip club in Dallas which was a smoking gun. That is why now is when we must have a real accounting of 911.

Posted by Wake Up! on 2/25/2010 9:53:27 AM

FYI: Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken structural steel to the point of failure. There are more questions than answers to this story.

Perhaps one day, we will know the truth. I for one do not buy into the government(s) story of what really happened that day.

Why would you believe a pathological liar like the federal government?

They don't lie about certain things, they lie about everything!

Posted by Mike Phenow on 2/25/2010 9:57:18 AM

@Boatman

"I see the loudest architect is from communist san francisco.....10,000 gals jet fuel n fire=red hot weak steel 1 million tons of steel sitting on top of it=collapse.......get off of it.........NEXT....."

The "loudest" architect lives in a locale the majority of whose population tends to be liberal. This discredits his professional opinion as an architect. Everyone who questions the validity of a deeply problematic official story is a commie pinko.

One thousand professional architects and engineers, all commie pinkos, are eager to put their name on a controversial public document that has the potential jeopardize their reputations and careers.

I am a firefighter who has studied building construction and fire behavior. Jet fuel, mostly kerosene, does not burn anywhere near hot enough or long enough to weaken steel even the slightest bit, especially with a vent hole the size of a jetliner.

Most of the fuel was burnt off in the initial explosion -- witness the people standing and waving from the impact hole. The building was designed to sustain multiple impacts from commercial jetliners. In fact it had sustained one without issue in the past.

No steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, in the history of modern construction, ever, though many have burned much longer and hotter.The building did not "collapse" as your scenario would suggest. If that were the case, it would have collapsed much more slowly, asymmetrically, and left massive chucks of the building intact.

As it happened, the buildings came down at free-fall speed, approximately ten floors per second, leaving nothing but small scraps and tons of dust (in which was found immense amounts of chemicals known exclusively to the high-tech demolition industry).

These are just a few of the hundreds of problems with the official story. What does that tell us?

As The Bell says, not much, except that the official story is still worthy of reexamination.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Yes, there are still more questions than answers in our opinion. It is important to answer the questions because of all that has flowed from 9/11 including two wars, public distrust etc. A real accounting would put a close to this sad chapter and patriotic Americans should wish for such.

Posted by 911 Issues on 2/25/2010 10:42:14 AM

The Journal of 9/11 Research and 9/11 Issues ...

Yes, there are issues with 9/11!

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther

Kinghttp://Click to View Link/ Worth a look.

Posted by Bill on 2/25/2010 11:26:32 AM

Great Article-Yes there have been questions raised about 911 from Day 1.

Dick Cheney was in charge of the skies that day. If all of the events are tied together than one or two obvious disconcerting events should put the whole "attack" in question. That so many engineers and architects question the events raises questions and the fact that a huge Boeing 757 made such a small hole in the Pentagon and the tail which should have damaged windows above the hole-left the windows intact?

Despite the Purdue University analysis for the government,there remain big questions, I recommend the DVD: 911: In Plane Sight which shows video taken that day and Never again shown on mainstream news.

One eyewitness says as the second plane hits the second tower, basically "that's not an American Airlines plane" and another says it was gray and lacked passenger windows. Why has the government not released videos from the Pentagon? As long as there is doubt and controversy and mainstream media support we may never know for sure what happened.

Posted by Helmut Lange on 2/25/2010 12:26:23 PM

I've seen videos of the outward explosions. But as a non-scientist, who am I to judge those observations? Thank God for Richard Gage and 1,000 architects. Their professional scrutiny supports structures of truth and challenges our institutions to uphold it - if you'll pardon the puns.

Posted by Rev. Dean Kavouras on 2/25/2010 12:38:06 PM

FYI: this new background with the pictures doesn't scroll on my computer. Your previous format worked perfectly, just like all other things I view did and still do.

Posted by John W on 2/25/2010 12:49:27 PM

This moment was broadcast live, everyone saw three buildings come down free fall. Exactly the way we have seen buildings come down by controlled demolition. Dan Rather said it, we all said it, but thats not what we heard. The government officials stance, "forget what you saw, listen to what we say".

So much for the voice of the people in a supposed democracy. If it wasn't for the internet no one would have seen the slow motion vidios of the planes going into the buildings, they were not the planes we were told, they had no markings, they had elongated pods on their undercarriages. But if I were a real patriot I would never believe my eyes, I would just hate hate those terrorists.

Posted by Swainsong on 2/25/2010 12:58:54 PM

I agree - Dr Wood has amalgamated the best evidence available to us layfolk. Her theory might be the most "out there" of them all, but it is also the only one that accounts for the actual physical evidence -- and lack thereof, because the buildings did not "collapse". They DISINTEGRATED.

Even if kerosene could melt steel, that doesn't explain WTC 7. Even controlled demolition does not explain WTC 7, or 1 and 2 for that matter, but it certainly makes a good red herring ... a rotting fish whose stench has become rather overwhelming.

And the problems with the Pentagon and Pennsylvania remain, as far as the official explanation goes.

However, I harbour no hope or faith that any government investigation will ever reveal any truth about what really happened and/or who is really responsible. All we can know for sure is that we ain't in Kansas anymore...

Posted by Mpresley on 2/25/2010 5:24:30 PM

Today we live in a world where the most powerful man, the President of the United States, can't get a bimbo hummer in the closet of the White House without the world knowing. But, on the other hand, a mysterious cabal (Bush/Cheney, the Israelis, Jewish bankers?) can knock down two skyscrapers using hi-jacked planes as a cover, yet no one can show any proof of a conspiracy.

Does this scenario make sense to anyone? It's as if although there is no proof, people just "know" it has to be. I guess no one can believe the obvious, anymore. I find the economic analysis on this site first rate, but the voodoo Gnosticism makes me wonder... Sorry for being a contrarian, but someone has to say it.

Posted by Ben on 2/25/2010 6:37:48 PM

Search google for nanoenergetics or "nanostructure energetics". There is a new generation of explosive agents available. Read the papers, this is not wild imagination.

Then read the paper by Niels Harrit.

Posted by Scott on 2/25/2010 8:19:28 PM

What many of the 'scientists' and 'engineers' involved in the so called '911 truth' movements continually fail to account for in their analysis of the behavior of burning kerosene on structural steel is the well documented impact of global warming on the equations; specifically, steel melts easier in a warmer environment and any fool can tell you that.

And they call themselves scientists. Bah!

On a more serious note, the one thing we can all agree on is that we do not know the truth. That fact alone is cause for alarm.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

"That fact alone is cause for alarm."

It should certainly be cause for discussion of a new and more comprehensive investigation.

Posted by MetaCynic on 2/25/2010 10:33:23 PM

Here is something to consider.

Several years ago a severe fire broke out and entirely engulfed the tallest office building in Madrid, a 40 story steel and concrete structure. It took 24 hours for the fire to burn itself out. Some interesting comparisons can be made to what happened on 9/11 at the WTC. The perimeter steel columns of the Madrid tower were being fireproofed since they were not originally protected. About half of the building was fireproofed when the fire broke out.

The columns of the unprotected upper half of the building failed from the heat dropping those floors onto the top floor of the protected lower half. This falling impact did not cause a progressive pancaking of the fire engulfed protected floors as we were told happened at the WTC towers.

The collapse happened gradually and asymmetrically over a period of several hours and not in seconds and symmetrically as at the WTC towers. Debris fell straight down. It was not hurled laterally hundreds of feet as at the WTC. The structurally independent core of the collapsed floors was left standing. At the WTC towers the structurally independent core disintegrated along with the perimeter columns and steel floor joists. The fire raged throughout the entire structure lighting it up like a torch.

At the WTC towers, the fire was confined to the impact floors. Despite exposure to fire for many hours, the protected columns did not fail. At the WTC towers all columns on the burning impact floors collapsed whether or not their fireproofing was torn off by the plane impacts.

Posted by Mpresley on 2/26/2010 6:35:39 AM

It seems to me there are two points. First, whether the witnessed events could have led to the building collapse? This is an engineering problem and will always be open to some question I suppose. The second, and more bizarre, is the idea that unrelated explosives planted by conspirators brought down the building using the airplanes as a mere cover.

The latter point is untenable without some proof, or even a cogent explanation of why? If the buildings had not come down, given the extensive damage, they may well have had to have been salvaged anyway. For a simple matter of effect, two jetliners crashing into a building are just about the equivalent in shock value as the buildings falling. So, if the point of the "unknown" conspirators was just to create a spectacle, bringing down the buildings was unnecessary.

There are enough conventional reasons to explain neoconservative actions (usually offered as reasons for the supposed conspiracy) without having to resort to bizarre speculation. Again, given the lack of evidence, this sort of thing leads to moon-bat territory very quickly. But, some people prefer the exotic over the simple, and will never be satisfied unless there is an esoteric explanation that satisfies their psychological gnosticism.

Posted by Johnny Dangereaux on 2/26/2010 7:07:24 AM

Ummm.....NANO THERMITE

look it up Bell Boys!

The President of the electrical contractor that had been working on the world trade centers is a Skull and Bonesman......Spend some time on AE911TRUTH and you won't be so equivocal.

Ask Max Keiser....the Enron Records were in WTC 7....destroyed forever....


Reply from the Daily Bell:

We don't have to look it up.

Posted by MetaCynic on 2/26/2010 11:38:45 AM

If rogue elements within the U.S. government and not Osama bin Laden were responsible for 9/11, then we could assume that they wanted just enough bang and theater to extract permission from a traumatized Congress and public to go to war, ramp up military and security spending and suspend the Bill of Rights.

I think that simply crashing planes into the buildings would not provide sufficient theater and psychological horror to do the job. Several hundred people would die and that would be it. Whereas grabbing the world's attention on TV with the plane impacts and then dropping two huge towers into a pile of smoking rubble would produce a sufficiently surreal horror to keep the American public in a state of compliant shock for many years.

Who will ever forget the towers' nightmarish disintegration, captured from many cameras all over lower Manhattan? The plane crashes were meant to rivet the world's attention on the event and allow for an evacuation of the buildings. The real show was the collapses. Hollywood could not have staged it better.

The rogue elements could have eliminated the plane crashes from the production and collapsed the buildings without warning. But that scenario would have produced far more casualties than necessary, even that of Wall Street allies, and no shock theater.

Posted by Ben on 2/26/2010 1:48:18 PM

mpresley wrote:"The latter point is untenable without some proof"

Does not the presence on uncombusted explosive material in the dust constitute "some proof"? Did you read the paper by Niels Harrit?

Perhaps you object to there only being a single paper positing the case. To which the response could be made, "Surely there is no shortage of dust left over from the cleanup and this dust was not shipped to Asia like the steel. So the experiment would seem to be repeatable."Drip, drip, drip...

Posted by Controlled Demolition on 2/26/2010 3:54:58 PM

The physics don't lie and the government claim it was the result of jet fuel melting the steel is an extraordinary leap of faith. The twin towers (and ESPECIALLY Building 7) all experienced free fall and terminal velocity. That would be impossible if the buildings had collapsed under conditions of structural failure. If they had, the resistance to the mass would have made the collapse more irregular. You don't need to venture into the waters of conspiracy to see the mathematics of the collapse were clearly a controlled demolition.

Posted by Steve L on 2/26/2010 4:04:41 PM

"untenable without some proof, or even a cogent explanation of why?"

Sometimes the simple explanation is the recognition that history is bound to repeat itself for those who fail to learn from it. Hitler clearly grasped the principle of "The Big Lie" (the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed).

In "Mein Kamph," he clearly articulated his understanding as follows:

"...the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Together with Goebbels, Hitler built upon the principles of Edward Bernaise (see his 1928 book titled "Propaganda" or the recent BBC documentary titled "Century of Self" by Adam Curtis or Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent") to devastating effect in manipulating the opinion of more than one generation of Germans to support the creeping atrocities against Jews, Christians, and all other "enemies of the Fatherland" (i.e. any who would oppose the policies dictated by the unelected elect at that time in Germany).

The single event that "sparked" Hitler's rise to dictatorship, full scale takeover of the government, banning Communism, and the eventual imposition of the "Final Solution" was the Reichstag fire.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:"[The] Reichstag fire, burning of the Reichstag (parliament) building in Berlin, on the night of Feb. 27, 1933, [was] a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship and widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its opponents and to assume emergency powers ... his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is supposed to have devised the scheme. ... On Feb. 28, 1933, the day after the fire, Hitler's dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree "for the Protection of the People and the State,' which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights."

This fire was blamed on a young mentally handicapped Jew who was purportedly acting on behalf of the Communists. It gave Hitler everything he needed to his seven year march to war and Holocaust. In hindsight it is easy to believe, as is presented (without proof) by Encyclopedia Britannica that the fire was in all probability, in today's parlance, an inside job.

Hitler, and undoubtedly today's power elite, understood the power of paradigms to blind people to evidence that literally hits them in the face if that evidence does not conform to the individual's preconceived paradigm, as described in Thomas Kuhn's seminal book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Traces of evidence abound regarding the questionable origins of 911 at each location of that terrible event.

The families of 911 victims, in attendance at the public sessions of the 911 Commission hearings were incensed at the failure of the Commission to address a huge body of evidence that pointed in a direction the Commission was unable or unwilling to go. The most egregious example of this may be the complete lack of any statement regarding, much less explanation for, the collapse of WTC 7 which remains unexplained to this day.

The families of the victims were literally "paid off" (as per their loss compensation agreements from the government) to shut up.

What conceivable reason would there be for a "Reichstag fire" on American soil? The parallels between this event and 911 are striking.

Without 911 would there have been any justification for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the unfortunate populations of those countries and more than a trillion dollars in wartime expenditures?

Without 911 would there have been sufficient justification for the draconian Orwellian-named "Patriot Act" coupled with the steady erosion of civil liberties and privacy on the part of American citizens, all in the name of security against our "enemies."

Without 911 would there be a Gestapo-like Department of Homeland Security with its terror watchlist of U.S. citizens that is growing toward a million strong?

The answer to all questions is a resounding NO.

Clear evidence of questionable activity/complicity on the part of agencies within U.S. government abounds for those who are willing to subject their own paradigm to an honest assessment of the facts on the ground. Those who wait for a media pronouncement or a court case or a group of politicians to provide "proof" of conspiracy can be likened to those in Plato's proverbial cave, who are mesmerized by the entertaining, but ultimately inexplicable, dancing images on the wall.

Posted by Ponce on 2/26/2010 4:17:32 PM

The twin towers and bldg 7 came down own their own, sure sure.

And the big passenger plane went into the twilight zone by means of a 4X8 hole in a wall.....while all the glass windows were unbroken all around it, sure sure."

They only tell us what they want us to know, or what they cannot longer hide."

Posted by Jmelon on 2/27/2010 6:04:08 AM

"The latter point is untenable without some proof, or even a cogent explanation of why? If the buildings had not come down, given the extensive damage, they may well have had to have been salvaged anyway. For a simple matter of effect, two jetliners crashing into a building are just about the equivalent in shock value as the buildings falling. So, if the point of the "unknown" conspirators was just to create a spectacle, bringing down the buildings was unnecessary."-Mpresley

Considering the tenants who occupied WTC7 and the known facts about what sorts of documents were held there, the explanation could be as simple as having the towers fall as a diversion and explanation for the complete destruction of all the evidence contained there, complete with a scapegoat ready so as to exculpate yourself from the previous threat.

Posted by LRRP1968 on 2/27/2010 9:19:21 AM

It's great to see this story making it's way into the mainstream. Whether Farmer is very courageous or just one of the rats deserting a sinking ship remains to be seen, but facts are agnostic. Facts don't follow political winds despite how much the elite want them to or are able to twist their presentation in the mainstream media.I for one do not thing "official" recognition is required to recognize the facts.

Like JFK, the official story will always be defended no matter what evidence comes to light even clear and unambiguous confessions from one of the conspirators( E. Howard Hunt). The government and media can hide behind Warren all they like but in the end result they only reveal their own dishonesty.The 9/11 story will fall gently but more rapidly than the JFK, but fall it will and really already has.

The real evidence is too solid to ignore and the official story has no leg to stand on other than insistence by the mainstream and the unthinking gullibility of folks like the "boatman" who are incapable of independent thought and lack any ability to process logic in any coherent fashion. This is not really his or their fault, it is the end and planned result of the last 50 years of government education[sic], but the bright spot is that people are starting to get the glimmer of light upstairs proving peoples ability to break past a wall built by a lifetime of brainwashing.

I don't pretend to know what happened on 9/11, but my family was directly affected by it and one day we will have all the answers. I know we have been lied to, it is so obvious it amazed me that ANY thinking person can fail to see it. But it will come out and on that day even if the real perpetrators never stand trial or get punished, they will at least be revealed and stand as lesson and a warning.

False-flag has been a government tool for a millennium, as old as human history. It is encouraging to see that finally we have the tools and are using them to gain the maturity needed to truly understand the nature of the king and hopefully the collective courage to say "no more". Maybe then we can finally attain the true potential of our species, as any one can plainly see that all the so-called "flaws" of the human race are solely and almost completely rooted in government.

Posted by LRRP1968 on 2/27/2010 10:45:52 AM

"So, if the point of the "unknown" conspirators was just to create a spectacle, bringing down the buildings was unnecessary."
-Mpresley"

Again as always follow the money. The insurance payments on the buildings guaranteed a huge payday for the leaseholder, and the buildings were full of asbestos insulation. Abatement costs would run into 9 figures for the twin towers. So the choice was simple, take the down reap huge financial benefits or declare bankruptcy as the cleanup costs would have exceeded the value of the buildings.The buildings were financial turkeys anyway, and Bldg 7 had to go for other reasons.

Posted by Prof. Osled on 2/27/2010 11:52:06 AM

"As the truth comes nearer, the guilty feel squeezed."What public official has just had some heart troubles and could be feeling that "squeeze" more than ever right now?

Posted by Richie on 2/27/2010 12:22:51 PM

The controversy surrounding 9/11 is another reason why the State hates the Internet and currently has a bill pending to give the Fuhrer errrrrrrrrrrr President the power to shut it down during a "cyberattack."

Posted by Brutus on 2/27/2010 1:21:55 PM

It doesn't take a rocket scientist. I was at home recovering from an injury on "911". Even as I watched the video of the first tower fall, I remember saying to myself, "That doesn't look right." When I watched the second tower fall in exactly the same manner as the first, I knew, then and there, that these towers were taken down by demolitions.

Then, later in the day, when the third tower fell ... in the same fashion as the other two earlier in the day, it cemented it for me that this indeed was a controlled disaster and there were people behind other than 19 Jack-Muslims.

I didn't have to wait for days to have various outlets inform and impress upon me a conspiracy. The conspiracy IS the event. I also remember that day on 911, hearing many first responders mentioning ... BOMBS. Which brought me back a few years earlier, as I watched the events of the Oklahoma City Bombing event unfold ... live ... first responders mentioning ... BOMBS.

The conspiracy is not the many people who have good reason to doubt the "official story". The event, as it happened IS the conspiracy. Wake up and open your eyes.

Posted by Ed Roberts on 2/27/2010 2:14:50 PM

".10,000 gals jet fuel n fire=red hot weak steel 1 million tons of steel sitting on top of it=collapse..."

Your figures are incorrect. Also "Jet Fuel" is K4 kerosene. Kerosene doesn't burn hot enough to weaken the structural steel of any building. Never in history has a skyscraper collapsed from a fire, not even in NYC in 2001.

Posted by LRRP1968 on 2/27/2010 3:01:14 PM

The thing the believers always cite is xxx gallons of jet fuel, Just the sound "jet fuel" makes it sound so powerful, after all jets are powerful right? This is the perfect way to present it to the rubes in the USA most of whom cannot locate their own city on a map and to whom science and math constitute "magic".

"Jet fuel burns at blah blah temp, yada yada." The typical American Idol watching government educated rube has no way to comprehend the physics, as simple as they are. First of all the amount of "jet" fuel left after the fireball was minimal. Second what was left had was inadequate BTU content to melt or weaken anything.

Temperature is not really all the relevant in this situation, the relevant factors were fuel/air ratio, the heat value of the remaining fuel, time and the other factors that govern the transfer of heat.

There is simply no way to make the official story work using science, math and well demonstrated engineering principles.I laugh at the fools that parrot the "jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees and steel losing 80 of it's strength at 1800 degrees."

The absurdity of this argument is so transparently clear that I am shocked that any intelligent person would file to roll on the floor laughing at it.

Brief points in refute:

1. Jet may very burn at1800 degrees INSIDE A JET ENGINE. With the proper air fuel ratio, pressures and other factors. Yet still the engines manage to function without melting ( I can hear a few brains exploding over this one)

2. Steel might very well give up significant strength at 1800 degrees providing you could heat up enough of it to the temperature. In a dynamic heat transfer system heat goes in proportional the differential temperature so as the steel gets hotter the slower additional heat transfers into it. Conversely, as the steel gets hotter it also conducts and radiates heat away again proportional the the Delta-T so the hotter it gets the faster the heat is lost. So you have two things working against you.

3. You have to sufficient heat source. That is HEAT not temperature. Think of a frying pan on your stove. Propane burns 3200 degrees, aluminum melts at around 1200 degrees. That might make it hard to fry an egg. This simple analogy demonstrates the dynamics of heat transfer.

Bottom line - not enough fuel to heat up the steel to anywhere near a critical temperature and not enough time to heat up enough of it if you dd have the BTU content available. If you hear these silly arguments from people who have zero knowledge, feel free to laugh out loud. I do.

Posted by NG on 2/27/2010 3:31:28 PM

Dr. Michael Savage is also from "communist san francisco". And he predicted a "Reichstag fire-like event" some time last year. What if this was that event?


Reply from the Daily Bell:

9/11?

Posted by FreedomFighter on 2/27/2010 10:34:24 PM

.10,000 gals jet fuel n fire=red hot weak steel 1 million tons of steel sitting on top of it=collapse.

Whoever you are, you are very afraid of admitting simple truths to yourself. This is human. I have done it in various ways in my own life, I see it in others around me. If we don't work on ourselves internally to seek the truth, well, we are in deep trouble.

Please wake up. We do not have to be the abused spouse who goes home every day to same beatings simply because we have not examined our abilities thoroughly enough yet.

But, I digress.

Set aside, for a moment, the validity of 9-11 officialdom. Totally true, or totally false does not matter nearly as much as the total ruin the we have allowed for and of our ourselves. America is an idea. Go back, read the U.S. constitution, or even better, the Articles of Confederation, and the Lockian influence of their creation versus the dark history of tyranny preceding.

An enlightenment happened in the late 1700s in America that must be preserved, no matter what the wealthiest interests (who now own the U.S. government) tell us.

1) We invaded and ruined an entire society (IRAQ) that was not responsible for the attacks via a war of choice (and we were definitely lied to about the WMD's, etc)

2) We have bankrupted ourselves doing so

3) We have suspended Hab Corpus

4) We have allowed for horrid destruction of privacy via financial transaction, internet visitation, email, phone calls, and more.

5) We have allowed for horrid torture, extraordinary rendition, and various other stupid exercises of authoritative power over vast populations by unworthy authority in a way not seen in about 1000 years. (Patriot act, Protect America Act, Creation of so called Homeland Security) Funny, I thought we already had a 'Department of Defence'?)

6) We have recently allowed for the execution of U.S. citizens abroad for ONLY being ACCUSED of being terrorists

7) We are developing more biometric, microchip, and who knows what other kind of human tracking technology.The list is too long to list. You get the idea.

W told us that 'they attacked us because they hate our freedom'

How stupid given the fact that we are losing our own freedom via our own actions of choice. Does this mean that we have allowed the terrorists to win? 19 schmucks got through a bazillion layers of security on 9-11 and we take our legal protection mechanisms back 1000 years. This is all so weird that I have realized that fact is FAR more strange than fiction......

Posted by Aileron on 2/27/2010 10:41:03 PM

Jet A fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel, not even in a turbine engine. In a Pratt PT6 engine, the temperature at the turbine is only about 700 degrees at 100 nG. When Jet A is burning in the open air it will not burn efficiently enough to generate the heat needed melt a building structure.

I don't understand the negative reference to the Catholic Church. The last time I checked absolution has always been free. As for rulers and people of power paying a corrupt churchman for absolution, Dante Alighieri makes it clear in the divine comedy that an insincere absolution is fruitless.

Posted by Jb on 2/28/2010 1:16:07 AM

Tell the rest of the story.

You build matters right to a crucial point, and then sell like it were a hedge fund on Wall Street needing a bailout!

Make the connections. Dammit--break some ground! Silverstein, huge insurance policy, the Chertoffs, the Shrubs . . . geezopete!

You could win a Pulitzer if you just followed through.

You could soak and burn steel in 800 degree jet fuel from now to eternity and not melt it. Only a brain-dead politician would believe otherwise.

What do you really mean to say? Then say it!


Reply from the Daily Bell:

What do YOU mean?

Posted by Penalt on 2/28/2010 2:35:49 AM

The Washington Times is hardly a mainstream paper consider its ownership by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and the fact the Unification church has had to subsidize the paper by nearly 2 Billion dollars. Any person with serious questions about 9/11 should check out Click to View Link/

Posted by Larry Silverstein on 2/28/2010 7:16:28 AM

Reichstag fire !!! Oh please spare me the history ! Just concentrate on 9/11 the facts speak for themselves.The trouble with the internet is all these uneducated idiots making ridiculous comments without doing any research.People should read books and stop getting their info from YouTube. It's quite obvious that we need an independent international investigation of 9/11.How many more years do we have to wait for this?


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Apparently many.

Posted by LRRP1968 on 2/28/2010 10:04:08 AM

The "Official" story was designed to be totally ridiculous and transparent. Like JFK, the story is so bogus that even the most casual observer can see through it.

Now I know some or even most government educated folks at home upset that Dancing with the Stars was pre-empted, sitting on the couch eating a tube of Pringles thinking they are eating their USDA recommended 3 servings of vegetables might think all is well and the government said it was those nasty A-rabs so it mus be so - but there are some folks that do have more than a room temperature IQ that know better.

To me this is all intentional- the crazy nonsensical story- it is the elites showing off to the few of us that are actually able to reason independently and don't allow Katie Couric to do our thinking for us.

This is the message in a nutshell: We can murder your president in a major American city in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses, spin a totally crazed farce of a story, blame anyone we like for it, come up with all kinds of nutty explanations, destroy all the evidence (The president's Lincoln Continental limo was immediately cleaned and repaired instead of being secured as ballistic evidence) and there is not a single thing you can do about.

47 years later our media will not ask one single probing question or examine one anomaly in our story.

If we can do that we can do anything. We can blow up 3 giant skyscrapers in the most prominent US city again in broad daylight, shoot a missile at our own headquarters building again in broad daylight under the view of dozens of cameras, lay then blame on 19 imbeciles carrying carton knives, ground US Air Defense, come up with some crazed explanation about "jet" fuel, then destroy all the evidence, send the evidence to China to be melted down, whitewash the investigation, gag witnesses (Sibel Edmonds - $100 to the first person to link a story about Edmonds posted on ABC, CBS or NBC) and the media will STILL refuse to ask a single question about the event.

Meanwhile we are stealing $ Trillions from right under your noses, started 3 shooting wars and getting ready for a 4th and STILL THERE IS NOT ONE THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!

Powerful message here don't you think?


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Some would doubtless grant your point!

Posted by Mpresley on 2/28/2010 4:55:53 PM

It's all very strange, but until some proof is shown and some names are named, it remains just so much speculation. It all seems to come down to mysterious "rogue elements" within the government. No one knows exactly who they are or where they sleep at night, but nevertheless they "know" they are out there, always pulling strings and creating havoc.

Without proof and without facts, speculation gets pretty weird pretty quickly. And where does it end? To tell you the truth, I'm more concerned about the "open" elements in the government, elements doing their damage (and far worse damage in my opinion) in broad daylight. JFK, Area 51, hidden Nazi gold, the carburetor that gets 100 miles to the gallon, and now this? My God, I sure picked a bad week to start drinking the fluoridated water. Maybe I've become one of "them" and don't even know it?

Anyhow, once the truth is in, I'll come back and openly admit you were right, I was wrong, and at that time you can gloat at my expense. Thanks for letting me submit a few comments.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for writing.

Posted by LRRP1968 on 2/28/2010 6:13:38 PM

@MpresleyI see what you are saying but it sounds to me like you are asking for "official" confirmation and anything that has no "official" confirmation is not credible.

I can ask you the same thing concerning the official narratives' Where's the proof? JFK, 9/11 to buttress those official stories is really nothing of any substance. The independent theories are way more fact and evidence based.

What you are engaging in the "appeal to authority" fallacy in logic. What gives the government the right to define the truth? No group in human history has a broader history of lying and deception than government. In fact I am hard pressed to come up with any example of the government actually telling the truth about anything at all. It would not be logically inconsistent to assume the the government story is ALWAYS a lie, since the vast majority of the time this is the case.

You are also engaging in a logical fallacy equating JFK with the 100 mpg carb. I would be more justified to list Mohammed Atta, Bigfoot and The Easter Bunny, and be closer to historical reality than your list.

Posted by T Kellam on 3/1/2010 12:15:53 AM

John Farmer's new book essentially says the Government was less in charge than we knew and no one knew about specific planes crashing into buildings until later on. He is saying there was even more mess up than the Gov says they did--so in a way he is pushing the real truth further away behind a larger cloud of ignorance and lack of acting (on that day).

Farmer is covering up an aspect of unpreparedness of NORAD et al and not addressing it. How can NORAD not scramble planes after we all saw the original CNN video reports that day? They were unprepared? And the Commission was not told how unprepared THEY were? Farmer sends up more clouds me thinks; yet perhaps in his extensive book, clues may be found for a real criminal investigation. The biggy is also IF they were so unprepared, why was no one fired? Why was incompetence rewarded? You can see a Farmer interview on the Colbert report (google both)


Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for the update.

Posted by Concerned Citizen on 3/1/2010 5:06:14 PM

No boatman, we are ALL going to get on it soon, and you my friend will be deemed part of the problem if you don't wake up and do your own research, unless you are a shill...me thinks doth protest too much!

Posted by Steve Walker on 3/1/2010 5:34:23 PM

What I find amazing, is that very few people have even heard of WTC7. At 5:20 in the afternoon of September 11th, 2001 all mainstream media outlets showed the collapse of WTC7, but it was never shown again on mainstream media until a Fox affiliate out of Fresno CA interviewed Richard Gage, AIA, in May of 2009.

WTC7 would be the largest skyscraper in 33 states and housed the FBI, CIA, IRS, and Secret Service. When you watch this building collapse, Google; "Richard Gage Fox", you will immediately know something is wrong. WTC7, which had several small fires in it, collapsed symmetrically and smoothly at free fall acceleration through 40,000 tons of structural steal. The only way this is possible it to have all the support columns removed simultaneously with carefully placed explosives. The official story by NIST say fires alone, not damage from falling debris, caused the collapse. They also note that this is a new type of fire-induced progressive collapse which has never happened before in history.

Posted by Fire In Brazil on 3/1/2010 6:08:05 PM

I saw pictures of a fire in Brazil a few years ago. Airplane loaded with fuel crashed into a gas station and another steel and concrete building. Burned for 24 hours. The building still stood. All airplane passenger bodies were removed from the scene.So, how can a steel and concrete building smolder for 45 MINUTES

Posted by Diane on 3/1/2010 6:10:42 PM

"I see the loudest architect is from communist san francisco..."

Actually Richard Gage graduated from the University of Southern California (a generally conservative school).

I know, my son just graduated from USC (third generation) as did numerous family members.

Gage claims he is ..or was at the time he started studying the events of 9/11/01...a registered Republican.

I am a progressive. One of the issues I struggle with is it seems the folks on the right are more vocal in speaking out for 9/11 Truth than the left. I have found the quest for 9/11 truth is an issue that brings both sides together.

Posted by Lee on 3/1/2010 8:31:29 PM

Enron, GE and Bechtel built a power plant in Dabhol, India in the 1990s. Enron was hemoraging money from this plant and needed the Centas pipeline to be completed from the Caspian Sea. In 1998 Unocal VP John J. Maresca went before Congress and pleaded with them to remove the Taliban from power so the pipeline could continue. In 1998 PNAC was formed. Research Zalamy Khalizad for the central person in the pipelines, Bush admin and 9-11.

Also keep in mind that Kenny Boy, Ken Lay died suddenly of a heart attack while cooperating with authorities and his man in charge of the Dabhol plant, Cliff Baxter, was found slumped over the steering wheel of his car, near his home, with a bullet in his head. A convienent suicide by a multi-millionaire with a wife and family.

Posted by Doug on 3/1/2010 8:55:38 PM

As a signator and supporter of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, U.S. Veteran and patriot, thank you for your attention to this issue. The comparison to the Reichstag fire is appropriate. This operation was well planned and executed with many participants.

However, such a complex operation could not cover all the evidence. The truth is coming out and I challenge all people as difficult as it is, to face the truth and act accordingly.

I believe the truth about the 911 demolitions will 'set us free' and expose the tyranny that has threatened this 'great experiment' in a 'constitutional republic', these United States of America.

The criminal cabal that planned and executed this tragedy will be brought to justice. They must live with themselves (that must be hell, and spend each day knowing that the truth will expose their heinous acts.

Best Wishes for Peace.

Posted by Derek on 3/1/2010 10:02:51 PM

If you think that the U.S. government is behind the death of thousands of U.S. citizens, which it then used as casus belli for two wars that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more, why aren't you doing more? I mean, my god, our forefathers started a rebellion against the strongest empire in the world over taxes!If you truly think that your government has committed these despicable acts that you have assigned to them, why are you just sitting on your thumbs posting comments?

Posted by Uni.Student on 3/2/2010 12:02:47 AM

Thank you The Daily Bell. I appreciate your scholarship on the matter. Keep up the good work - from Canada.

Posted by KFB on 3/2/2010 12:07:29 AM

We have more evidence-based knowledge on the operational details of the Dubai hit squad than on 9/11. Dubai: photographs of acknowledged forged passports, airport security video, hotel front desk video, hotel video outside a restroom where one man comes out in a disguise, hotel video outside the corridor of the victim's room. 9/11: video of Mohammed Atta in a Walmart in Portsland, ME and the next day at the airport in Portsland, ME. None of the hijacked flights took off from Portland, ME. No passenger manifests; reports of "hijackers" still alive; reports that some of the "hijackers" had reported their passports had been stolen in recent years. And the self incrimination of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after being waterboarded 183 times.

Posted by Ben on 3/2/2010 12:58:04 AM

If the proof is in the dust, that there is unexploded nano thermite, then it doesn't matter how the truth is stifled with disinfo and ridicule. It means that all intelligence agencies know the truth. Russian, Chinese, all of them, they have all tested the dust. Why wouldn't they?

Posted by Not A Troll on 3/2/2010 1:02:54 AM

boatman: go float off on your communist delusion... hot air = total collapse

Posted by Arend on 3/2/2010 4:18:59 AM

Richard Gage is a Republican - no communist at all.

Posted by Johan on 3/2/2010 7:56:51 AM

Even if an independent investigation into 9/11 would be initiated, who could be trusted with this task? Who has sufficient integrity and honesty and is void of self- interests in this issue with such vast geopolitical implications?

Any suggestions? I'd nominate:

Mahatma Gandhi
Martin Luther King
John Lennon

uhm.......darn

Posted by LRRP1968 on 3/2/2010 8:30:20 AM

@Derek

It is called "education" and until you get a critical mass of people educated to the truth anything you do will be distorted and smeared by the corporate media. That is indeed the point of the PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commissions Act and others.

One or even a few people acting will just be labeled terrorists and the rubes will go back to watching Oprah with a tut-tut about how some people are just crazy - chiming in with Katie and the gang.

Until you get people educated the system is just too powerful to take on directly. Sun Tzu taught us about going for the weak spot and they are vulnerable to the truth. Already it is working as they are starting to demonize the internet with the intention of issuing licenses and permits to post. Our tactics are being successful and this reaction is the evidence of that.

No, al qaeda is not going to hack in to your house over the internet and blow up your microwave and overflow your toilet thus necessitating a "national security" emergency to shut down the net.

What will happen in the after the next 9/11 style false flag - possibly a small nuke or dirty bomb in a semi-important but expendable city, the Net will be shut down - guaranteed.


Reply from the Daily Bell:

"The Net will be shut down - guaranteed."

For corporate America too?

Posted by Steve on 3/2/2010 8:30:29 AM

There's no doubt that these buildings being detonated, perhaps by our own people, is a bizarre idea. The idea that anyone would have concocted this idea, much less thought they could pull it off, much less implemented is a bizarre idea.

The idea that Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or others even had the capabilities mental or otherwise, or the cahones, to dream up, scheme up and implement this plan is even further down the road.

All of these are facts and I think everyone agrees on that. What's also a fact is that those towers were detonated. That's a scientific certainty, a fact of a different nature. You can't belittle or demean that. So you can see the cognitive dissonance this creates. These 2 'facts' seem to contradict each other. People seem to sit on one or the other side, there's no one who says, well, maybe a little of each.

To me, that means there's a deeper, darker truth. It's incumbent on us to find out what that is, for the sake of those lost in the event (and the ensuing aggressions), for those affected by the ensuing campaign of fear, for the sake of our country and for ourselves.

Posted by Josef K on 3/2/2010 9:01:13 AM

@Mpresley

No, it really isn't just speculation. There are facts that point to the need for a new invesigation. 4 that come to mind.

1) The commission itself more or less says it was lied to and deliberately misinformed.

2) The presence of melted steel at all three WTC towers (jet fuel can't melt steel. What did?)

3) WTC7 fell at free fall speed for over 2 seconds (this means all support was removed simultaneously. Fire can't do that).

4) Evidence for active thermitic material found in the dust.

There's a hell of alot more that doesn't add up. Bottom line is that the official version is false. What the 911 truth movement is asking for is a real investigation with subpoena power to get questions answered like who had the means to do it.

Obviously those questions can't be answered without an investigation with subpoena power. But, you seem to be saying that an investigation isn't warranted unless we can first answer the questions that only the investigation could answer. You can see the catch-22 in your way of thinking I hope.

Posted by Antiboatman on 3/2/2010 9:32:41 AM

@ Boatman

The 10,000 gals of jet fuel that burned up in the first ten minutes (NIST). It estimates only 40 of the fuel may have entered the building.

You should try reading the report first. One million tons on top? Where did you find that number? In the case of WTC1, only 10 of the building fell (straight down) onto the rest. So if it was 1 million tons, there must've been 10 million tons beneath it. How did 10 crush 90? You should check into you local community college and take a basic physics class.

'The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Winston Churchill

Posted by Michael Marino on 3/2/2010 1:14:34 PM

Dear Editor:

Thank You for ringing the Bell for Truth about 9/11 in these dangerous times. As you pointed out there is overwhelming evidence that the world has been lied to about this most horrific incident and the "drops of water" are growing daily and will soon become a purge unlike any the world has ever seen before.

Unlike when President Kennedy was killed, today the internet links the people of the world as if we were neighbors, and all knowledge is available instantaneously. This combined with the power of Video cameras makes it impossible to maintain secrets as they were in the past. In addition, as your article proves, the pursuit of truth is world-wide.

See: Click to View Link

And this from Arizona:

Click to View Link

The truth will be told.

Posted by Alan Miller on 3/2/2010 1:43:35 PM

Many senior veterans of the U.S. Intelligence Services also do not believe the official account of 9/11.

- William Christison, Former Director of Regional and Political Analysis, CIA, "The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed. All three were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11."

- Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, Former Commanding General US Army Intelligence, "They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition."

- Terrell Arnold, Former Deputy Director of Counter-terrorism, US State Dept., "I'm not satisfied by the notion that planes hitting buildings constructed as these would have caused them to collapse. The last building to fall was not even attacked. ... The chances of two buildings of that height and structure merely collapsing in their own footprint are extremely slim."

- Ray McGovern, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke." (NIE's are the consensus report of all US Intelligence Services and according to the CIA "are the Intelligence Community's most authoritative written judgments on national security issues."

)For more information, see

Click to View Link

Posted by HOTBANG on 3/2/2010 5:03:30 PM

Boatman you are up a creek without a paddle, Sweetheart

Click to View Link Click to View Link

Click to View Link

"The Open Chemical Physics Journal" - april 3 2009 Proves that NANOTHERMITE was found in all samples of pulverized concrete dust from the W.T.C complex in N.Y.C. N.Y on 9/11/2001 .

Posted by John D. Briggs on 3/2/2010 6:28:44 PM

Posted by Boatman on 2/25/2010 7:39:45

AMI see the loudest architect is from communist san francisco.....10,000 gals jet fuel n fire=red hot weak steel 1 million tons of steel sitting on top of it=collapse.......get off of it.........NEXT.....

Wow, I'm glad you're not in any position of authority as you clearly have a very simple mindset... no offense

Posted by So Fresh, So Clean on 3/2/2010 7:36:13 PM

What an excellent article. Switzerland looks nice too, as usual!

NIST's final report says WTC7 experienced complete free fall for 2.25 seconds. Objects cannot fall at the acceleration of gravity while converting their kinetic energy to crush floors (according to Newton, and NIST).

So the free fall of WTC7 is very strong evidence of controlled demolition, to put it mildly.'

Collapse' analysis:

Click to View Link admits free fall:Click to View Link

Posted by Brian Horsfield on 3/2/2010 9:38:20 PM

WTC 7, The Pentagon and the Anthrax attacks are the three biggest questions I have. The small hole in the Pentagon and the magic dissappearing wings which "folded" (vaporized?) without even touching the adjacent windows which were intact in the first photo of the crash scene.

The Anthrax is also highly suspicious and rarely discussed. I think the official view is that it was a lone nutter in a govt lab with no connection to Al Qaeda. Just conveniently timed to scare up support for the Patriot Act passing. So in this case even the official account concurs it was an inside job.

Posted by Michael Marino on 3/3/2010 12:16:18 AM

PS: a belated M E R R Y C H R I S T M A S

Click to View Link

Thank You The DAILY BELL

Posted by Tom on 3/3/2010 9:17:29 AM

This is for antiboatman to help build his case in regards to his 10 vs. 90.

Click to View Link

Posted by Barry Williams on 3/9/2010 6:39:14 PM

Four large aircraft went poof on 9/11. If they had been swatted out of the sky by large steel, concrete or earthen spankers, significant debris would have bounced. There was no bouncing debris that day.I bet David Copperfield couldn't pull this off.

Posted by Mike Cyples on 3/9/2010 9:38:59 PM

I believe the elites see 2012 what it really is. Not the end of the world but the end of their rule. So yes they getting more brave about pulling stuff like patriot act and raising taxes and putting bigger prices on resources. Which I'm sure they're hoarding.

I'm still only 60/70 that 911 was an inside job. But the actions politicians never waste a crisis. It reminds me of the Battlestar Galactica episode where some politician was SURE that the aliens on one particular planet were going to be the humans savior. but he lost his resources and being the fat selfish slob he was he certainly didn't want to have to work for more when the aliens were giving the humans anything they wanted. Course the humans were going to be the aliens food source.

I'm sure the elites will expect the have-nots to be their slaves. So don't worry about how to prove/disprove 911 as an inside job. worry about what the government is doing to further run this country to being a banana republic.

Posted by Ishmael on 3/15/2010 7:15:23 AM

I am a Muslim. I was there on 911. one hour away from grand Central station. And, yeah, I know, like some of you know, that we didn't blow up those towers. My advice is that you Americans will be on your own as long as you continue playing these 911 games. You might handle the truth if you ever learned who really did it, and why...


Reply from the Daily Bell:

And the answer is? ...

Posted by Psikeyhackr on 7/17/2010 10:22:05 PM

It is truly disgusting that the nation that put men on the Moon can't settle a grade school physics problem. The building was more than 2000 times the mass of the plane. So why haven't the people who claim to understand Newtonian physics been demanding to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers?

10,000 gallons sounds like a lot but it is only 34 tons. How many tons of steel were on each level in the areas where the planes impacted? Why aren't the engineers supplying such simple information? How many INCHES did the south tower deflect as a result of being hit by 200 tons doing 550 mph? When has that been mentioned in almost NINE YEARS?

The whole concept of the top 14% of a skyscraper coming straight down and crushing the other 85% in less than 50% of the time required for free-fall is ridiculous. So how did the top not decelerate due to all of the mass designed to hold it up? Skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. So how do people claiming to be physicists not figure out the obvious?

They are going to have to pretend this is more difficult to understand than it really is FOREVER. They must maintain a 9/11 Religion!

It's the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

Post Feedback

We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.








[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

News & Analysis
07/29/10 UK Stagflation - Now It Begins
07/29/10 Inflation - India's Turn
07/28/10 Is It a Deflationary Depression?
07/28/10 Comes a Blond Stranger ...
07/27/10 The Spreading Chinese Inflation
07/27/10 The War Falls Apart?
Guest Editorials
07/29/10 Protecting Your IRA - Part 2: Getting Your IRA Out of Town, by Terry Coxon
07/29/10 Gold Basis Screwed, by Dr. Antal Fekete
07/28/10 A Lopsided Warning, by Dr. Tibor Machan

Subscribe to the
Daily Bell Newswire

It's FREE!
Timely email notification of...
  • Breaking News
  • Feature Interviews
  • Guest Editorials
  • White Papers
  • eBooks & Shorts
  • Special FREE offers
...and much much more!
Exclusive Interviews
07/25/10 Grant Havers on Libertarianism, Religion and the Role of the Church in a Free Society
07/18/10 Paul Craig Roberts on Glass-Steagall, Free Trade and the Dangers of an Evolving 'Oligarchy of Private Interests'
07/11/10 Harry Schultz on the Power Elite, Free Markets, the Internet and Why Gold Is Going Much Higher
© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise. ARBP often uses images licensed from Getty Images on the Swiss Confidential website. To unsubscribe from the Daily Bell, click here.