For The 9/11 “Truthers”

In the comments today, a commenter had this written to me:

Our best bet is learn how to get along with one another, Kevin, already setting an arbitrary litmus test to anyone who questions the veracity of the 9/11 myth,

Well, I’ve got some questions and some evidence that will debunk the so-called 9/11 “truth” movement.

First of all, to those who believe the United States Government was behind 9/11, I would like to know how the following government agencies and people could keep all of their employees, current and former, quiet about the conspiracy:

-National Transportation Safety Board
-Department of Transportation
-United States Air Force
-New York National Guard
-New York State Guard
-New York/New Jersey Port Authority
-Department of Defense
-Department of Justice
-United States Army
-New York City Police Department
-New York City Fire Department
-United States Army
-United States Air Force
-United States Navy
-New York state government
-All of the various former Bush cabinet officials that have left the government

These agencies and people and more were involved either in the supposed conspiracy or the investigation. If there is any evidence of a government conspiracy, why has no one in the above groups come forward with credible evidence exonerating Al-Qaeda and blaming the U.S. government?

Point number two, if the World Trade Center buildings were wired for demolition, how did they get past the 24-hour security? If the security helped, why has not anyone come forward with evidence implicating them?

Finally, some videos from a BBC documentary called 9/11 The Conspiracy Files that debunks various “truther” nonsense. h/t: QandO:

I’m one of the original co-founders of The Liberty Papers all the way back in 2005. Since then, I wound up doing this blogging thing professionally. Now I’m running the site now. You can find my other work at The and Rare. You can also find me over at the R Street Institute.
  • uhm

    There is a conspiracy to hide government neglect.

    Instead of wasting money on creating a police state our government could have hired some decent translators for the FBI.

  • ExoticElectron

    Maybe you could review the moment frame analysis of WTC 7 and post some questions on that?

  • Kevin

    Maybe you could review the moment frame analysis of WTC 7 and post some questions on that?

    Sure. WTC 7 was done in when the fires burning in the skyscraper, which were caused by flaming debris from the twin towers and fed by diesel stored in the building for use in NYC emergency generators, weakened the steel and the floors pancaked on top of each other because the steel could not support their weight. The little puffs you see in the footage was the air escaping out of the windows when the building was collapsing.

  • ExoticElectron

    I asked you to comment on the “moment frame analysis”. Attention to detail is paramount to lucid discussion.

  • Adam Selene

    Why don’t you comment on it Exotic. Obviously you have some conspiracy theory at play. Kevin did just fine at explaining what happened to WTC 7, but that isn’t your agenda, is it?

  • Kevin

    I asked you to comment on the “moment frame analysis”. Attention to detail is paramount to lucid discussion.

    Okay, here it is. I even use a “truther” link instead of a Zionist,NWO,Bush Crime Family, etc. website.

    Here’s my response:

    Sure. WTC 7 was done in when the fires burning in the skyscraper, which were caused by flaming debris from the twin towers and fed by diesel stored in the building for use in NYC emergency generators, weakened the steel and the floors pancaked on top of each other because the steel could not support their weight. The little puffs you see in the footage was the air escaping out of the windows when the building was collapsing.

    There, happy.

  • Stephen Littau

    Does anyone really believe that our government (or any government for that matter) would be competent enough to pull off such a massive conspiracy? History suggests otherwise.

  • Adam Selene

    Let’s review, just for fun, some actual government conspiracies.

    1. The Manhattan Project. Not kept secret. The USSR, which was technologically more than 10 years behind the USA in developing atomic weapons, is able to build a bomb within 4 years after stealing the technology needed from the USA’s Manhattan Project. Our most top secret government conspiracy ever.

    2. Watergate. Not kept secret. Two reporters blew the covers off something that Richard Nixon clearly wanted to keep secret. Definitely a conspiracy, definitely not secret.

    3. Iran-Contra. Not kept secret. A variety of reporters and Congress figure out that the US is secretly selling weapons to Iran in order to free hostages in Lebanon and fund Contra’s in Nicarauga. This was not just secret, it was illegal as well. Clearly something the Reagan Administration wanted to keep secret. Definitely a conspiracy. Definitely not secret.

    Just those three conspiracies, by themselves, show the difficulty the government has in keeping secrets. It is simply unimaginable that the government could keep such a secret.

    In fact, truly authoritarian governments (the Nazi’s and the Bolsheviks) couldn’t keep things secret that they wanted to be unknown, such as their concentration and slave labor camps.

  • uhm
  • Kevin


    I automatically don’t trust two of links in question ( and or anything to do with Alex Jones in general).

  • uhm

    I know but those are their ideas.

    They think the bin laden video was faked. They claim BBC had foreknowledge of WTC 7 collapse.

  • ExoticElectron

    My agenda is math and physics. This report has not been released. Many architects and engineers are keen to evaluate this report. Our design methods and liablity are at stake.

    I am not a “truther”. I am human. Aren’t we all?

    Assumption and supposition to derive division is unproductive.

  • uhm

    ExoticElectron, what report? Care to elaborate on what is at stake?

    Watching grainy videos doesn’t prove anything besides the towers went down. The 9/11 truth movement has nothing but wild accusations from grainy videos. Where’s the hard evidence hmm? NIST has come to conclusion of what happened. Sibel Edmonds case hints at the corruption that lead to the foreknowledge going unheeded. All these movie stars come out saying it was an “inside job” instead of focusing on actual crime that has been covered up. Charlie Sheen on google news has over 500 articles. Sibel Edmonds has only 41 articles. The moral of the story is if your not delusional and have something important to say your ignored.

    The 9/11 truth movement is unproductive. Because without proof they are all seen as crazy. It is filled with right wing populist (Alex Jones) and transnational progressives (David Griffin) who want their “global governance.” Strange how these two bitter enemies end up in a movement together against the Neoconservatives. I dislike the American Empire too I want my Republic back but I’m not going to confuse fantasy with reality like a schizophrenic.

  • ExoticElectron

    As of January, 2007, NIST has yet to publish its final report on the collapse of WTC 7. The earlier reports used statistics and modeling to assume multiple factors for the thousands of joints and only addressed critical analysis of key joints around the “bridge above the fire”.

    In 25 years look at a new structural text book and the answer will be there. It will either be a new chapter entitled something like, “What we learned from WTC 7 – falacies of moment frame redundancy”, or it will be a footnote after introductory moment frame analysis that points to the NIST report and anecdotally says, “we still don’t know why this happened.”

    As to the discussion in general, I would suggest an open debate on the cause not the fault or the blame. Either side can scream patriotism or new world order with equal enthusiasm and create labels and factions around “grainy film” factoids, but no one is discussing the root cause, which is American foreign policy since WW2.

  • Adam Selene


    but no one is discussing the root cause, which is American foreign policy since WW2.

    Ahhhh, it finally comes out. Rather than lay the blame for the destruction of billions of dollars of property and the death of thousands on those who actually performed the deed, we will lay it on the “root cause”.

  • ExoticElectron

    The need for retribution is primal. The loss is great. I do not trivialize that, as you infer. I sympathize with your feelings, as I lost 2 friends that day. I actually have the same name as a gentleman that died in tower #1 and often work in Manhattan, so I received many concerned calls that made this more personal than the distant observer.

    My reference to foreign policy was to suggest a reaction to prevent this in the future. Your semantic assessment of my words assumes that I discount any application of fault or guilt with the intent to ridicule. I guarantee you, your assumption is wrong.

    I await the report, PEACE.

  • uhm

    ExoticElectron, I agree our foreign policy is the root cause but we still have Salafis out there that want to do us harm, strangely Bush is turning a blind eye to Saudi funding of Salafis. The 9/11 truth movement believes that the Salafis threat is fabricated.

  • Adam Selene

    Exotic, we can neither change the past nor alter the present. I will tell you that the antagonism and conflict between western civilization and islam goes much further back in time than 1945. It would not matter a whit if the US had a different foreign policy after WWII, except that the actual players would be somewhat different. The modern iteration dates back to post WWI League of Nations political settlements and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. WWII was the outcome of the end of WWI.

    You appear to find it easier to blame the proximate and call it the root.

    None of which should be construed as implying I support the NeoCon version of this conflict.

  • ExoticElectron

    Syllogism framed by historicism.

    If I retracted “WW2” and restated, “ONE PART of the problem is American foreign policy”, would you be willing to look at the contemporary influences on our foreign policies as relevant?
    Discounting any present context by historicity seems counterproductive or (hopefully not) a method to disparge on a point secondary to the issue.

  • Fawkes

    Multiple acts of prior government bumbling are valid reasons not to believe in a gov’t backed conspiracy. However, complicity or foreknowledge would not have been necessary on the part of all, or even most, of the above listed agencies.

    Like Griffin, et. al., I find the official story as just another wild conspiracy theory: 20 guys, trained to fly large commercial aircraft in a matter of months–on simulators only mind you, subverted the world’s most powerful defense apparatus using nothing more than $10.00 box cutters.

    That is no less absurd than what the truthers are saying.

    There are far too many unanswered questions to simply dismiss the truthers out of hand. This much I know.

  • Eric

    Fawkes, as a guy who does security for a living, I don’t find the official story hard to swallow. Having penetrated many a secure facility using a song and a dance and then done whatever I liked once I was inside, I really don’t have such a hard time believing it. In the past, one of my jobs was to perform penetration exercises for customers. I did so for a wide variety of customers, ranging from banks to manufacturing customers to …….. government facilities. Less than 10% were able to keep the bad guys (me and my penetration team) from getting inside. Once inside, we were almost invariably treated as trusted insiders.

    Except for banks.

    government, airlines and airports in the past were notoriously bad at security. Post 9/11 hasn’t made it all that much better ;-).

    These days I’m a security officer and the biggest problem I face is how to control physical security without creating an oppressive work environment.

  • Adam Selene

    Exotic, what I’m trying to tell you is that radical islamists would be at war with liberal, western civilization regardless of what the US had done after WWII. Second point, not considered, is that the US involvement in the world over the past 60 years has been, overall, more good than bad when compared to the past. Third point, also not considered, is that US foreign policy has been conducted in the light of the day it existed in, without foreknowledge of what the future would hold in 10, 20, 30 years.

    US foreign policy post WWII is the excuse, the pretext, not the root. The root cause is two radically divergent views of culture, society and religion.

    That doesn’t mean that the US shouldn’t alter our foreign policy in order to try and win said war, since our current approach is pretty broken.

  • Charles Bowen

    What should I make of stumbling upon my lifted quote from brave Kevin?

    Gratitude indeed.

    The US of A, employed radical Islam to battle the Soviet. They used Saudi funding sources and Pakistani Intelligence to organize what we came to know as the Base, or AQ. After the Cold War, rather than tie up loose ends as the CIA did with flyers like Barry Seal, they intended to use radical Islam to pursue policy goals in Eastern Europe, reaching the point of becoming a de facto ally of Osama himself via the KLA.

    The 9/11 conspiracy, the Israeli Art Students, the money laundering through Indian casinos, including one owned by Jack Ambramoff, run ins with the FBI, the myth of the box cutters that began with a government report designed to deflect liabilty from the government and the airline industry etc etc and what you have are lots of stories that should be told, each one in the excrutiating detail many of us grew up on regarding the JFK assassination, Waco and Vince Foster, regardless of where you come down on it.

    Citing yet another “government report says government not guilty” is just plain silly from a Pat Henry son.

    The trick you pro-State dupes employ is to conflate criticisms of the official story into a complete discreditation of any critique (implying the government got the story 100% correct) rather than even taking the time to offer nuance point by point. Frankly, I think the focus on the towers is a distraction, and the focus should be on the story of the pilots and how they got here, but that is a debate critics are having elsewhere, complete with a left and right, conspiracy theorists and skeptics, far and wide.

    Wider than the range of debate gubmint bootlickers will ever pretend to understand or care about.

    They probably thought Iraq was a threat, LOL.