You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story

[veracity]

Note: Excerpt reprinted with permission from the editor of TvNewsLIES.org

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48/20581-you-only-believe-the-official-911-story-because-you-dont-know-the-official-911-story-.html

I don't believe the official story of 9/11 because I know the official story of 9/11!

During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subject, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events.. It is always the other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.

The term "conspiracy theorist", perhaps the most misapplied description in our vernacular, is often used to describe 9/11 truthers. Perhaps that term does apply to a segment of the 9/11 truth movement. But in most cases a more accurate description of 9/11 truthers is probably "expert", or "scholar", or "researcher." You see, much of the doubt cast on the official narrative of the events of 9/11 has not come in the form of speculated accusations, or "theories." In fact, it has come in the form of questions that have been raised after a careful study of the official and undisputed events and details.

Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don't know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don't know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don't know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don't know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don't know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.

MUCK MORE IN FULL ARTICLE. SEND TO DENIERS AND NAYSAYERS....

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. OK, you got me to look

I especially relished this:

9/11 truthers make the mistake of starting their discussions with conclusions...I am not doing that. All I am saying is that there are a lot of questions about what happened that day that are not answered by the official conclusion or explanation.

(May I pause for a moment to state my absolute rage that Jesse Richard deprecatingly refers to "truthers"? --Oh, wait. He refers to himself as a truther. Never mind. ;) )

That is tautologically true, and not very interesting as tautologies go. His specific questions might be interesting, but they generally aren't, at least at this point. He lists a dozen questions; almost all of them have been extensively discussed here. Here's one that was new to me:

Why was WTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn't this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance?

OMG! That really has me rethinking everything I ever thought about 9/11! ("I'm obsessed with WTC 7. Isn't it amazingly suspicious that everyone else isn't?")

It's possible that the author is a "false flag" operative trying to lull people like me into complacency, but I think probably he is just a bit hung up on himself. "Similarly, someone like me (and many 9/11 truthers), has the equivalent of 3 PhD's on topics such as 9/11." Kewl.

[zappaman]

2. So?

Even if "most people" don't know all the silly theories going around, the ones that due treat them with all the skepticism they deserve.
You know what would change my mind?
Evidence.
Not supposition...not "this doesn't look right"...not "a guy said he heard an explosion"...not coincidences...not talk of magical green-screened airplanes, missiles, thermite/thermate/neo-thermite/nano-thermate, not mini-nukes and all the other farcical "evidence" truthers have been bringing to the table for the last 10 years.
I'd love to know if the government did this, and honestly, I wouldn't put it past those fuckers in that administration.
But, the truth movement has failed monumentally to bring a compelling case to the table.
Sorry.

[William Seger]

3. "MUCK MORE IN FULL ARTICLE."

Ain't that the truth...

[Behind the Aegis]

4. LOL! That was an unintentional "win!"

It made me giggle, but it was one of the few truthful things in the excerpt!

[KDLarsen]

5. Sigh...

To answer his questions:
1) Because there had been rumours all afternoon that it was going to collapse. Someone at AP or Reuters picked that up from a local radio station, turned that into a news bulletin saying that it had collapsed, which in turn was picked up by the BBC who then broadcast it. And while WTC7 may not have been hit by a plane, it was quite badly damaged by the collapse of WTC1. It also had fires on multiple floors - and more importantly, the majority of the firefighting equipment was knocked out, leaving the fires unfought. And I cant' take the writer serious when he claims that there were "no indication that it was in any serious danger" - the FDNY had known for the better part of 7 hours that it was going to collapse, due to the damages visible on the south side (which were not seen by cameras).

2) None of the hijackers have been proven to be alive. In fact, none of them has been reported as being so since the early reports, which came within days of the attacks and before the FBI had officially named the 19 hijackers.

3) Where's the conspiracy? I may remember wrong, but the new WTC7 opening came at a time when the public was still divided over what to do at Ground Zero, so it's understandable if they wanted to make it a low key event. In any case, they held a free concert to mark the opening.

4) Didn't happen. The decision to grant the USAF permission to shoot down civilian airliners remained with the President throughout the day, and in any case the USAF were never in a position where they would require that permission.

5) The answer to that lies with the charred remains of Mohammad Atta. The NYC area airports are notorious for their delays, and the attacks relied heavily on timing, so perhaps he wanted to give them as much protection from that? In fact, UA93 was severely delayed on the ground at Newark, which allowed the passengers to find out what had happened elsewhere and attempt to stop the hijackers.

6) We know who did it thanks to the SEC investigation. In any case, it's hardly surprising that people were betting that airline stocks would drop, as there had been several rounds of bad news involving the airline industry throughout 2001.

7) Where's the conspiracy? They had him at a secure location, which had already been scouted and which would be difficult to distinguish from any other building in the area. Contrast that with having the President sitting in Air Force One, highly visible on the airport tarmac due to its seperation from everything and everyone else.

8) He was already wanted for several other terrorist attacks, so there was no need to go and get yet another indictment against him, which is required for the charge to be added to the Top 10 Most Wanted list.

9) Where's the conspiracy? It is widely known and accepted that the temperature in the pile was being fed by large quantities of office material in the buildings, and fanned by air coming in via the subway tunnels.

10) Not the first piece of paper to make it through such an ordeal. They even recovered some of the mail that was carried on AA11 and UA175.

11) There weren't 80+ cameras, the surveillance tapes were private property - but some of it have been released and can be found at YouTube.

12) They were able to collect something like 60% of the airplane, so clearly it didn't vaporize. In fact, I'm pretty sure the "official story" says nothing about UA93 vaporizing in the first place. It merely state that due to the soil conditions in the former mining area, a large part of it was swallowed up by the soil.

Is this really the best the truthers can do these days? Bloody stupid if you ask me..

[BobbyBoring]

6. Would you mind posting a link

to where it says they found 60% of the plane?

TY

[KDLarsen]

7. I may stand corrected on the percentage

The FBI said they had recovered 95% of the plane, according to http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp

FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said that the largest piece of plane recovered was a shred of fuselage skin that covered four windows -- a piece seven feet long from a jetliner that was 155 feet long.

Which fit the description of this piece: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200061.html

[William Seger]

9. Looks like a good syllabus

... for Richard's fourth PhD. :eyes:

But, yeah, reading that list of questions was a huge disappointment after that build-up.

[terrafirma]

8. If this was true

One would think there would be a crap ton more truthers out there.

Especially after ten years.

[PufPuf23]

10. I don't believe the 9-11 Commission Report.

The tome reads like a novel written in technical writing style.

The area should have been treated as a crime scene.

Officials should have been questioned under oath in public.

I just watch another failed questioning of Silverstein including the "pull it allegation".

Building codes in Manhatten for high rises back in 2004 required prewiring for demolition; doubt if this would have applied to WT1 and WT2 but probably WTC7 was constructed or remodeled under 004 building codes.

WTC-7 is an anomally: an extremely foolish setting of a Command Center and many other agencies.

It is career and often social suicide to doubt the official account of 9-11 for an establishment individual. The security of one's family and self, catapulted by the media and DC, is a valid response.

So only the fringe will state the obvious and they are loons.

Watched some of the 9-11 memorial coverage on NGC. Writing history.

[William Seger]

11. "Building codes in Manhatten for high rises back in 2004 required prewiring for demolition"

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!! GET THE HELL OUT OF MANHATTAN, IMMEDIATELY!!!

[AZCat]

12. Wut?!

Building codes in Manhatten for high rises back in 2004 required prewiring for demolition; doubt if this would have applied to WT1 and WT2 but probably WTC7 was constructed or remodeled under 004 building codes.


Really? What building codes in Manhattan were these? Certainly not the internationals...

And how exactly would WTC7 have been constructed or remodeled under the '04 building codes, considering it collapsed in 2001 - three years before 2004?

[PufPuf23]

13. I am not sure when the Building Codes I refer to were put in place nor current status.

Back in 2004-2005 one with experiencing in permitting , could find them on NYC web sites in down loadable PDFs that high rise developement required demolition pontential as part of code (assumed into near foot print to limit overall damage).

I am a 9-11 agnostic but dis-Believer in 9-11 Commission in document and method.

I found this by myself circa 2004 and have been surprised that "Truthers" have never noticed this Building Code.

Tonight I am not energetic to research but what I have found in recent years is that the circa 2004 Manhatten Building Codes in PDF are beyond my abiltiy to find. They were easy in 2004. New buildins (an refurbished buildings maybe) were required to a have asystem in place to minimice collateral damage to addjoing properties = demolition by pragmatism.

Haven't even looked for several years regarding Manhatten high rise building codes and, the last times I looked -- 3-4 years ago -- I could not find the Manhatten high rise building codes that I had found and posted elsewhere than DU as high weirdness.

Was surprised that this oddity was never noticed by truthers loons.

[William Seger]

14. DUDE, I'M SERIES!!! GET THE HELL OUT!!!

When (sane) people find out that their office buildings are prewired for demolition, Manhattan will be ghost town -- it won't even matter that owners could never again get insurance. They'll have to bring the whole place down and rebuild. In the meantime, GET THE HELL OUT, FOOL!!!

[PufPuf23]

15. The specs for new high rise construction in Manhatten

to include planned and engineered demolition as a disaster response were building codes circa 2004, I do not know the current or prior status of Manhatten Building Codes for high rises. I would assume that WTC1 and WTC2 were constructed prior to the Code.

I was surprised that Building Codes was never mentioned in Truther nor Apolgist discource.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. I'm inclined to infer that you misread your source

(1) I don't know much of anything about the NYC building code, but it appears that you can find the whole thing here: the 1968 code, plus some updates after 2008. Perhaps there was a special building code for Manhattan high rises circa 2004, but it seems unlikely. Of course, I haven't studied the entire building code in search of the provision you think you once found there.

(2) As William Seger has vividly pointed out, it is far from obvious why prewiring all high-rises for demolition would make anyone feel safer, or why it would be a good idea.

(3) If prewiring high-rises for demolition had been required for several years, I would think that many people would know it, the requirement would have been discussed, many people would have worked on it.... It's hard to imagine the scenario in which you were left to stumble across the requirement somewhere online, surprised that no one had mentioned it before, and subsequently unable to document your discovery.

[KDLarsen]

19. I remember that..

It was a misreading of documentation. It required contractors to submit a demolition plan for existing structures on new buils, ie. for tearing down any buildings standing where a new project was going to be built.

[PufPuf23]

20. KDLarsen is likely correct in that I mis-read NYC high rise building codes

Responses:

(1) I investigated the circa 2004 version of the same site you link and searched the PDFs with key words; later I could not find the same documentation.

(2) A demolition plan would be be something to have to avoid collateral damage in event of catastrophe; making a demolition plan as part of construction planning could lead to reasons to modify the construction plan itself for a design flaw.

(3) I may well have mis-read or interpreted the document confusing a demolition plan requirement(and IIRC it was for new construction) with a requirement for being already prepped -- confused plan with pre-prepped.

Like I said, I was surprised that the Truther community had not jumped on it.

What spurred me to do the search at the time was I read an interview with an architect who claimed to have been involved with WTC towers designed and construction and that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of airliner impact. So I googled the building codes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. fair enough

It's really easy to lose sense of context when wading through technical documentation.

I think the basic response to the point that "the buildings were designed to withstand... airliner impact" is that they did withstand the impacts -- but that doesn't tell us whether they were designed to withstand the fires that ensued. If someone who worked on the WTC design had a specific criticism of the NIST analysis, that would be worth considering.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. "failed questioning of Silverstein"

The apparent purpose of the questioning was to create a snappy YouTube. Looks like a success to me -- especially if one can accept the premise that Larry Silverstein, in 2002, inadvertently admitted that he had had WTC 7 demolished, with an incoherent cover story about how he discussed it with the FDNY first.

Here's my attempt to transcribe part of that question (the most question-like part):

...it's pretty clear that you meant the building, and if it was the firefighters, they are already outside the building by 12 because the water lines were broken, and the fire chief that you said you spoke to, Fire Chief Nigro, denies talking to you on that day of 9/11. Can you answer those questions and (????) the theories against you?

(1) It's not at all clear that he meant the building. Silverstein said, apparently referring to the FDNY, that "they made that decision to pull." Why would anyone assume that that meant that FDNY decided to blow up the building? (Or that it really meant that Silverstein decided to blow up the building, and thought it would be a good idea to go on camera the following year and blame it on FDNY?) What evidence is there that "pull" is commonly used to refer to blowing up buildings, and why would Silverstein use the expression on camera?

(2) The questioner gives no basis for his assertion that all the firefighters were out by 12, and other accounts indicate that the decision to remove the last firefighters was made at 2:30 (as per the NIST report) or later.

(3) As far as I can tell, Silverstein never did say that he was talking to Nigro. There was more than one commander at the WTC site. Even if he did explicitly misremember who he had talked with, what would that prove?

Or, more concisely: that's dumb.

So, what was Silverstein supposed to tell the questioner, anyway? It seems that a fair answer would have been, "Frankly, if you think I had the building blown up, nothing I say will change your mind, and I think that's sick." All in all, his answer seems remarkably polite.

After Silverstein gives his answer, the questioner follows on: "Are you aware of testimony of bombs in the building before the building collapsed, sir?" That's dumb, too. What counts as "testimony," and how could it possibly matter whether Silverstein is aware of it?

It is career and often social suicide to doubt the official account of 9-11 for an establishment individual. The security of one's family and self, catapulted by the media and DC, is a valid response.

So only the fringe will state the obvious and they are loons.

The trouble is, a lot of what "the fringe" states isn't obvious at all. So before you deploy psychological explanations of why people don't admit that your arguments are right, maybe you should focus on whether your arguments actually are right.

[defendandprotect]

16. Thanks for the info -- maybe someday DU will get its head out of the sand on this issue -- !!

[animalmother519]

22. agreed

i cant stand the main stream media the way they presented the so called facts