Beauty Is Truth

Six years after 9/11, more than a third of Americans believe the attacks were an inside job. Are 9/11 Truth groups a convenient harbor for conspiracy theorists, crackpots, and lizard-man chasing coincidence-hunters, or are they actually onto something?

Comments

1
"The last third of the film goes into the belief that Flight 93 never crashed in Pennsylvania. By this point it's clear that Change is the work of someone who's spent too long examining the evidence and needs to step out for fresh air."

yeah. examining evidence is a terrible thing to do when creating a documentary. especially a documentary that will undoubtedly get nitpicked and scrutinized to the core.
2
At the beginning of the article, you stated that 36% of Americans believe that the United States was responsible for 9/11. There's a big difference between negligence and conspiracy. The transparent facts are that our government had many warning signs that something like 9/11 would happen. But I don't believe we orchestrated it.
3
ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM criticise if you can.
4
It seems your main criticism concerning the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is that you can't imagine how it could have been pulled off without others knowing about it or ratting people out by now. One faulty assumption to this argument is that the people involved knew what they were doing when they were doing it -- i.e., everybody was somehow "let in" on the big picture. Now why would anybody planning this want that, regardless of who it was?

Well, no matter, this argument cuts both ways anyway. For instance, how has Osama bin Laden gone free for so long? There have to be an awful lot of people out there who know where he is, yet nobody comes forth? Maybe you think that blind faith loyalty in extremist thinking is a purely "Arab" or "Muslim" phenomenon, like this type of loyalty doesn't exist in the US in extremists factions, like the kkk for instance?

Sounds awfully prejudiced and racist to me, but I am sure the Cheney/Rove kkk neonazi blackwater army party knew this when they designated Osama bin Laden the "official bad guy" in this 9/11 scam, most likely with bin Laden's full permission.

Okay, general arguments aside, I understand the severe mental blocks imposed on people who "can't imagine" how something was carried out. Sometimes, all that is needed is one example of how it could have been done, even if that is not exactly how it was done, and this opens the floodgates of the imagination to pursue the truth more freely.

Sources and links to everything stated as fact below can be found at http://ROC-USA.org (note that this is not a 9/11 Truth organization, really, since I find many of these organizations seem to be crawling with shills, like Steven Jones for one, who first gain credibility and a following then purposely try to lead truth seekers over a cliff -- ROC-USA is instead just little ol' me alone, and my results of my own attempts at truth seeking).

1) Destroying WTC 1 and WTC 2, the Twin Towers:

For years it was reported that the fire-protective coating on most of the steel infrastructure of the Twin Towers was inadequate and was peeling off faster than it could be replaced, so for years workers have been going in and spraying the steel infrastructure of both towers with supposedly "fire protective coating." It was apparently like the painting of the Golden Gate bridge in that it was a never ending, ongoing project.

Did all these workers know exactly what they were spraying or decide exactly where to spray it? No. They just followed orders from somebody. Ideally, if they were spraying the towers with explosive material (I myself propose thermite nanoparticles, which can be very stable, yet highly explosive when detonated properly), it only took really one person to know exactly what they were spraying and know that where they were spraying was in strategically located areas for future demolition. Who is that person? Well, who knows? The point is that it didn't take a secret army of men to pull this off, if this is how it was done. I am sure there are other examples of ways the towers could have been brought down without very many people knowing, too. I just don't know offhand what they would be, but I also know better than to limit my imagination and "not believe my lying eyes or lying ears" just because I can't think of any other specific examples.

2) Planes flying into the towers:

The real conspiracy theory is that 19 Arab hijackers pulled this off the way the official government story claims. The technology for powerful anti-hijacking capabilities (that involve remote control of the aircraft to land it at the nearest air field the minute anybody tries to hijack the plane -- keep this in mind for later) existed long before 9/11. In fact, there is every reason to believe that all 757's and 767's had been equipped with these anti-hijacking capabilities since the first aircrafts were built. Why would anybody think this? Because in the history of the aircraft, there apparently has never been a successful hijacking of any of these planes -- except on 9/11, of course, when 757's and 767's were purportedly "hijacked with box cutters" four times.

Instead, it is much more plausible that the planes were hijacked by the anti-hijacking entities themselves and flown by remote control into their targets.

Okay, so the problem here is that it seems a lot of people would have to know, first of all, about the anti-hijacking mechanisms placed in all 757's and 767's. Second, unless there was some kind of "Ender's Game" scenario where some poor innocent military guys were flying planes into the towers on 9/11 thinking it was all simulation (after all, there were NORAD exercises being carried out that day doing precisely that) and the few men doing this exercise got a bullet in his head afterward, this scenario would require quite a few people knowing what was going on, and actually require some training and preparation for it.

So I admit that this scenario has more of a conspiracy element to it than I would like, but possibly not any more than the 19 Arab hijacker conspiracy theory. Bottom line is that until statistics come forth from somewhere showing me how many 757's and 767's have been successfully hijacked since the planes were first introduced (the number is still zero after all my attempts to ferret out this number), I say the 19 Arab hijacker story is even less plausible than my 4 innocent hijackers story.

As a side note: there is ample evidence that the plane that hit WTC 2 missed its target (the core of WTC 2) slightly to the right and ended up piercing right through the building with the nose cone emerging the other side of the building mostly still in tact (the nose cones of commercial airliners are made out of almost paper thin aluminum, apparently, and it seems highly implausible that such a nose cone should pierce through two steel facades of WTC 2 still in tact like that, even with special strength in the design built in). This probably lends credence to the stories out there that the planes hitting the twin towers were actually just drones -- ones that were disguised as commercial airliners but were in fact made to be more missile-like, beginning with reinforced nose-cones, for one.

Well, okay, sounds fine with me. So the commercial airliners with people were flown over the Atlantic and blown to smitherines while drones were brought in to do the dirty work -- or then again, maybe specially modified drones were incorporated into the commercial fleets long before 9/11 (the frightening thing being you then have to ask yourself how many drones are still out there pretending to be commercial planes within the commercial fleets, but are in fact ready to act as "hijacked" missiles at any time).

The point is that technology existed long before 9/11 to make any of these scenarios possible, and now the only question is how many people know of these smaller pieces of the puzzle without necessarily being "directly involved" in the 9/11 scam -- and are now frightened to come forth without the risk of sounding crazy or worse -- being "taken care of" somehow.

3) The motive:

Well, here once again the official government story is really the conspiracy theory. They did it "because they hate our freedom?" Give me a friggin break. I'd rather go by the dictum of "always follow the money," and in this regard the proposals put forth by the movie Zeitgeist are infinitely more believable. Simply put, wars make a load of money for the central bankers who lend money at interest to all sides of the conflicts. The bankers also have a tremendous self-interest in getting particularly wealthy countries like the US involved in sustained wars.

Most telling to me was that Prescott Bush, the current president's granddaddy, ran a bank that supposedly financed the nazis during WWII. It seems to me, first of all, that this factoid from the movie Zeitgeist is easily refuted if it is not true, and second, this is a little more than just "anecdotal" evidence supporting the claims of the movie if it is true.

5
You talk down alot about the Truth Movement, and it's followers, saying that they meet at cafes and bars, for example. You ridicule them. You do that alot in the article, but I don't feel you come up with any lasting arguments against them. It seems that you personally just don't like them. In the end, you go in another direction, giving some credit to the truth seekers, but saying that they're doing it the wrong way. You're saying that so we'll see another side of you, a good-guy side, like "Hey, I know they're meaning well, but, you guys, I'm just telling you this because I care". In that way, we'll remember the picture of the "stupid truthseekers" in the back of our head, and we'll think of how swell you are. Which means, what you said earlier was "true" (because you're such a nice guy), and everytime we'll see one of these people, we'll think of what you said.
Classic rhetoric strategy, to gain trust from the readers. Commercial. Point is, you're not being objective, you use pathos instead of logos.
I think your article is a faliure and I don't trust you.
6
see also: 9/11 Commission Chair and Vice Chair say their report was incomplete and flawed, that they were "set up to fail", starved of funds to do a proper investigation, denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and FAA
7
Apparently, hyperlinks don't work here. Try http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup
8
This is just a bunch of smug, condescending crap.

Do the research and evaluate with an open mind.

I am a deeply skeptical person. I don't trust the official story and don't really trust a lot of the "Truth Movement" either.

But I am not afraid to ask questions and challenge my own biases. Are you?

If you are a serious journalist you should be able to do that.

I suspect you are just a hack.


9
Am I the only person that realizes this article is over a year old and yet the majority of these comments are from the last month?

Be open, be rational... but don't be crazy. That will do neither of us any good.
10
Some informative links, comments welcome: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/50427/911_conspiracy_theorists_echo_early.html?cat=62

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/728809/what_should_be_the_last_word_on_the.html?cat=9

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/991808/alex_jones_dnc_confrontation_with_michelle.html?cat=8
11
Some informative links, comments welcome: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/50427/911_conspiracy_theorists_echo_early.html?cat=62

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/728809/what_should_be_the_last_word_on_the.html?cat=9

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/991808/alex_jones_dnc_confrontation_with_michelle.html?cat=8
12
Some informative links, comments welcome: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/50427/911_conspiracy_theorists_echo_early.html?cat=62

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/728809/what_should_be_the_last_word_on_the.html?cat=9

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/991808/alex_jones_dnc_confrontation_with_michelle.html?cat=8
13
the people (and i use the word loosely)who perpetuate this crap ie.inside job,bush was in on it, ufo's etc. are extremely mentally ill. how on earth can the goverment have pulled this off..and with no witnesses.after all everyone wants to be on oprah..you give way too much credit to them and not enough to human decency.which if you had any you would shut up and join the peace corps.
14
Ultimate question who could pull this? First I would try to answer few questions. 1. Who could finance this? 2. Who could keep it secret? 3. Who could benefit from this? Two candidates pop in my head right away: US Military and Oil companies. I really don’t think that Bush and his company could pull this. But I wouldn’t discard White House either. It is possible. The reason I am thinking that this was military and Oil joint venture. No one can investigate Military, because they are top secret all the time. Military has a lot of cool toys and they can keep secrets too. For example: stealth technology. They kept it secret for 20 years and few years after disclosure it became obsolete. So, imagine what kind of technology they have today. To pull few planes into buildings that wouldn’t be a problem. Keeping in mind that profits will be huge. I read article (sorry I cannot find it anymore that was just few years after 9-11) about the simulation of plane crash in to 2 towers. 12 pilots were selected for this test. 6 professional and 6 immature. They were given the same conditions as planes crashed in to NY towers. Result was 0 hits. No one could repeat. This could of be executed with high tech toys. Now Oil companies. Oil companies need new territories for easy accessible Crude Oil and both parties need more MONEY. Terrorism enables endless war with constant flow of money (remember that war required extra money. Military’s budget 515 billion a year was not enough). Part 2 is executed by Cheney’s former company which will put Iraq into a dept for long time and force to sell cheep oil. That is why they did not have any bidding on the project. My point is if you can wave few trillion, everything is possible. At that point human life means nothing. People have to see who gets paid, because money is everything. American war means only one thing – business.
15
Uh...truthers.... looks to me like the author thinks your "theories" are baseless. (and of course they are) He just admires your tenacity and organizational skills.

He wants to figure out how he can convince you to drop the 9/11 nonsense and pass out free DVDs promoting the leftist political issue de jour.

Don't fall for it!
17
Here's my smug condescending comment:

If you believe it was anything other than a bunch of pissed off Muslims, congratulations! You're a retard.
18
Dudes, the writer is not really talking down to Truthers or marginalizing them. But unless you can produce some really great facts and videos in a concise way to show beyond doubt how ridiculous the official 9/11 story is, then the real work of the Truth movement has not begun. You need to get big name media outlets, universities, politicians, and charities to start prioritizing this investigation. "Zeitgeist" and "Loose Change" are not the best we can do. Obviously 9/11 is a fraud: now go convince someone with POWER and a MEGAPHONE.
19
My dear americans!
Consider this:
Most of europeans hate your goverment and it's foreign policies. At the same time most of europeans likes YOU - the american nation!
Forget about 9/11 truth movements, Zeitgeist movies and all that crap!
Study the history of your own country! The answers are there.
Use official sources not wikipedia of course.
Cheers!
20
This is like a re-run of the Satanic Ritual Abuse stories of the eighties. The same implausible mega-conspiracies, and the same sense of excitement, of being part of something really big and significant,
david
21
False flag terror attacks are nothing new. 9/11 may just be the most devastating example. It's common knowledge that our government staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident to gain public support for the Vietnam War. How many thousands of U.S. troops (not to mention hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese) died as a result of this utter fabrication? Anyone who doesn't understand how pervasive false flag attacks really are should watch a documentary called Terror Storm by Alex Jones. It's easy to dismiss Jones because he's so intense but research the facts yourself if you don't believe him. Also, for more proof that the government was hiding something on 9/11, look at who they initially wanted to appoint as the chairman of the investigation - Henry Kissinger.
22
This is a great article. Before posting miffed una-bomber length comments, people should realize that a movie like Zeitgeist doesn't claim to have the truth. Read the statements on the movie's website.

It's main goal is to question what you know, not to tell you what you should believe.

23
i fall into the category of what this writer called 'new to the movement' and it was indeed zeitgeist that got me motivated to start researching america's role in the deprivation of our world. It seems like such an overwhelming task to separate fact from fiction since everyone is calling everyone a misinformed liar.

Where do i begin searching?
24
To the author:
The fundamental problem with this article is that it sets out with a tone that characterizes 9/11 truthers as conspiracy nuts. I know the author thinks that makes this article sound flowery and witty, but frankly its not. I find it unfortunate that people at the Stranger (like the mainstream media) want to push all 9/11 truthers into the same group, and thereby discredit the lot of them by focusing on the those who are the most eccentric.

The real truth is, that independent scientific research (the kind that's measurable, verifiable, and reproducible) has shown (prior to the publishing of this article) that there was nano-thermite in the WTC dust. This is a military grade explosive requiring nano-technology.

The work was finalized in the paper by Drs. Niels Harrit, Steven E. Jones, et al:

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe," The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009.

But, my guess is you haven't heard of this article..... Why do you suppose that is? It's ok, the mainstream media has not touched it. But European media have been all over it, partly due to talks by the Dutch scientist Dr. Harrit.

There are also many other large discrepancies between the physics of what happened and the official story. And these are arguments that anyone with high school physics can understand. They use basic concepts like conservation of energy and momentum. I refer you to 911research.wtc7.net by Jim Hoffman.

I notice that the author of this article also seems to have an expert opinion on the molten metal issue, that people should just drop it. That it's weak.

Perhaps this attitude comes from a lack a scientific understanding, but frankly, you're simply not an expert. So don't try to sound like one. If you want expert opinion, interview an expert. The molten metal is documented in photos and eyewitnesses. Furthermore, a trivial amount of research by this author and he would know that office fires do not melt fire-protected steel. Moreover, if the author bothered to look at the official reports by NIST and FEMA (or even talked to someone who did) then the readers of the Stranger would know that NEITHER report could explain how the fires melted the steel. Even the experiments performed by NIST couldn't reproduce the affect. For further discussion of this point I direct you to:

ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)

Why don't you assign a writer to this story that understands science and logic and reasoning? Someone who will do the real research, the real work. Instead of someone who's going to focus on hearsay, circumstance, who-dunnit, random opinions, and everything else that casts 9/11 truth as a "conspiracy theory" or some hippy bullshit.

The scientific evidence is out there. The Stranger just needs to recognize that they have an opportunity to be a beacon of democracy right now. But they need to provide factual evidence, not opinion, when it comes to this topic.

25
Truthers make a mockery of "reason." They proceed from a conclusion, that the WTC attacks were committed by the US government, and then look not for evidence of this predetermined conclusion, which would be bad enough, but for doubt and uncertainty. This upends the principle of scientific reasoning we all should have been taught in middle school: Science proceeds by collecting facts, forming a hypothesis from those facts, and then devising and running tests that will either refute or fail to refute that hypothesis.
26
This is a truly bullshit piece of journalism.
I can't even be bothered to comment on what you have written.

http://google.com and an ounce of intelligence will shed some light. Listen to science, ignore religious fanatics and make your own mind up.

Oh and for the record, Zeitgeist: The Movie has nothing to do with the 9/11 truth movement.
27
It's understandable that the author of the article has been distracted by the "glitter" of the so called "truther" theories. In fact the "truth" movement is one of many fringe right wing patriot movement fronts like the Tea Party. The author shows insight when he refers to Lyndon Larouche; it's no coincidence the first "Inside Job" theories were invented by Larouche:

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki…

Since then a consortium of Separatists,racists, "Patriots" and right Libertarians have been selling this swill under various political brands.

In short it's a fraud to recruit people to push reactionary right propaganda. The same organizations are responsible for the Holocaust Museum shooting and spreading the "Sandy Hook Hoax" idiocy.
28
Fine, anonymous links aren't live. But could we all the text please?

laroucheplanet.info/
pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.NineEleven
29
By now we need not to look any further. The cat is out of the bag. At least for those who understand the physical realities of whether or not a collapse under weakness of a specially designed steel building is impossible without assistance. But also for those who understand the politics between Israel and the US without falling into confusing parties emanating out of religious fervor and downright violent extremism that went on from the start of the state's creation in 1947. Good luck! www.bollyn.com (the search is over -- we can go home now!)