9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Doublethink

The one consistency 9/11 truth members are guilty of is using inconsistent logic. To break it into simple terms, inconsistent logic is adhering to two contrary beliefs and making them fit into one unified theory. George Orwell said it best in a fairly popular novel, entitled 1984. Doublethink it is called, is described as such,

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

As Orwell describes, the real problem with doublethink is that it becomes an infinite loop of denial. When someone is close to breaking free from it, they persist in denial because it’s less damaging to their beliefs.

In the popular film Loose Change, the phrase “military precision” is used to describe the government’s meticulous planning of the attacks and it’s a prime example of how little the truth movement exercises critical thinking. If in fact the government’s false flag operation was as meticulous as claimed, then the ease with which 9/11 truthers uncover the government’s plot contradicts its precision.

One such piece of evidence which contradicts the precision of the 9/11 operation is Larry Silverstein’s interview:

So the government managed to secretly plant explosives in the twin towers, destroyed all traces of evidence, and no journalist has managed to break the story, yet somehow they accidentally missed Larry Silverstein’s televised interview in which he admits WTC7 was demolished – something seems wrong here. Ignoring the fact that “pull it” is not a term used to demolish buildings, if the government were as adept as advertised they would have stopped Silverstein from ever giving the interview. Truthers fail to realize that for a conspiracy to remain in tact, any leaked information must be prohibited. However instead of admitting defeat or admitting this piece of evidence as weak, truthers trick themselves into thinking this strengthens their theory.

What this means is Silverstein’s interview is actually further proof of the government’s proficiency. Where most people see Silverstein’s slip-up as an accident, truthers see intent. For if the truther does not see intent, they may see the error in their logic and slowly but surely they’re theory will begin to erode. But for the theory to hold water, doublethink must be utilized and no group is better at exercising it than the 9/11 truth movement.

Another fact which alludes many truthers is the simple observation that government is inherently imprecise and inconsistent. It can do things incredibly well like construct hospitals, enforce laws, and create powerful armies, but those same hospitals it builds may have faulty plumbing or electrical problems. Certain laws may be greatly enforced, while others are often neglected. Even with the enormous amount of money spent on the military thousands of soldiers go without proper armor or protection, and many veterans come home without adequate means to become productive members of society. The simple fact is government is not the infallible machine so many proponents of the 9/11 conspiracy theory propose.

For one moment however, let us grant that the government is incredibly adept and nearly perfect. Let us imagine that it intricately planned out every action and even went as far to include alleged “weak spots” in their theory to confuse debunkers. If this is the case, then why use the term precise to describe the 9/11 plot? If anything it would mean the theory is perfectly imprecise and therefore the term precise loses all its meaning.

The reason such inconsistencies find their way into theories is because generally speaking, people do not examine their own beliefs. This is no different for truthers; they analyze the external pieces of evidence with great zeal, but fail to do the same with their internal thought processes. This result is doublethink and it shows just how an overly critical mind can make critical mistakes.

9/11 truthers are so caught up with promoting their theories and confirming their beliefs they fail to see the error in their logic. The circle of denial is complete and their erroneous theory is safe.


About curiousplumber88

Hello, I'm burgeoning writer, which means, in short, I'm an amateur hoping to make a living as an author. I am currently writing a novel(s) and hope to use this blog as a format to communicate with an audience and also to help, inspire, or just plain write. Everything you see on the site is in its first draft status, so it is all temporary and will undergo edits in the future. This is more a domain for me to share my writing and actually get some crucial feedback on my work. For those of you who to choose to read it, I sincerely hope you enjoy it.
This entry was posted in 9/11 and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Doublethink

  1. limey says:

    Great logical smack-down!

  2. Syd Walker says:

    This article is a hatchet job. Sad.

    This is what 9-11 Victim’s families want:

    • I didn’t say anything about the victims’ families, but I agree if that many people want a new investigation they should just get one. However, I believe they would just get the same explanation of collapse and besides plenty of money has been spent on investigations. Over 1,000 architects may want a new investigation, but NIST has over 1,000 members and ASCE is comprised of over 100,000 engineers. Number don’t mean much, but it’s certainly telling that so many are satisfied with the investigation. Not to mention, there have been safety changes to newly constructed buildings because of what engineers have learned from the flaws in the WTC buildings.

  3. Syd Walker says:


    Do you have a ref for this:

    “there have been safety changes to newly constructed buildings because of what engineers have learned from the flaws in the WTC buildings.”

  4. Craig McKee says:

    I think it’s your logic that is suspect. You admit governments can screw things up, but you don’t see that this could explain why so much evidence exists of an inside job. Obviously they aren’t perfect, and obviously they didn’t include flaws in the official story to confuse truthers. They made many mistakes because the event was so vast and complicated. I could list 500 points that need explanation for the official story to be true. To focus on why journalists haven’t “broken” the story (they’ve hardly asked any of the important questions) instead of refuting the evidence yourself is illogical. Don’t forget, your explanation for the event is also a conspiracy theory, and not a very good one.

    • I’m glad you can admit that the govt. did not implement mistakes to confuse people. Instead of poking holes in the “official theory” why don’t you give evidence for your theory? On your point of journalists not breaking the story, I feel it’s very logical. Journalists have broken Watergate and the Bay of Pigs conspiracies, therefore a conspiracy as vast and complicated as this would lead to many mistakes (as you yourself admit). Breaking the 9/11 case would be incredibly easier than Watergate, yet it has not happened. Either journalism has gotten incredibly sloppy, the govt. is incredibly adept, or nothing shady occurred. Also, I would like to point out that a journalist breaking the story would be good evidence for the conspiracy theory, I’m only mentioning that this has not happened which we would expect for the conspiracy to hold true. I’d love to refute more evidence for the conspiracy theory, but interestingly enough there is very little to refute.

  5. Craig McKee says:

    Your comments get to the heart of the problem concerning 9/11 and what really happened. First, the onus is not on people like me to explain what happened. We’re certainly free to try, and people will do this. But frankly it is the official story that is in question. If it is true, then challenges to it won’t gain any traction. If it is true, then all the questions that people want answers to will have answers. But they don’t. Most “truthers” just want a fair and independent investigation, which no one can reasonably claim the 9/11 Commission provided. If people like me speculated on what really happened instead of looking at the official story, then that would take the attention away from the questions that are crying out for answers. If there was the type of conspiracy that I believe, then the whole point was to conceal the truth. But it is the OFFICIAL account that needs to stand up to questions.
    As for the media, this question disturbs me more than any other. I have worked as a journalist for more than 20 years, and I am shocked at how the media have looked the other way. I can understand if they take a position opposite to mine, but they don’t even ASK the questions that people want answers to. Things that don’t make sense aren’t examined. You’re right that other conspiracies have come to light, but many don’t. And even if the truth is printed somewhere, it doesn’t penetrate the public consciousness. For instance, how many people know that Howard Hunt of Watergate fame admitted to being part of the plot to kill Kennedy? He did, and it’s on tape. Heard about that one on CBS or CNN?

    • I completely and utterly disagree with you on this point: “First, the onus is not on people like me to explain what happened. We’re certainly free to try, and people will do this. But frankly it is the official story that is in question. If it is true, then challenges to it won’t gain any traction. If it is true, then all the questions that people want answers to will have answers. But they don’t.” I can prove to you that this logic is 100% incorrect. The burden of proof is on people like you who make claims to back it up with evidence. The general theory of relativity and the theory of evolution are facts. Yet, they cannot answer or predict all the questions scientists have asked. This by no means weakens the two theories because they answer so much, but it instead shows we are still ignorant on certain issues. You claim that the government’s withholding of information proves how weak their theory is, this is a mistake. Many questions have been answered and those that haven’t are likely being ignored or avoided for practical reasons.

      • Craig McKee says:

        First, let’s agree that your view of what happened is a conspiracy theory. It has been put forth by the government and the media as being the unquestionable truth. If it is the truth, then it should stand up to examination. I’m not saying you need to know every single element of the story to support your view, but if there are points that call your view into question, then they should be addressed, no? So, when someone asks where the molten metal came from under the towers, somebody should have at least a strong hypothesis. When someone asks why we aren’t shown a video proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, someone should have an answer for this. Either they have a video or they don’t. And given that this is probably the most secure building in the world, one would have to believe many videos exist, including cameras from inside the building. Someone on your side has to respond to this; it’s not up to me or people who agree with me.

      • I submit to your will. My view on 9/11 is a conspiracy. However, it is a conspiracy because it was a secret plan formulated by people for an evil purpose; truth has no bearing on whether something is a conspiracy or not. There are true conspiracies and false conspiracies just as there are true theories and erroneous ones. To your point of addressing unanswered questions – there are certainly gaps in the official theory. The fact that the govt. is unwilling to address those questions and answer them is suspect of incompetence, laziness, or malevolence. I tend to believe the first two are much, much more likely. Also, the fact that you mentioned molten metal shows you are too willing to believe eye-witness testimony. As far as we know it could have been molten aluminum or any other element.

    • jw says:

      ” If people like me speculated on what really happened instead of looking at the official story, then that would take the attention away from the questions that are crying out for answers.”

      We’ve been hearing that for years and one would imagine we’ll continue to hear it, but surely some kind of coherent alternative theory has to be laid out – what the hell, just for the sake of it.

      The reason why this never happens is, you would suspect, that it all begins to sound even more ludicrous than it already does, eg, Donald Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney cooking up a bizarre plot to hijack a plane, switch it with a missile, gas all the passengers at some secret air base, hope that no one is able to spot the difference between a missile & a plane, have their secret operatives run out after impact & fling around body parts & pieces of plane debris & hope that nobody notices this unusual behaviour, plant witnesses at the scene, and other miscellaneous nefarious spy movie-style antics that nobody will ever be able to prove because they never actually happened.

      Just found this site, – hope you keep it going, – all the best

      • Thanks, I plan on keeping it going for a while. I may try to write for a career. So it’s a start!

      • limey says:

        very good point jw. The truth deniers get so caught up in anomoly hunting that they forget the bigger picture. Which means their alternative explanations for individual events become impossible when viewed from any other perspective. Its frustrating when they can’t see that and continue to promote their falacies despite no evidence.

  6. Craig McKee says:

    Your ideas about truth and reality (whether a conspiracy did or did not occur) are pretty confusing. What exactly is a false conspiracy?
    But let’s agree that facts determine whether something is true or not. You agree that facts to explain the official story are lacking in some areas. This is a good start. You attribute the unwillingness to answer these questions to incompetence or laziness. This just seems silly. If they have facts that could shut the 9/11 Truth movement up, they’d be quick to release them. There’s only so much you can blame on incompetence. No one was even disciplined for messing up that day.
    As for the molten metal, the idea that aluminum was “burning” under the tower rubble for three months is just not believable. It’s a theory that is way harder to back up than my believe that thermite was used to aid in the demolition of the towers.

    • limey says:


      The thermite theory does not hold up because thermite is not a reliable way to bring down a building. This is because it does not explode, instead it burns very very rapidly. The problem with this rapid burning is that it burning only goes one way, down. if you strap it to a steel column the thermite will burn through whatever is holding it to the steel and fall to the floor and burn a hole in that. It does not cause the reliable instant explosions that are seen on demolition videos.

      This is why thermite is not used in demolition and why its use on 9/11 can be ruled out because it simply does not fit with the observations.

      The same goes for the fires under the rubble. It can’t be thermite because thermite burns very rapidly. The volume required to be burning ‘for three months’ is so huge its laughable.

      There is another far more plausible explanation of the fires burning in the rubble for so long. That is the water that was being poured onto the pile of rubble. Water contacting extremely hot metal, such as the steel fresh from an inferno of aeroplane fuel, will instantly vaporise, that vapour will have a lot of oxygen in it, which, guess what? Helps fire to burn! Water and metals at such a high temperature are a known hazard in the metals industry.

      In the confined space of that pile of rubble, with some very hot metal girders and a constant flow of vaporising water, with nowhere for the extra oxygen to dissipate to except to be consumed by the fire within. Its hardly surprising that it was not a nice place to be.

      • Craig McKee says:

        I never said thermite ALONE was used to bring down the building. You’re right that it does not explode, but it is used to cut through metal. And combined with explosives it could be very helpful in bringing the buildings down. Keep in mind that this was not supposed to look like a regular demolition, so it makes sense that the approach would be somewhat different. And where do you get the idea that it would fall off before burning through the beam? I’ve seen demolition experts interviewed where they say that it is attached diagonally to cut through the beams. It doesn’t have to remain attached for long.
        For the fires in the rubble, I can’t believe you’re seriously suggesting that water sprayed on metal that was briefly heated by a jet fuel explosion would remain molten for weeks. I guess the people at Ground Zero spraying the water didn’t understand science as well as you do, eh? And if the explanation is so innocent why don’t the authorities tell us this. They ignore it because there is no rational explanation other than a chemical reaction and VERY high temperatures. And did they start spraying water immediately? Your entire explanation doesn’t hold water (no pun intended).
        I’ll probably write about thermite on my blog (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com), soon so I’d be happy to have your criticisms there as well (curiousplumber88 too).

      • Indeed, it’s good to have a conversation about it at least. It sounds to me like your a really smart guy and defend your positions well. Of course I still find it odd that you use logic and reason to discuss all these 9/11 topics, but you can’t seem to use that logic on your own beliefs about what happened. I know that may sound confusing but don’t worry we can discuss that later.

      • BTW Limey, thanks for the help. Good to see some debate!

      • limey says:

        no worries, I like an intelligent discussion 🙂

      • limey says:


        My idea that thermite would fall of is based on the assumption that thermite strapped to the side of a beam would burn downwards and through its holdings before it does any damage to the steel. That is afterall, the most efficient direction in which it will burn. In order for it to burn sideways through a steel beam there will have to be preperation made on that beam, removeal of covering material, cutting away of some of the steel to create a place to mount the thermite and then some way of encouraging the thermite to burn diagonally rather that simply following gravity stright down. I just don’t get the logic of how all that wouk could have possibly been done, especially when dynamite was to be rigged up as well? The manpower effort to rig those two buildings as you suggest is so immense as to be utterly unbelievable.

        The water theory is one that I have come across and certainly makes more sense than thermite. As stated before, the volume of thermite required to burn for so long after the collapse is enormous, so enormous as to be impossible to fit to the strucures without making it obvious that something is amis. It also represents a massive miscalculation of the amount of thermite required to do the job of bringing down the buildings.

        The sciense of water on hot metal is very interesting. I love science and I love learning new things about science, but I won’t be so arrogant as to say I am better at it than person X. The water theory could not possible explain everything and it needs the right scenario, given the volume of other combustables in the pile of rubble, its possible that the water theory doesn’t hold water after all, which doesn’t bode well for the thermite one, which is even less likely 😉

        The scientific process is about testing a theory against the evidence and seeing if there is a bit, no fit = chuck the theory. Sadly thermite proponents spend too much time reinterpreting facts to try and fit the theory.

        Incidently, while searching for informaiton on the longevity of the fires I found this article which I thinks summarises the situation very well. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634-ground-zeros-fires-still-burning.html

        I’d not read this article before and based on those facts I am happy to dump the water theory, especially in light of the fact that the fire was allowed to burn uncontrolled for some time while rescuers got on with other jobs. Clearly there was a lot of stuff there to burn and oxygen was able to get to the flames through gaps in the rubble.

        This is a very rational explanation that does not require a chemical reaction, are you happy to dump the thermite theory?

    • A false conspiracy is a conspiracy which is not true! I don’t know what is so tough to understand about that, but since I’m awesome I’ll try to explain it further. We’ll take the JFK assassination as an example. One conspiracy theory would be that Oswald worked alone to assassinate JFK. Another would be if the FBI or CIA worked together to kill JFK. Another could be aliens killed him. Another could be a group of anarchists shot the president. Another would be if LBJ and others conspired to kill JFK. Or maybe a group of time-travelers arrived from the future and decided to kill JFK because he’s too handsome. All of these are conspiracy theories. Most of them are absolutely false. Like I said, a conspiracy is merely a person or group of peeps working together to enact an evil plan. That’s it. Whether aliens did kill the president or not does not matter…it’s a conspiracy theory and an obviously false one at that, but I could be wrong. 😛

      • Craig McKee says:

        I guess we were having a bit of a semantic debate there about false conspiracies.
        I agree with your definition of conspiracies. The problem is that when people question an official story, they are labelled as conspiracy theorists to discredit them. Yes, my theory is that the U.S. government was behind the attacks. But it is a fact, not a theory, that the official story doesn’t stand up to close examination. My approach has been to look at the official account and to test the facts. If they’re valid, they’ll stand up.
        You know, if the official story included Al-Qaeda getting access to the towers and installing explosives, people would believe it. If they believed everything else, they’d believe that. We need to step back and figure out what really happened and not just twist ourselves into knots defending the official “theory.”
        Having said all of that, I have no objection to sharing my unproven theories about what happened and letting you have a go at them. I can offer some of those theories here and on my own blog. I, too, enjoy good debate on the subject.

  7. Craig McKee says:

    I would want to see experiments with thermite on a steel beam – or at least a few expert opinions – before I’d be convinced that it wouldn’t work. As I said before, this wasn’t supposed to look like a controlled demolition so the perpetrators had to think outside the box.
    As to the enormous effort required to rig the building: yes, I agree it would have been an incredible undertaking. But this isn’t a reason to reject the idea. If people with time, access, and resources wanted to do this, they probably could. It might seem unlikely to some of us, but lots of things seem unlikely that turn out to be true. Don’t you agree?
    I’m glad we’ve dropped the water theory. The thermite one has not been disproven, however. We haven’t yet mentioned the nano-thermite particles that were found in the WTC dust. It was tested by Steven Jones, and it exploded.
    Something beyond normal fire has to explain metal that remains molten for three months. This is not jet fuel, and its not “debris” from the towers. Not for three months, and after an ocean of water was poured over it. Something else happened. The thing that bothers me about the non-inside-job point of view is that it seems to be an effort in finding ways to knock down the other side instead of finding a truth that makes sense. We should ALL be very curious about these fires.
    Oh, yes, about the article link. This article says nothing about how the fires continued so long, except one vague reference to “human remains.”
    They write: “Tinsley says there are several reasons for the longevity of the fire: “First, this is not a typical fire by any means. The combustible debris is mixed with twisted steel in a mass that covers 17 acres, and may be 50 metres deep. This is the one all future fire scenes will be measured against.”
    What reasons? And there were samples of steel from the towers that were a fraction of their normal thickness. Something did that, and it wasn’t jet fuel.

  8. limey says:


    “Something beyond normal fire has to explain metal that remains molten for three months. ”

    What molten metal? The aluminum from the planes melted in the fuel inferno but I have seen nothing about molten steel, either in the towers or in the fire afterwards.

    Photos on the rubble pile and recovery show lots of bent steel girders but I don’t recall having ever seen any molten steel. The fire in the rubble was combustibles being burnt, but I have seen nothing that suggests that there was molten metal being maintained in that pile, so your requirement for thermite is eradicated right there.

    My concern with nano thermite is that tiny particles have been found that apparently prove nano thermite. There does not seem to be any scientific scrutiny by the thermite brigade on weather or not these particle could have come from anything else. If you expect me to accept they are thermite I want to see a breakdown of what these particles consist of and what other substances in the towers have the the same make up and why they are ruled out. Until that happens, thermite can only be relegated to the pile marked ‘fanciful’.

  9. Craig McKee says:

    Regarding your statement, “…I have seen nothing that suggests that there was molten metal being maintained in that pile, so your requirement for thermite is eradicated right there.”
    You suggest that if you have no knowledge of something, it is disqualified from being used in the debate. I wrote an entire blog post recently (“Molten metal under Trade Center rubble could NOT have come from jet fuel” – http://truthandsha,dows.wordpress.com)
    Whether or not you know about molten steel, there are dozens of witnesses to this, including Rudy Giuliani, who commented on it in the press. NASA took aerial images that showed fires below all three collapsed buildings two weeks after the event. Leslie Robertson, one of the architects who built the towers, said 21 days after the event that there was molten metal under the rubble. Photos I used on my post that are easily available through Google show molten metal being pulled from the rubble. There are also shots of molten metal pouring from the upper floors of the South Tower after the impact. Explain this!
    As for thermite, Prof. Steven Jones of Brigham Young University found unexploded but combustible thermite in the Trade Center dust. None of the official studies even tested for explosive residue.

  10. Craig McKee says:

    Sorry, made a typo in my link above. Should be http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com

  11. limey says:


    I did a google search and I looked at the image on your website. Why just one image? The google image results were dissapointing, the same image you have is the best example, the rest that I could find are of such low quality its actially impossible to tell the context of the photo. One example of molten metal clearly had firefighters with a blow-tortch or similar instrument. There was one photo, which at first glance did look like it showed pools of molten metal, yet the quality of the photo was so poor, there could have been other explanations, such as orange flame burn something much more mundane.

    As to the photo you show, on your site, that is not molten metal, it very hot metal. If it was motlen then a grab claw would not be able to pick it up like that. Motlen means its in a liquid state, a very hot steel girder will still keep its shape when picked up like that, despite being red hot. If there really the volume of molten metal you claim there was, there would be stacks more evidence that that. The evidence I see only indicates some of the metal got very hot.

    The vast majority of the steel that came out of that rubble pile was not even red hot, let alone molten. Yet we are expected to believe that there was enough thermite to have kept a fire going for 3 months. If there really was the volume of thermite you claim then wouldn’t you expect to see far more evidence? There is a serious logic problem there, a claim which is not backed up my the evidence.

    Oh and the bits dripping from the towers? Yeah, that’s aluminium, you know, that stuff they make planes out of, it melts at a much lower temperature than steel and given the volume of jet fuel burning it up. Its hardly surprising it went a bit soft and drippy isn’t it! Or maybe its from the computers on the desks melting in the inferno.

    So this Jones chap claims to have found some tiny particles on nano-thermite. So which is it? Thermite or nano-thermite? Which one was used? Now given there was supposed to be huge quantities of thermite, enough to burn to 3 months, how come he’s only found a really tiny amount? If there was supposed to be that much thermite the micro particles would be everywhere, in and on every bit of material taken away. It is far more likely that what he found was from metle cutting tools used during cleanup, or even from the components of melted computer equipment.

    See this link for a very good destruction of the thermite theories. I may have posted it already.


    Seriously, the thermite theory is a dead end, its logic does not stack up, the evidence does not support it. It holds no water 😉

    • Craig McKee says:

      I would be much more comfortable with your point of view if I didn’t think that your priority is to defend that p.o.v. rather than to evaluate the evidence. When there’s something odd that you can’t explain, you dismiss it. You’ll never get to the truth that way. You need at least some curiosity to learn anything.
      Why aren’t there more photos? I don’t know; I wasn’t there. And that proves nothing. The molten metal that was reported by MANY witnesses, including Giuliani and Leslie Robertson (designer of the buildings) was in the sub-basements and not conveniently available to photographers. And by the way, it was the New York City fire chief who announced in December that the fires had finally been put out. You are correct that the photo shows very hot metal rather than molten metal. But there shouldn’t be any of that either.
      As for “stacks” of evidence, you forget that I’m claiming this was an operation that was not supposed to be figured out. Why would you expect a covert operation to offer “stacks” of evidence for all to see.
      Your logic also falls down here: you question how I can think thermite might keep the fire going for three months. But none of your explanations explain the length of the fires either. And since your theory is the one the government has offered, then you – or they – should have some explanation. I’m not a thermite expert but I know that aluminum from a plane exploding won’t burn underground for three months. Neither will carpet or computers. For someone who clearly doesn’t know what happened, you can still be sarcastic about how aluminum is the stuff they make planes out of. So it’s that obvious, is it? Any idiot can tell that that’s aluminum? Maybe someone was trying to put out the fire with a hose and that created the molten metal. Oh, I forgot, you dropped the “water” theory.
      About Jones, I didn’t say he found a tiny amount. And this was unexploded thermite. How much would you expect to find of that? And your open-minded analysis tells you that metal-cutting tools or computers might account for explosive particles in the dust? Really? You want to stick to that one?
      I read your link (or at least as much of it as I could stomach). They seem to have the same tone as you do; I can see why you like it. They say maybe the beam shown cut on the diagonal was cut during the clean-up. If so, what’s that black stuff dripping down from where the beam was severed? This claim makes no sense.
      You know if all of this was an innocent as you claim they would have done a proper investigation and not carted the steel away before it could be fully examined. What was the rush?
      The thermite thing needs more examination, and I plan to do more research. I guess you don’t have to bother with that because you’ve already got it figured out.

  12. limey says:


    I apologise if my tone has caused offence, that’s not intended (sarcastic comments about aluminium asside). yes I am very dismissive about 9/11 being an inside job, that’s because I absolutely do not understand how anyone could think so. Planes hit building, caused damage, ensuing inferno did more damage, end result, fatal collapse. It was a terrible event but the US government, no matter what faults it may have, is utterly innocent. If my comments or tone come across as anything other than civil, its because I simply do not get how anyone could possibly believe in that conspiracy.

    Yes I am curious to learn and learning about the mechanics of what happened that day is interesting.

    The thing about your claims of a covert operation is that, frankly, the evidence simply does not indicate that. You accuse me of dismissing evidence rather than evaluting it. That may be the case, though I see it more as evaluating the evidence and dismissing what is not possible, based on that evidence.

    With regards to fires burning for 3 months, a building 100 stories tall with all that office space would have huge amounts of wood and paper. Is it really that hard to imagine those combustables mixed in that pile of rubble keeping the fires burning? I don’t see how how or why thermite needs to be invoked for the fires to have burned for that long. I simply don’t get how its so hard for that to be accepted. Its a far far simpler explanation than invoking thermite, which has its own huge logistical issue which appear to be overlooked.

    The sampes Jones found are discussed in this page which I find very informative,


    it questions the source and the makeup of the thermite Jones claims to have found. The amount is not discused but the word trace is used which typically means not very much at all, or ‘tiny’ in my words. Again, if thermite was used, there would be more than just those deposites. No mention of it being exploded or unexploded either.

    The angled beam with the black bits? Well thats been cut with a cutting torche as part of the clean up, the black bits are the residue from that cutting operation.

    I would not go so far as to say I’ve got it figured out, but I am extremely confident that there is absolutley no evidence for any conspiracy of any description other than that which is explained by the damage by the planes.

    Whichs brings up another question, how come the planes didn’t set off the explosives at the impact time? and how come each collapse started at the level of the impact, with the building above coming down onto that level and driving the floor below that point down. In my opinion, that rules out any chance of there being an effective explosion demolition, the risk to the set explosives and making it all go wrong would be much too great.

    • Craig McKee says:

      No offense taken. I just pointed it out to indicate a lack of a sincere desire to find the truth. Your mind is made up and you make the evidence fit your preconceived theory.
      You can repeat how the evidence doesn’t support a government conspiracy all you want, but the fact remains that none of the official “conspiracy theory” makes any sense.
      You can’t tell me that a 757 hit the Pentagon and left no large pieces of wreckage. Or that the engines went into the building without damaging the outside wall. It’s a joke. And it’s very obvious that it couldn’t have happened that way.
      You can’t tell me that the complete inability of the military to get fighters in a position to intercept any of the jets is plausible. No one was even punished for negligence or incompetence.
      And you can’t tell me that a pilot who couldn’t rent a Cessna because he was so unqualified managed to fly a 757 in a near impossible manoeuvre a month later. There are hundreds of elements of the official story that don’t add up. If you find the government “utterly innocent” then it is because of your own bias, not the evidence.

  13. Craig, I admire your curiosity, but there is a point where your questioning blinds you from reasoning. The following is a statement you made which I feel shows your lack of critical thinking, “You can’t tell me that a 757 hit the Pentagon and left no large pieces of wreckage. Or that the engines went into the building without damaging the outside wall. It’s a joke. And it’s very obvious that it couldn’t have happened that way.” You said this, but then just a few posts ago you said something about not dismissing the thermite theory without properly testing it. You even said you should not dismiss something because it seems implausible. Yet, here you are dismissing the possibility that a plane was destroyed because it seems implausible. Questioning is great, but it’s about asking the right questions, not so many that we are overwhelmed. To quote John Stewart, “If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.”

    • Craig McKee says:

      Hmm. I don’t see how questioning blinds one from reasoning. I’m asking questions that should have answers. When I made my Pentagon comment I was expressing my opinion, and to some extent my frustration. I stand by them. If I started with, “I’m just wondering…” would that make it better? Why do you think the engines didn’t damage the building? There has to be a reason. Why was there virtually no wreckage?
      You criticize me for making statements without facts, then you suggest I ask too many questions. That’s because no one has adequately answered the hundreds of problems with the official theory.
      I’m happy to look at every aspect of this scientifically, and if there is a good case to be made how the plane disappeared, I’ll listen. But there are many more troubling questions about this event that no one has provided answers to. I suggest it is you who is ignoring to the anomalies right in front of you to defend your position.
      Earlier you said: “…the fact that you mentioned molten metal shows you are too willing to believe eye-witness testimony. As far as we know it could have been molten aluminum or any other element.”
      That’s you doubting my point but not even attempting to refute it. You may think I’m too curious, but I think you’re not curious enough.

  14. limey says:


    Earlier you accused me of having my mind made up and making the evidence fit my preconceived theory. I’m going to turn that round and accuse you of the same. My mind is made up by the evidence that I see and the only reasonable conclusion that is possible from that.

    I do share with you in some of the frustrations you listed. The government certainly cocked up in a number of places that day. There were decision makers who either made decisions that failed to help or failed to makde decisions that would have helped, or both. I don’t think many people will disagree with that.

    The key thing is, what does that actually prove? Does it prove a conspiracy or does it prove that there was stacks of confusion and a failure to grasp the enormity of what was happening? Hindsight is a wondeful thing and its easy to say what should have been done afterwards. Judging those people for not knowing then what we know now is grosly unfair.

    I am concerned by your anomoly hunting, especially as you also say you are happy to look at it scientifically. Digging up an anomoly and saying that it disproves the official story is, frankly, a bit silly. You need to look at the facts that are known and then how the detail helps you build up a story. In that context uncomfortable anomolies will need good explanation but they can’t disprove the known facts.

    Since you’ve moved from WTC to the pentagon, what are the facts?

    – we know its was a 757 because all the other flights of that day are accounted for leaving this one to be the identified flight
    – we know its a 757 because some of the part found match 757 parts and, cruicially, none don’t
    – evidence from impacts on lamp posts and the generator, prior to the pentagon impact point to a plane size range which includes a 757
    – we know it was a plane because there are multiple eyewitness accounts saying there was a plane

    So, a plane hit the pentagon and it was the 757 in question.

    You ask, why virtually no wrekage and why didn’t the engine damage the building?

    Well there is definately some wrekage visible in photographs of the outside of the building, not a lot, very little in fact, but some. So where is the rest? Given that we know what plane it was and there is not much of it outside thye building, the only place left to look is inside. Not a silly idea, given the plane hit the building, causing a lot of damage and killing well over 100 people inside. That can only mean that the plane went some distance into the building. Therefore, any wrekage not outside can only be inside the building. That’s why you can’t see it.

    Yes it would be great if there were more photos of that wrekage and the damage inside, but given the nature of the building concerned, you can’t be too surprised that its not forthcoming. This absense doesn’t actually prove anything either way though. It just makes it harder for the likes of you and me to work out what did happen.

    You also ask why didn’t the engines damage the building?

    How do you know they didn’t? What are you expecting to see in the damage that you are not seeing? Why is that?

    If they were attached to the plane wings as it smacked into the building, then they would have caused some damage.

    So, what do we know?

    We know the distance between the fuselage and the engine on a 757 is about 11 feet. One of the engines struck a generator before the impact and the plane hit at an angle rather than head on. We also know that some of the debris outside the engine was bits of an engine, so that engine obviously suffered something major that caused all or part of it to depart from the plane.

    So, given that no whole engine was found outside the pentagon, it follows that one whole engine and the rest of the other must be inside. How did they get there and through what hole?

    This is where you have to move from the fcats you know and start to build up a picture of what likely happened given the rest of the evidence.

    Given the oblique angle that the plane hit the buiding, the distance along the wall between the engine and the fuelage will be less that the 11 feet mentioned above. Since the engines are also about a 3rd of the way down the length of the plane, this will also have an effect on how they impacted the pentagon, though exactly how is difficult to say. The engines are also mounted below the wings and so they will be below the fuelage in a level impact. Howvere, its estimated that the plane was both on a downward angle and also not level, this latter fact would pitch one engine up and the other down.

    How does all this affact the result of the imapct. I’m not sure and I’ve not read specific information that answers that. Nor are there any clear photos of the pentagon between the impact and the subsequect collapse of the floors above. This lack of clear photos of the actual plane damage to the outside wall is frustrating as it would help an awful lot.

    What we do know is that the damage was such that the floors above collapsed. Yet further in, where there is just a hole from the fuselage, the floors above did not collapse. It would be fair to read into that, that the outside wall damage was more significant. More significant damage begs the question, what besides the fuselage hit the wall? The most reasonable answe to that would be the wings and engines. Whay can’t we see a clear photo of that damage? I wish I knew, it would help a lot. I guess the priorities at the time were to put that fire out and get the building evacuated. Seems fair to me.

    A photo of the inside shows a 13 foot hole that is easily explained by the 757 fuselage, but there are no corresponding wing marks. Hence we know that between the initial impact and that hole the wings became detatched. I do not know what that distance is, which is unfortunate. What it does tell us is that the wings (and therefore the engines) came apart very quickly after the impact, more quickly than the main fuselage, which shouldn’t be that surprising.

    No doubt you’ll find something in the above to disagree with, I’ve tried to be as factual and as logicl as I possibly can, given my knowledge and what I have been able to find in a few brief google searches. The bottom line is, nothing you or I can say will change the facts that a 757 hit the pentagon. We may disagree about how it happened or about the mechanics of the impact, but we can’t change history, no matter how we wish to.

    There is much about the pentagin attack that is unexplained. Most obvious of which is how the blazes did such an inexperienced pilot perform what he did in order to make the impact that he did! Its a staggering feat. Yet somehow he did. The point I’d make is that the improbability of the feat does not disprove it because we can see that the plane did hit and it caused damage and killed people. Just because the government has kept back information and stopped us from knowing the full story does not mean there is a conspiracy. It just means that they want to hold back some informaton, we can speculate as much as we want, but it ain’t going to change that terrorist in a 757 into something else.

    * phew what an essay, if you made it this far, give yourself a medal 🙂

    • Craig McKee says:

      I’m not sure we have the same frustrations. You’re frustrated because the government was so incompetent. I think that incompetence was part of the cover story. I would heartily recommend books by people like David Ray Griffin, Mark Gaffney and Barrie Zwicker for more details about why the “cock up” theory doesn’t stand up. The idea that planes were flying all over the northeast for well over an hour (from first hijack until last “crash”) without even one interception. Not believable. That’s deliberate. And yes, details of exactly why it was deliberate have been chronicled in the work of the authors I’ve mentioned. Can you PROVE that it was a series of errors ?
      Some of your points are quite ridiculous. For example, “Digging up an anomaly and saying that it disproves the official story is, frankly, a bit silly.”

      Here’s a hypothetical: Someone you know is murdered. The police tell you he was shot and they’re using forensic evidence to link the bullet to the gun of a known criminal. They’re sure they’ve got the right guy. Then you speak to the doctor who did the autopsy, and he says the only wound on the body was a stab wound. This is a major anomaly. It doesn’t PROVE that the guy they suspect didn’t do it. But it certainly tells you the murder didn’t happen the way the police claim. Wouldn’t this cause you to doubt their account? Wouldn’t this “anomaly” have to be reconciled before you could believe their official account?

      On to the Pentagon. You’re logic is non-existent. We know the Pentagon was hit by a 757 because all the other flights that day were accounted for? Are you kidding?
      And we KNOW that all the parts found were from a 757? No we don’t. And as for the eyewitnesses, that’s a big subject. There have been many conflicting accounts. How about all the firefighters who heard massive explosions from the basement of the towers. Or do you only cite the witnesses who support your view?

      • I’d like to congratulate all of us for blabbering on for so long! We need to take this one step at a time. I really like your extremely long logical breakdown Limey, but please keep it brief! If we’re going to come to any consensus, it’s important we focus on one topic at a time. So which topic would you guys like to discuss thoroughly? It can be thermite, WTC 7, witnesses, etc. Let’s go from there.

  15. Craig McKee says:

    That’s a good idea. We’re all over the place. I would suggest the Pentagon strike because it is less technical and has more obvious elements that need explaining. But I’m open to anything. And if you guys want to throw a comment or two at my blog, that’d be great too. By the way, I think “logical breakdown” is a great way to describe Limey’s comment.

  16. limey says:

    curiousplumber, sorry about that, I got a bit carried away laying out the detail. I’ll make more effort to be brief.

    Craig, you question my assertion that all planes are accounted for that day, yet offer absolutely no proof. Ditto with my assertion that all wreckage is from a 757.

    Your hypothetical implies that you think something other than a 757 hit the pentagon, that’s going to be a tough shout, given the plane parts found and the evidence for the size of object that hit the pentagon.

  17. Craig McKee says:

    Have you ever heard the term circular logic? You might want to look into that; I think you’re guilty of it over and over. I didn’t offer any “proof” on the question of planes being accounted for because it wasn’t me who made the statement, it was you. You said the fact that all planes were accounted for PROVED that a 757 hit the Pentagon. This is absurd.
    You also seem to be saying that we know another plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, therefore flight 77 must have. I’m saying that NO 757 hit the Pentagon. It makes no difference how many other planes are accounted for. What if flight 77 landed at an air force base? (Please don’t demand proof of this, it’s just an example of something that could have happened – I don’t know if it did)
    As for evidence, you just make it up as you go along. You state that we “know” the wreckage came from a 757 as if it’s beyond dispute. How do we know this? Give me some reasons why this is proven.
    And the evidence for the size of a plane that hit the Pentagon??? All the evidence points to something much smaller. Tell me what evidence in the crash damage that actually points to a 757. You can’t.
    So to sum up, here’s your assignment, should you choose to accept it. Tell me:
    -what proof we have that the parts found came from flight 77
    -what crash evidence tells us that a plane the size of a 757 must have done the damage.
    I know you’ll try to squirm out of these two questions by demanding proof from me. Let’s see you defend the official theory with a couple of facts.

  18. limey says:


    Re proof a plane the size of a 757, I mention quite a bit of it in my very long post up there, please read it again.

    When you have done that and come back with points of dispute or clarification, then maybe we can discuss something else.

  19. Craig McKee says:

    You can mention all you want; until you prove something I won’t be persuaded. Airplane parts have serial numbers tying them to the original plane (at least some of them do). Is there proof that any of the parts found actually came from that plane? If so, please refer me to that proof. I have not seen it.
    Knocked over light poles are not PROOF that it was a 757.
    Other flights being accounted for isn’t PROOF that this flight hit the Pentagon.
    As for eyewitnesses, there have been many different comments. Some say they saw a large plane, some a commuter plane, and some a missile. Not conclusive or reliable.
    You haven’t proven anything. And until you can explain how a 757 could hit the building at 530 mph at about a 45 degree angle without leaving any large pieces of wreckage on the lawn, your view can’t be taken seriously.

  20. limey says:

    Hi Craig,

    Given your stance on the subject I think its fair to say that you would question, or even disbelieve, any evidence on the pentagon crash that comes from official sources. Given that pretty much all evidence on the pentagon crash will come via pentagon staff, I can’t see how you would accept their evidence, no matter how strong.

    I put up above several facts and conclusions which taken together put a good indication of what actually happened. Just because no single item, taken on its own, might not be a killer blow to the conspiracy, that does not mean that taken together the evidence is not solid.

    So what do you want from proof? A single killer item or a pile of evidence that points to the same fact? I assume you mention serial numbers because you know that information is not in the public domain. Whats the betting that if they were made public you’d just shrug and say it was planted because ‘they’ had the numbers from wherever the put the plane?

    There is debris on the pentagon lawn, as I already said before, why is this not good enough? A plane crashing at a few hundred mph into a buiding like that is going to end up in lots of small peices, some tiny. Why are the peices that are there not good enough for you?

    The fact that all other planes in the air that day are accounted for, and this last one does fit the evidence for what hit the pentagon is actually quite decent proof, despite your objections to that logic.

    So let me ask you, what hit the pentagon then? Please make sure that your theory fits the exsiting evidence at least as good as the 757 fact. Then please explain what happened to that missing 757, please also offer facts that are at least as good as the quality of facts you are asking from me.

    • Craig McKee says:

      Don’t you think that your theory should stand up to scrutiny regardless of what alternate theories are proposed? If a building catches fire and burns to the ground, and later you find gasoline cans and other evidence of arson, would I need to have a full explanation for how the arson was carried out to believe it WAS arson?

      The government has put forth a scenario as if it’s a proven fact. If it is true, there should be answers for most questions. You seem to think that if I don’t know exactly what happened, with all necessary proof, then I can’t question the official story. Most 9/11 truthers say that there are enough holes in the official story for another investigation. I agree. We don’t have to have all the facts before that investigation starts, however.

      Your explanation of why they don’t prove the origin of the parts using the serial numbers is pretty lame. They don’t supply the proof because people wouldn’t believe them anyway? I don’t think so. I’m not asking you to have facts to put a “killer blow” to my theories, I’m just asking you to support your own confidence in the official theory.

      The fact that all the other flights are accounted for proves one thing: that it wasn’t one of the OTHER flights that crashed into the Pentagon. Nothing more. And the debris doesn’t prove anything just because it’s from a plane. Does any gun at a murder scene automatically become the murder weapon without further proof? No, it still has to be matched conclusively to the crime.

      Why don’t they show us the engine with its serial numbers? Why don’t they release video tapes from the Pentagon and from nearby businesses? If a plane hit the building, they surely have video proof. It’s the Pentagon, for God’s sake.

      • limey says:

        Hi Craig,

        Yes, a theory should stand up to scrutiny and I gave a list of reasons why a 757 crashing into the Pentagon does indeed stand up. If you wish to object to that, you need to be able to explain why each of points is explained by an alternative, you have not done that.

        I did not say ‘They don’t supply the proof because people wouldn’t believe them anyway’ I said I doubted you’d accept that evidence. It was not meant as an excuse for not making it public, it was a statement of how I view your mindset, you won’t accept the truth of what happened no matter the amount of evidence displayed. They could have dragged an engine part out of the burning wrekage and show the serial number and the documentation linking it to the plane and you’d most likely reply with ‘fix’.

        Likewise with the video that is no doubt being kept secret, for reasons unknown to us both. I don’t think that video is needed to prove it was the 757 in question. If it was released, you’d no doubt either claim it was faked or come up with an other reason to not believe.

  21. Craig McKee says:

    You have given your reasons for being satisfied that a 757 hit the Pentagon. You have not given any proof. And simply dismissing this fact because I wouldn’t accept ANY proof is completely illogical. If proof exists, let’s see it! If there are videos, let’s see them. If the engines with the right serial numbers were found, let’s see them, too.
    To presume I wouldn’t believe video evidence is false. The reason I’m suspicious is that this has been withheld. If there is video evidence, and if they had released it nine years ago, I would never have begun to question what happened at the Pentagon.
    So, let’s see the actual evidence. The PROOF. Not a few airplane parts that could easily have been planted, and not a small hole in a building. I mean real proof. If it doesn’t exist, why not?

    • limey says:


      I have given some pieces of evidence that taken together make an extremely good case for the 757. I have asked you for another theory that fits that evidence, I’ve not seen one yet.

      Given that the proof you so badly want is not going to be forthcoming anytime soon, I suggest you concentrate on what we do have.

      On the subject of proof, if the evidence was planted, where is the witness saying they say someone walking onto the lawn planting the peices. There are some very early photos of the crash at the pentagon, including shots before the front section collapse and wrekage on the lawn.

      You say you need proof and won’t accept my list of evidence points, but you are happy to speculate that the evidnce was planted with zero proof of that. Which way do you want it Craig? Do you want proof or do you want speculation? if you will demand proof from me that a 757 flew into that building, then I am going to demand proof from you that the plane evidence was planted.

      Oh and it wasn’t a small hole, it was chuffing great big one, the floors above it collapsed remember! More than 100 people inside the pentagon died in that crash. Unless they were playing some freakish game of sardines, it was not a small hole.

  22. Craig McKee says:

    I believe the physical evidence clearly shows that a 757 did not hit the building. Therefore, I must think the plane parts were planted; there’s no other way for them to get there given my position.
    I refer you to the film National Security Alert by Citizen Investigation Team. This is the link: http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
    Watch that and explain to me how the plane could have hit the light posts and then the building. Tell me their interviews don’t hold up.
    A last word on proof. I’ve said it several times, but your version is the official one. You, or the government, has to back up your claims. Whether I have a witness who saw stuff planted is besides the point.
    And because 100 people died this proves that the hole was large. Check the pre-collapse photos. Why didn’t the engines damage the building? Forget proof, just give me something plausible.

  23. limey says:

    Hi Craig,

    I tried watching that video but the streaming was too stuttery and when I tried to download it, it failed. I’ll try again at the weekend but given the file size and the length of the video, don’t hold your breath just yet.

    It would be useful if you could show me a link to a text transcription of the section of the video you want me to may attention to.

    In the opening minutes of the video I did get where they claim that not a single part recovered from the pentagon matches the specific plane that hit.

    A quite google search reveals this image showing how a part on the lawn matching an American Airlines 757.

    Now if I can call into question the openeing statements of that video so easily, I really am concerned about how well they creators of that video have presented the facts. From the wording of the opening minutes its clear they have a set agenda to question the facts. Is there a video which lays out all the evidence and then reaches a logcially argued conclusion?

    The engines very likely did damage the building. Possibly not in the way you are expecting to see. Remember that the engines are not that far away from the fuselage and that the plane hit at an oblique angle, making the physical impacts points of the fuselage and engines very close.

    Photos of the pentagon pre-collapse are few and at akward angles so its very possible that the engine impact points are either not obvious or obscured.

    What plausable evidence would you find satisfactory?

  24. Craig McKee says:

    I downloaded the video from thepiratebay.org and had no problem. I don’t believe a transcript is good enough because you need to judge the credibility of the witnesses for yourself.
    The makers of the video have an opinion, just like you and I do. But their evidence speaks for itself. Don’t prejudge it. The piece of fuselage does indeed look like the plane. But there are parts on every plane that can be positively tied back to the plane by their serial number. Engines are just one example. A piece of fuselage doesn’t do it.
    And the engines aren’t that close to the fuselage. They would certainly have hit the wall. Either they would have broken off or gone through causing more damage. The energy has to go somewhere.
    Here’s photo link: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/damage/compare.html
    Look at the one with the blue shading to show where plane would have hit.

  25. limey says:


    Weather you accept it or not, that peice of fuselage, which matches the plane that crashed into the pentagon, needs to be explained. Along with the other bits of recovered wreckage.

    I am concerned that that photograph is a montage, yet there is no detail on what the original photos were. I’d like to see the original photos and the process used to make the montage.

    Looking at the photo, the damage is wider than it is tall, significantly so. Which is what would be expected from a plane impact.

    Certainly the pentagon exterior appears to have stood up extremely well to the impact, but then the exterior was massively strengthened.

  26. Craig McKee says:

    The fact that the facade was “massively strengthened” makes it all the more likely that large pieces of wreckage would remain outside the building. This further supports my belief that the damage was not caused by a large plane.
    I don’t have to account for plane pieces that can’t be tied to Flight 77. You have to account for why there aren’t any.

  27. limey says:

    Not necessarily Craig,

    Hight speed impact of flimsy aluminium against strong concrete reduces the aluminium into very small pieces. The impact is extremely traumatic for the aircraft concerned. There are some video on you tube which demonstrate the effect. Its more by good luck than by default that there is a piece of fuselage on the lawn that can be shown to match the plane concerned.

    It should also be noted that the pentagon wall hit was not a solid wall, there were windows for starters (maybe other features too?). Also consider the columns, they will have been reinforced to a higher level than the wall sections between them. Hence they are still visible after the impact, until the failed under the weight of the building above.

    Please also note the distance the plane disappeared into the building, what survived the external impact would have continued into the building. So again no surprise that not a lot was left outside.

  28. Craig McKee says:

    A titanium engine will be reduced to small pieces when it hits a concrete wall? You can’t have it both ways. If the plane was flimsy enough to break into little pieces then there should have been a lot more of them on the lawn. We’re talking about a 100-ton aircraft.
    Yes there were windows, and they remain mostly unbroken after impact. I know they were extra thick but thick enough to withstand an airliner at 50mph?
    Your last statement is just wrong. The plane can’t be strong enough to penetrate the wall, but weak enough not to have caused interior damage.
    Face it, the whole thing is a joke. No informed, open-minded person can defend this crazy idea that a 757 hit that building.

  29. limey says:

    Sources for impact speed please. I need to know you’ve not made up that number.

    Go back to the photo link you posted a couple of posts ago up there ^^^^, look at the windows on the level of the impact, there are not any windows, nor are there any wall sections between the pillars. In fact the pillars look in pretty poor condition too. The wall sections that took a direct impact have missing sections and windows. In fact the upper levels look like they have some windows damage too. Un surprisingly its the sections that took the direct impact that have suffered.

    It did damage the inside of the building, if only the external wall suffered there would not have been a collapse. The whole plane disappeared inside so the damage is at least that distance, and its bad enough to remove enough structural support to bring down that section of building.

    • Craig McKee says:

      Sorry, the 3 on my keyboard doesn’t work very well. I meant to write 530mph, which comes from the 9/11 Commission Report.
      Again with the circular logic. “The whole plane disappeared inside so the damage is at least that distance….” You’ve used two unproven points to prove each other!

  30. limey says:

    Looks like we have a logic confusion here. The only place the plane could have gone is all the way in, especially at that speed. Very little chance of anything being left outside, and funnily enough, very little was left outside.

    I still don’t see why you have a problem with that conclusion. That’s a genuine statement. I really don’t see how anyone can look at that and not accept the official facts regarding the pentagon crash.

    • Craig McKee says:

      My problems with that conclusion have been exhaustively listed. If you’re right, why can’t they show us two engines with serial numbers tied to the plane? And why can’t they show us any damage from where the engines would have hit.
      It seems we won’t agree on this.

  31. limey says:

    You’re right we won’t agree.

    I don’t know why they don’t show the recovered wreckage and I don’t know the location and condition of any serial numbers on the surviving components. I wish they would show them, if only to shut up people who can’t accept the truth, but I doubt even that would do the trick.

  32. Craig McKee says:

    If they won’t show the evidence to people even when it would settle the issue, you have to ask yourself why. If there were logical explanations for all of the doubts people have, then I believe people would listen. True, some people may not be convinced, but when openness and good faith are employed, most people will be willing to consider all the facts. Despite what you think, I would be willing to do this. I can’t react to the videotape of the plane hitting the Pentagon because they haven’t shown it to us. You can’t blame people for not believing evidence they haven’t seen. If they release this and I still claim it doesn’t prove anything, then you can call me on it.

  33. limey says:

    All very fair Craig,

    I have no explanation for the lack of more detail on the pentagon crash, specifically more video and more physical evidence. Whatever the reasons, that information is not forthcoming and I do understand that for many that is seen as strong evidence that there is something more sinister to hide.

  34. Craig McKee says:

    I appreciate the comment. Perhaps we can agree that the more transparent the government is, the better democracy is served.

  35. limey says:

    haha, certainly Craig, total agreement on that one.

  36. ip camera says:

    I am undeniably thankful to you for providing us with this invaluable critical info. My spouse and I are unquestionably grateful, entirely the computer data we needed.

  37. aaron fleszar says:

    Al-Qaeda or “New World Order” control the story online regarding the 9 11 Conspiracy

    My name is Aaron Fleszar and I’d like to expose, with your help, the largest conspiracy in world history. Most people don’t believe in conspiracies or conspiracy theories, I know because I was one of them. The thing about a conspiracy is it cannot be proven, if it could, it wouldn’t be a conspiracy. I will try and make this as simple as possible so that you can follow my logic and likely reach the same conclusions.

    What do we know about Osama Bin Laden that we haven’t been told by the media? We know that he is a spokesperson for Al-Qaeda. Once or twice a year, this guy appears in video, pointing his finger, from a tape that mysteriously arrives at the Al-Jazeera network. If Osama Bin Laden is only spokesperson, and not a mastermind, who makes up the organization behind him?

    Even a president is only a spokesperson. A president surrounds himself with an administration that advises him. There is always a force behind a president with an agenda. Sometimes that agenda is known, sometimes it’s not.

    Are we being mislead by Osama Bin Laden and the organization behind him? Could Osama be the spokesperson for a New World Order, the richest people in the world who would like to take over the government? Could Osama be a distraction, and a catalyst, for starting an endless war on terror, increasing defense department spending, lining the pockets of defense contractors, and driving up the price of oil?

    Could the attacks on 9/11 be attacks against capitalism? Is Al-Qaeda or New World Order’s goal to destroy capitalism? Would destroying capitalism allow the richest people in the world a chance to implement socialism, get wealthier by collapsing the dollar, and allow them to institute a one world currency, only to enslave the rest of the world to their New World Order government?

    Everyone knows that something happened on 9/11 that is being covered up, but what is it? Is it that planes didn’t collapse 2 buildings which fell with precision as if they were being brought down by a controlled demolition? Is it that no one ever talks about the third building which collapsed that never got hit by an airplane? Were the planes nothing more than misdirection, or an illusion, created by Al-Qaeda/New World Order, also known as “the Illuminati?”

    Written across thousands of get rich quick scams online there is a code. Al-Qaeda or NWO appears to be using the internet to take over all ecommerce and media. Several people making up this code are look a likes for people associated with the current administration, in addition to media moguls, and CEO’s.

    Several of the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists make up this code online. They are wanted for US embassy bombings in Kenya, Obama’s family’s birthplace, and Indonesia, a place where Obama spent many years as a child.

    These are the aliases of Most Wanted Terrorists. Check out Google images;
    Mark Joyner Simpleology-Seif Al Adel (Sarah Palin’s book Palinology)
    John Ferrero-Ramadan Shallah
    Yaro Starak-Umar Patek
    Armand Morin-Noordin M Top (said to have been killed in Indonesia and now removed from the FBI’s most wanted list)
    Michael Filsaime-Ali Sayyid Muhamed Mustafa al-Bakri (Die Hard 4 “Fire Sale” The cyber attack on our infrastructure)
    Dr. Mani Sivasubramanian-Ammar Mansour Bouslim
    Carl Galletti-Ahmed Garbaya, Samir Salwwan
    Ted Ciuba-Abdul Rahman Yasin

    What’s interesting about the Al-Qaeda organization online, that literally own the internet, is that this same group of marketing experts ran the last election on Youtube. Could the organization behind Osama Bin Laden be the New World Order Illuminati? Could the organization behind the election of Obama, be the same group? Could Osama be the look a like to represent Obama, and Biden, Bi(nla)den?

    It’s not a conspiracy when it’s taking place right in front of you. There is just an overwhelming amount of misinformation to try and prevent you from connecting the dots. Keep in mind that the Illuminati, or New World Order, are masters at illusion.

    It’s important for the future of America that you tell others immediately about this information. You can learn more by simply searching my name. Email and text everyone you know. When enough people start demanding honest answers, we will finally learn the truth to what really happened on 9/11.

    Thank you for reading this,
    Aaron M Fleszar

  38. ugg boots says:

    Regarding Karina, she is wearing her Uggs once more after being fitted with custom padding to support her arches.
    A word of caution: this style tends to be sized larger so when ordering, ask for a size smaller than your normal shoe size.
    For the same reason, you could save a handsome profit if you buy shoes or boots on our UGG shoes
    or boots wholesale.

  39. turmeric says:

    Turmeric benefits the quick healing of wounds and any other body pain.

    Research studies on the health benefits of turmeric both on
    humans as well as animals are numerous. It’s a condition that results in pain or mild discomfort of the pelvic region and the bladder.

  40. Johnb405 says:

    Actually its referred to as Search engine optimization that when i search for this post I found this web page at the top of all web pages in search engine. dcbafdeebccf

  41. Johnb72 says:

    Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is wonderful, let alone the content! gbdcbdkdcddd

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s