Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical on 9/11 Lies
But first, I just have to bring up a little definitional dispute. To the editors of "Skeptic" magazine: I am the skeptic here, not your writer Phil Molé. I am highly skeptical of the government's account of the events of September 11th 2001, and with good reasons.
By attacking a "Truth" movement, you are attacking other skeptics, and you are dishonestly trying to portray them as a single unit and in a false light. You have attributed particular and specific "theories" to all of us, and then you pretended that we all adhere to these theories and so we are all easily debunked. This is a common and well-known tactic, quite despicable, and one that your magazine should not have succombed to.
The article in question spends a good deal of its time on the controlled demolition theory at the towers. My own 70 Disturbing Facts About the September 11th Attacks devotes one entry to this question.
"The best explanation for the events of 9/11 is that it was the latest and most damaging attack yet in a series of attacks by radical Islamic terrorists who wish to end what they believe is an evil U.S. foreign policy."
Now for a point by point response.
"Rather, they [the 9/11 skeptics] maintain that the towers fell due to a controlled demolition, planned in advance by the United States government."
1) The possibilty of other governments' involvement remains undisclosed, although Senator Bob Graham told us of the evidence for this when he was the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In particular, we had 200 Israeli agents detained in connection with the 9/11 attacks, as well as links to the Saudi royals and to the Pakistani intelligence service.
2) The possibility of explosives was deliberately ignored by and NIST in their investigations, a command level decision.
3) The great bulk of structural steel evidence was unlawfully destroyed and sent out of the country for immediate recycling.
4) Numerous eyewitnesses saw, felt, heard, and were injured by explosives during the time period from when the planes struck, to when the towers fell. At least 118 firefighters reported this. Dozens of others appeared on live newscasts saying the same thing. The lobbies of the Towers were demolished (78 stories below the planes), as evidenced on film, and the 20 year WTC janitor William Rodriguez reported explosions in the basement levels just seconds before the planes struck.
If this doesn't prove controlled demolition, it at least points to the possibility, and a prima facie case for serious investigation, something that has never been officially investigated, only outright attacked as in this Skeptic Magazine piece.
"911truth.org maintains that if actually hit by an airplane, the steel structure of the WTC buildings should have provided at least some resistance to the weight of the floors above, causing the falling structure to pitch over to one side rather than pancake straight down."
This is quite the crux of the official theory's problem. You see, the other floors below the plane crashes had no damage whatsoever, and were as strong and intact as the day they were built. On September 11th 2001, they appeared to crumble to dust as if they were made of chalk or cardboard.
Skeptic Magazine here does something unexpected to promote a certain scenario:
"In controlled demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points in a building at the same time."
Trying to precisely correlate the covert WTC demolitions with other known overt demolition scenarios is not a valid rebuttal. The actions of conspirators do not have to conform to the preconceptions of the Skeptic author. Ergo, the demoltiions of 9/11 can vary from other "controlled demolitions", and the variability is not sufficient in and of itself to disprove the hypothesis.
"Therefore, once the collapse begins, all parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the ground."
"However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2,"
"You'll find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially stationary,"
A) Other controlled demolitions fall to the ground from the basement up.B) WTC didn't initiate from the basement.C) Therefore WTC wasn't a controlled demolition.
"A conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare
the towers to begin falling precisely tliere?"
Well -- pretty good, actually, if that's what happened. Odds are that those floors would be well covered by explosive charges, if the effect was to be that floors near the top would be receiving the jet-airliner impacts, and that the "collapse" would have to appear to initiate from there. The actual jet crashes were on similar tilts, and damaged about 4 different floors. The onset of collapse could have been any of the four, or even one or two floors above or below there, for a six to eight floor 'window' in which to rig charges. Covering every six or so floors in a certain area of the building is not technically infeasible.
"Additionally, footage of the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2 reveals that the tower did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall. Instead the tower tilted toward the direction of the impact point, and then began to pancake downward with the top part of the building tilted at an angle."
Due to damage at the corner, the top part achieved momentum toward that area of impact. However, it then disintegrated in mid air, and from what force?
What force ground them into fine dust powder, so that nothing at all remained?
"...most agree that the temperature probably reached 1,000° Fahrenheit and possibly higher than 1,800° F. Flames of this temperature would be far short of the approximately 2800° F needed to melt steel, but they would have been sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal. Best engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 1,200°F and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800°F.' Even if we assume temperaaires of no higher tlian 1,000°F during tlie fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse."
There's quite a difference between heating the air to 1,000°F and heating numerous structural steel support columns to 1,000°F. That is what is completely ignored here, along with another fire in the in 1975 that burned longer, spread to several floors, and produced NO measurable effects on the structural integrity of the Tower whatsoever.
Secondly, a partial failure of some supporting elements, is something wholely different than a total "eventual collapse." Total collapse requires the symmetrical failure of a large number of supporting columns simultaneously. How does this symmetry accompany a plane crash?
"Within this perimeter tube design there was a 27 m by 40 m core, designed to provide additional support to the tower."
"The impact and explosion of the airplane crashes probably knocked off most of the insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams, considerably increasing their vulnerability to flames."
The Skeptic Magazine is down to unscientific claims of "probably?" That's quite astounding. Others, who are more knowledgeable about these matters, and who investigated this specious claim are not so confident about this presumed probability at all.
Is this skepticism or dictation?
"The heat of the flames reduced the steel to a fraction of its initial strength, while also causing the steel trusses to expand at each end until they no longer supported the weight of the building's floors, triggering the collapse."
NIST itself tells us the the jet fuel burned off within 20 minutes in any given location. There were highly limited fuel sources in the core, as they were steel shafts and elevators. These were sealed tightly thus depriving the fire of sources of oxygen, as designed. These factors reduced the likelihood that the "1,000" degree office fires would be able to transfer this heat to the supporting columns.
"The expansion and warping of the steel would have been particularly significant due to temperature differences within the burning structure. Thus, the trusses went limp much like a slackened laundry iine, providing little or no resistance to the weight of the floors overhead."
"However, the sources in question are informal observations of "steel" at, not laboratory results."
But we do have more evidence of "steel" in molten form at " " on 9/11, and that received no space at all in the Skeptic article.
Dr. Steven Jones has samples of the massive amounts of concrete dust produced there. Analyzing these samples, steel "spherules" were easily detected. These steel spheres, according to Jones, prove molten steel as a component of the events on September 11th. These steel spherules were also mentioned in US Geological Survey analyses of the dust. Was this deliberately left out of the Skeptic article because it challenged the author's biases?
"As for the "squibs" conspiracy theorists claim to see in videos of the WTC collapse, these are plumes of smoke and debris ejected from the building due to the immense pressure associated with millions of tons of falling towers (see Figure 1)."
Well, you can see actual steel beams that landed hundreds of feet away from the towers in photographs. Here is one such beam weighing 600,000 pounds.
The purported "skepticism" behind these claims is stripped bare here. Air pressure is one possible explanation for windows being blown out, but so are demolition charges. With no evidence cited to decide the issue, the magazine sides with the air pressure explanation because it conforms to preconceptions.
"These arguments only reveal the assumptions of tlieir authors [tell me about it!]. First, the fires burning in WTC 7 were extremely extensive, as Figure 3 shows."
"...they tend to only show the north side of WTC 7, selectively causing the building to appear both far less ravaged by fire and stnicturai damage than it actually was (see Figure 4)."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but much more substantial "infernos" have happened in steel framed skyscrapers without catastrophic structural failures. As a matter of fact, no skyscraper has ever -- before or after 9/11 -- fallen in the manner witnessed at WTC-7, except by controlled demolition. Does this fact mean nothing to self-proclaimed "skeptics?"
"Emergency response workers atrealized that extensive damage to the lower
south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 PM on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.''
"Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of the building's fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained."
As for structural damage affecting the process, that is possible. No one said it isn't. But was it the initiating factor? Why was this a symmetrical and total collapse into the building's footprint?
The NIST investigators admitted they could not explain WTC-7, and that the theory posited by the government only had a "low probabiltiy of occurrence." Why is Skeptic Magazine so sure about this, with such minimal investigation? It all seems so consistent with a deliberate effort to obfuscate and to distort.
Skeptic Mag then concentrates on Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote, but ignores the unimaginably immense insurance settlement that Silverstein collected. All that wasted space on the meaning of "pull it," but not a look into Silverstein putting up only 14 million dollars of his money to "own" the complex, and just a few months later walking away with nearly $5 billion in payouts, along with the legal right to rebuild the site.
Business profits like that are quite unheard of in the financial pages.
Silverstein, as the "owner" of the site, had effective control of security there during the summer of 2001.
"Furthermore, what relationship doess Silverstein have with thegovemment who, according to conspiracy theorists, destroyed the WTC buildings in order to terrorize its citizens into accepting domination by a police state?"
That's not investigation, not even to exonerate Silverstein.
Further, we shouldn't expect to find obvious links to the government, as this was a covert plan, not an overt one.
We haven't been able to investigate this crime, you see. That's the problem. We have no subpoena power, and we are not congressmen. Those that should have taken an interest in Larry Silverstein's record insurance profits chose not to do so. That is one more piece of the cover up puzzle. It is certainly not proof of innocence that some controlled and mock "investigations" chose not to look at it.
UTTER LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
"And if the govemment controlled the demolition of the WTC buildings in order to strike fear into its citizens, why one this one case would it wait until all of the tenants were evacuated from WTC 7 so that there were no reported casualties? The government's strategy appears wildly inconsistent in the Truth Movement account—killing nearly 3,000 people in the destruction of the two main towers, while allowing an entire afternoon for tlie tenants of WTC 7 to escape."
Real terrorists, intent on hurting America could have killed 1 million people or more that day, by simply crashing into Indian Point nuclear power plant (which the Atta plane reportedly flew right over).
3,000 people is minimal. They could have waited until more people showed up for work and killed more at the WTC. They could have toppled the WTC towers, and taken out tens of thousands more people. This was designed to minimize the catastrophe, so that just enough destruction happened to solidify their hold on power and to legitimize their criminal wars of aggression.
Why was WTC-7 destroyed at all?
Could it have been the command center for the controlled demolitions of the towers?
Did they want to get rid of a lot of evidence at , DOD and SEC offices located there?
It wasn't necessary to kill any more people that day. Building 7 was -- could have been -- just tying up loose ends.
Similarly the was "reinforced" with kevlar and blast resistant 2,500 lb windows on the West side (only) where it was struck. This minimized casualties, not vice versa. It also killed many workmen, rather than important high level military personnel.
"We should also note that the alleged 9/11 plot was needlessly complicated,"
"...since the building was wired for a controlled demolition and targeted to be hit by airplanes—why not just do the controlled demolition, ditch the airplanes and blame it on the terrorists of your choice?"
Project Bojinka was a real plan, a plausible plan, linked to radical Islamic fighters. September 11th was the realization of Bojinka -- by any means necessary.
Just because it was theoretically possible for radical Islamic warriors to independently perpetrate such an attack does not mean that is what actually happened. The fingerprints of intelligence services, , MI6, MOSSAD, ISI and Saudi, are all over this operation. If that doesn't make self-professed "skeptics" a bit skeptical, than what the hell does it take?
Mohammad Atta, the "lead hijacker" was a fundamentalist Islamacist, or a womanizing, drug running, alcohol drinking, pork eating, gambling, lap dance afficianado, who trained at a US military school and was under surveillance in ? Which one did I read about in mainstream US press accounts?
If "skeptics" are comfortable with such blinders, ignoring mountains of contrary evidence in their race to take a few cheap shots against the latest whipping boy, I guess I'm going to have to redefine myself.
Regarding the crash, Skeptic misses the boat again. It's all scripted by Popular Mechanics about whether a plane hit the , and the debris and the hole.
Nothing about why the West side which was struck, was reinforced with kevlar and blast windows (which would account for the strange hole), while no other sections were thusly reinforced. Nothing about how a plane can reach the after 84 minutes of "emergency" in the skies with two suicide hijackings impacting (several hundred miles to the north). Nothing about 's lies regarding interception, and his unlawful assumption of command during the attacks, nor of 's eyewitness account, "Of course the orders still stand." Nor numerous war games, which gave Cheney the opportunity to assume command of the air defenses -- which did not respond in a timely fashion to the 9/11 attacks.
"Why would the same U.S. government that allegedly destroyed the WTC shoot down Flight 93 before it could cause similar damage to other buildings? Of course, this (question assumes a standard of logical consistency that the 9/11 Truth Movement seems to lack."
2) Because it took nearly two hours for this attack to happen, and it was getting absolutely ridiculous that the United States of America can't put up one jet fighter in the skies above our own East Coast.
"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over..."
Ooops! Popular Mechanics / Skeptic Rag is clearly debunked by the , and a report discovered from 1994 (clearly within the "last decade"):
"Other reserve and active units are well equipped to handle what has become the defense force's current focus--intercepting drug smugglers. (...) Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity.\3 The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress. Appendix I contains additional information on the scramble activity at each air defense unit and alert site and on the continental air defense and air sovereignty missions. " --Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76)
Skeptic Magazine continues blundering right along:
"Thus, even a direct NORAD decision to intercept any of the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have still entailed a significant amount of time to reach the jet—time that was simply not available on 9/11."
We have an incredible tale before us, that the FAA and the rest of the multi-trillion dollar defense establishment can't find a plane on their screens as soon as the transponder is turned off. It's like a cloak of invisibility, and no one can possibly track it over the skies of the "homeland."
The possibility of having the Air Traffic Controller who witnessed the transponder turned off actually talking and telling the military where the plane is on his screen (probably unnecessary, but still), by means of ultra-high tech devices like the "telephone" is beyond our military's imagination.
I have a lovely bridge for sale, if anyone over at Skeptic Mag. is interested.
"Indeed, general bad news about the airline industry prompted investment companies to advise their clients to take the put options, removing any need to blame the trading options on foreknowledge of the attacks."
The question about the put options is one more bit of cover up. The government has not told us who made the investments, and why a significant chunk of change remained unclaimed. Further, Mayo Shattuck III, the head of "Alex Brown" division of Deutch Bank, where some of these put options were placed resigned immediately without explanation as soon as the markets opened again after 9/11. Shattuck had taken over the post from the 's #3 man at the time: Buzzy Krongard.
Skeptic Mag, rather than attempting to investigate -- again -- has simply found an explanation from a debunker site and promoted it as God's truth. This is quite tiresome going through their mountain of propaganda.
Next the / Tom Kenney claim (obscure and already debunked by Michael Ruppert in 2002) is brought out. No acknowledgement that was actually in running Tripod 2, a bio-terror excercise on September 11th. But so what anyway? This isn't central to 9/11, nor is anyone claiming that it is.
Now here comes the big one, crapola central:
"...the explanations they don't give are just as problematic. I have not been able to locate any significant discussion of, radical Islamic terrorists or the modem history of the in any of the 9/11 Truth Movement's writings."
I guess I shouldn't expect him to have run into Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Nafeez Ahmed, Professor Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson, or a lot of other knowledgeable and credible people who have exposed " " as a western intelligence created and protected sham. We can't expect Skeptic to care about US funding, training, arming and defending Al Qaeda connected KLA in the , in Kosovo?
Actually, if this article is any indication of the scholarship over there, I wouldn't worry about it. The magazine is doomed.
Now for a thoroughly ignorant "history" lesson:
"an attack by the radical Hezbollah faction on Marine barracks inin 1983;"
" whatsoever. (Or do they all just look alike?)
2) The Hezbollah attack (on a military target) was in response to a US battleship shelling their villages with bombs the size of "Volkswagons."
3) What was a Marine barracks doing in at all?
"the hiijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985;"
"a truck bomb attack on thein 1993; killing 6 people and injuring
over 1,000 more;"
There is so, so much you don't know about these matters, it's truly disheartening.
"a thwarted attempt to blow up 12 planes heading from theto the U.S. in January, 1995;"
"the bombings of U.S. Embassy buildings inand in 1995, killing 12 Americans and 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians;"
"Since bin-Laden andhave officially claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence points in their direction..."
"there is no point in seeking altemative theories."
"Sadly, the 9/11 Tmth Movement continues to divert its gaze from the real problems, preferring the solace of delusions to reality."
This type of thing happens all the time, which someone "skeptical" should have caught onto, say when they were entering high school.
"Tliis article has analyzed the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement and found them lacking."
"Why do so many intelligent and promising people find these theories so compelling?"
"First, there is the simple philosophical point that suspicion alone demonstrates nothing—any theory needs evidence in its favor if it is to be taken seriously."
"Second, the mistakes made by our government in tlie past are qualitatively different from a conscious decision to kill thousands of its own citizeas in order to justify the oppression of others."
"But if America really was a police state with such terrible secrets to protect, surely government thugs would have stormed the lecture halls and arrested many of those present, or would at the very least have conducted behind the scenes arrests and jailed the movement's leaders."
Saying this isn't Nazi Germany yet isn't quite saying we aren't headed there. Some of us actually concern ourselves with these matters, as difficult as that is for you to comprehend.
I think a great misunderstanding with most of these self-styled "debunkers" is the term "United States Government," as if we're talking about EVERYONE!
They resort to this garbage reasoning instead of looking at the facts (like numerous whistleblowers who name names). We are talking about small groups of like-minded actors in key positions who share common interests, such as the Project for a New American Century clique.
There are shadowy and compartmentalized intelligence networks. They sometimes collude, share intelligence, share assets, share profits, share ideological obsessions, and commit ongoing criminal conspiracies such as narcotics trafficking.
"9/11 was a powerful reminder of how precious and fragile human life and liberty are—the greatest possible rebuke to those who would live in service to delusions."