SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

9/11 Truthers Foiled Again

by Michael Shermer, Dec 29 2009

Hey 9/11 Truthers, CNN is reporting that al Qaeda just took credit for the Northwest Airlines terrorist attack:

Be prepared to suffer because the killing is coming and we prepared you men who love death just as you love life and by God’s permission, we will come to you with more things that you have never seen before. Because, as you kill, you will be killed and tomorrow is coming soon. The martyrdom brother was able to reach his objective with the grace of God but due to a technical fault, the full explosion did not take place.

—al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

Still think that al Qaeda did not orchestrate 9/11? Still think this is all an “inside job” by the Bush administration? Just who do you think Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab worked for? George Bush? Abdulmutallab’s own father ratted him out after he was radicalized by Muslim extremists — was that all part of the “inside job” as well? What was that sewn up in his underwear, the same superthermite that Bush operatives used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings with planted explosive devices?

Will someone from the 9/11 Truth camp please wake up and accept the fact that when al Qaeda takes credit for 9/11, says that they would do it again, and then tries, we should take them at their word.

141 Responses to “9/11 Truthers Foiled Again”

  1. Dave says:

    Shermer you’re a fucking NWO stooge and an idiot

  2. Vie says:

    “What was that sewn up in his underwear, the same superthermite that Bush operatives used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings with planted explosive devices?”

    Ya know Shermer… just cause some guy’s got explosives sewn into his underwear doesn’t mean he’s a terrorist… because there’s a hundred good (perfectly innocent)reasons to want explosives in your knickers.

    Have you ever considered the possibility that it came down to the comfort factor? Boxers, briefs, or dynamite…

    or maybe the government used it’s mind-control waves ala HAARP. Yeah, thank you Jesse the Body Ventura, for exposing that conspiracy.

    The truth is out there Shermer… and it sometimes in some guy’s underwear.

    (p.s. of course I’m not serious, there’s absolutely no need to flame me people. It’s called sarcasm (o.0)… so there)

  3. Robert says:

    Ditto, Shermer you’re a clown nothing more nothing less! My apologies to clowns everywhere for the denegrating comparison.
    Read this Shermer…. you PUTZ!
    “Evidence Clearly Indicates Staged Attack on Detroit Flight”
    CNN Airs Eyewitness Testimony that ‘Well-Dressed’ Indian accomplice helped Abdulmutallab board without passport and that man on plane filmed entire flight and bombing attempt”

    This gig was a total set-up. The “perp” was a patsy like so many of them are. I just listened to the interview with the attorney, a Mr. Haskell, who was on the flight with his wife who, prior to boarding, observed and listened to the conversation between the boarding agent and the “well dressed” man who asked airline person if he could get the guy on the plane without a passport or any other ID. He also watched another passenger on the flight filming the “suspect” the whole time during the flight. If you still think 9-11 wasn’t an inside job…put down your crack pipe.

    • Jonas says:

      so, the evidence that “clearly” indicates it was a staged attack is… a couple who think they saw something suspicious?

    • Prison Planet. Ouch! What an excellent resource for bunk.

    • Myk says:

      Ah yes, eyewitness testimony. The most unreliable of all evidence. They saw a young black man with an Indian talking to an airline person. hours later, they saw a young black man trying to blow up their plane. Unfortunately, the human brain is very, very bad at remembering unknown individuals in detail, so they could quite easily have been two very different young black men.

    • Ryan says:

      Maybe Balloon Boy’s father did this as another publicity stunt.

    • Shawn Shelton says:

      Pathetic. Enjoy your Matrix level paranoid fantasy.

    • Rich says:

      Well I bet the film that the guy was making would be really helpful once the plane was blown up. It is also common for those believing in hilarious conspiracy theories to give vague descriptions of the event like a “well dressed man” asked to get him on the plane. What does that even mean? A CIA agent or some made up person?

  4. Jonas says:

    Oh, wow, there are still 9/11 truthers? I thought they went the way of VHS

    What’s that? Fred Meyer sells VHS systems? I thought they went the way of American Idol

    Come again? American Idol is still on? *grumble grumble* there is no god

  5. Gregory Weir says:

    9/11 truthers are silly, yes. But make sure you don’t let your terms get fuzzy. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is a different organization than the al-Qaeda that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. The former claims to be subordinate to the latter, but it’s unclear from my (very brief) research how close such a relationship is, especially considering that the al-Qaeda of pre-9/11 wasn’t exactly a formal, command-structured organization except in the eyes of the ’98 embassy bombing prosecutors. From what I can tell, AQ in the AP is something like an al-Qaeda franchise.

  6. Shayne O'Connor says:

    It’s good to see that The Power of Nightmares still keeps even skeptics up at night.

  7. Shayne O'Connor says:

    “Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.”

    Wonder why they chose not to wait 3 years to claim responsibility this time?

    Wonder why bin Laden denied responsibility before 2004? I know his initial denials can’t be proven to come from him, but it is quite unusual for a terrorist organisation to wait 3 years to claim responsibility for an attack, especially one as devastatingly successful as 9/11.

    To help you out with your ostensible skepticism, let me paraphrase one of your questions: “Who did Osama bin Laden work for? George Bush snr?” The answer is “yes, back in the 80’s he did”. I don’t pretend to know the truth of what happened on 9/11, nor who is responsible … I only know that there is a lot more than meets the eye.

    • Benji says:

      The CBC link says it’s the first time he’s claimed responsibility, but it never once said he denied it. He praised the attacks prior to the claim in 2004.

  8. steelsheen11b says:

    Robert you are a paste eating moron. I call you that because obviously you work for Alex Jones crazy conspirtarded fantasy web site. You and and all your Rusty Shackelfords share a common trait, you are all dumb and full of fear, same as the fools caught up in religion.

  9. steelsheen11b says:

    Shayne O’ Conner idiot how did Bin Laden work for Bush senior? and here’s a clue moron it was 19 members of Al Queda that flew hijacked air craft into the World trade enters on the morning of 11 September 2001.

    Oh screw this the message obviously went out on the moron wires the intelligent deficient will be showing up in droves.

  10. Shayne O'Connor says:

    steelsheen11b fucktard – if it was al qaeda, why did they wait 3 years to claim responsibility?! please, use your just-demonstrated skills of logic and deduction to tell me why …

    i know the government, cia, and fbi all say it was al qaeda, but those dudes are prone to lying … or do you believe everything the government and intelligence services tell you? how skeptical of you, you fucking retard.

    • Jonas says:

      oh yea?! well, if it was an inside job, why did the conspirators wait so long to lie about al Qaeda taking credit?!!

      oh, and while yer answering that, go ahead and tell us why that would be evidence of anything. This is a debate about facts. Who gives a damn about motive?

      And why is it always the government that’s lying in these? Conspiracy theorists can’t lie? or at least be mistaken? As Dr. Shermer has said, “Skepticism isn’t a position, its a process.” You should absolutely be skeptical of the government, but of its critics as well. If you simply dismiss any one side as “liars,” that’s not skepticism… that’s paranoia.

      • Shayne O'Connor says:

        “oh yea?! well, if it was an inside job, why did the conspirators wait so long to lie about al Qaeda taking credit?!!”

        dude, yr mistaking my skepticism for fanaticism … i’m not a 9/11 truther. around the 2003 mark, 9/11 skepticism turned into the truther movement, and i stopped giving much of a shit about trying to “prove” anything in relation to 9/11 – the only thing i’m convinced of is that 9/11 *did not* happen the way Western governments say it did. Seriously, if you buy wholesale into the whole official version of 9/11 and its effects and the reasons for those effects, you are – at best – not a skeptic; at worst – mentally retarded.

        but, to buy into your knee-jerk know-it-all-ism and answer your question – they *didn’t* wait to “lie about al Qaeda taking credit” … in December of 2001, the US “found” a video tape in Afghanistan during a raid. It purported to show bin Laden taking full credit for the 9/11 attacks with much braggadocio. This tape has been widely discredited. Not only for the apparent liberties taken with interpretation of crucial passages, but for the likelihood *it is not bin laden speaking, but a look-a-like*.

        while it was pushed relentlessly by the US govt and the media at the time, you will never, ever see this tape on the television networks again. because it was a pathetic fake. who the would have pushed that fake?! i’m not saying it was George W Bush, but it sure as shit wasn’t this bullshit abstraction of Western Fear otherwise known as “Al Qaeda”.

        “And why is it always the government that’s lying in these? Conspiracy theorists can’t lie? or at least be mistaken?”

        did i really say that? REALLY?! tell me where i said that you smug dip****. i have nothing but contempt for the so-called “truthers” who make it their life work sitting on the internet convincing themselves they are privy to “The Truth”. what makes them so sure?! at the same time, what makes *you* so sure?! militant conspiracy theorists are generally the worst liars there are – meaning it is easier to spot fanatical bullshit from one of these goons, than it is from – say – a dipshit like you (yeah, i like to enhance my argument with subtle “irony”).

        “As Dr. Shermer has said, “Skepticism isn’t a position, its a process.””

        Do you really think i care if “Dr” Shermer said that?! Appeal to so-called authority means shit to me.

        “You should absolutely be skeptical of the government, but of its critics as well.”

        dude – i’m skeptical of *everyone*, including myself. i don’t “believe” anything about how 9/11 happened – i only believe that none of the stories make full sense, and that i will never, ever know the truth of what happened. you, however, have convinced yourself that the official version of events has been proved, or that it even makes sense. you have stopped being skeptical.

        you don’t have to believe that a Global Hawk or a hologram crashed into the WTC, or that a missile blew into the Pentagon on 9/11 to be a conspiracy theorist. you can just believe that some shit was goin on behind the scenes (vested interests, power plays, false flags … there’s enough evidence of this in past history of politics for it not to be tin-foil paranoia) that is so alien to us we will never have an inkling of the truth.

        “If you simply dismiss any one side as “liars,” that’s not skepticism… that’s paranoia.”

        i’m not dismissing any side – i listened to both for a long, long time before i decided that the official version wasn’t entirely true, and that any individual conspiracy theory wasn’t entirely true, either. you lot have made up your mind. in the context of 9/11 as well as God a lot of you have just decided you KNOW something that is unknowable. how skeptical of you. i prefer to remain uncommitted …

        this doesn’t prove anything, except that i am exercising my skepticism a lot better than you are.

      • lolwut says:

        Pseudo-skepticism is bad.

      • Jonas says:

        golly, yer pretty derned angry, aintcha?

        I will sum up my argument with this:

        “As Dr. Shermer has said, “Skepticism isn’t a position, its a process.””
        “Do you really think i care if “Dr” Shermer said that?! Appeal to so-called authority means shit to me.”

        That’s not an appeal to authority. That’s just a quote. I was just giving him credit where credit is due, like how I called him “Dr” since he has a PhD in Philosophy.
        My point was that you’ve asked questions, but now you go get answers. And there are PLENTY of answers to be found in the thousands of investigations by independent sources over the last decade.

        From your writing, you don’t seem to be as much a skeptic as an ornery teenager who doesn’t trust anybody. Which, it could be argued, is halfway there ;)

      • Shayne O'Connor says:

        “That’s not an appeal to authority. That’s just a quote. I was just giving him credit where credit is due, like how I called him “Dr” since he has a PhD in Philosophy.”

        Every accusation of an appeal to authority could be answered in that way. You are basically saying “I quoted one of this guys opinions because he is a Doctor of Philosophy”. That is literally an appeal to authority, obfuscate it as you like, it doesn’t change the fact it was an appeal to authority.

        “My point was that you’ve asked questions, but now you go get answers.”

        As I said before, I found the questions and looked for answers … and I don’t believe any of my questions can be answered satisfactorily to the point of me being certain of the truth of the answers. I’m a 9/11 skeptic, not a 9/11 truther – does it really bother the fans of this blog that I am skeptical of the official version of 9/11? Just because I am skeptical of the official version, doesn’t mean I buy into any of the answers provided by the truthers, does it? It just means I remain unconvinced by either side. I remain skeptical.

        “golly, yer pretty derned angry, aintcha?”

        yeah, i do get pretty angry when supposedly open-minded and skeptical people start insulting me because I ask what to me is a valid question – you’ll notice I didn’t insult anyone until steelsheen11b called me an idiot and another poster a moron … sorry, but i will give as good as i get, and a bit more.

        “From your writing, you don’t seem to be as much a skeptic as an ornery teenager who doesn’t trust anybody.”

        You love your fallacies don’t you? Ad-hominem attack – whether i am an ornery teenager or not has no bearing on my critical faculties, does it? In any case, just to debunk your literary anaylsis – I am 34, and I trust my wife and my mother. And yeah – I’m not just a skeptic, i’m that and so much more.

  11. I once again repeat my open invitation to Mr. Shermer to come on my program and discuss any/all of the facts related to this case and the subject matter dealt with in this post.

  12. Shayne O'Connor says:

    “oh, and while yer answering that, go ahead and tell us why that would be evidence of anything. This is a debate about facts. Who gives a damn about motive?”

    i’ll tell you the why – and the wherefore, too – of my reasoning:

    DOCTOR Shermer sez (assume appropriately superior and derogatory tone):

    “Will someone from the 9/11 Truth camp please wake up and accept the fact that when al Qaeda takes credit for 9/11, says that they would do it again, and then tries, we should take them at their word.”

    … I could leave it at that, cos I reckon it speaks for itself …

    … but here it is for the pseudo-skeptic:

    firstly – why, as a skeptic, would you take at their word the public statements of an organization whose purported purpose is to cause death and destruction through subterfuge, militance, and secrecy?!

    secondly – why would al-qaeda (de-emphasis on the “in the arabian peninsula”) claim responsibility for just another amateurish failure in the field of terrorism mere days after the debacle, while al qaeda wait 3 years (way after the war that desecrated their apparent stronghold) to claim authorship of the most spectacular act of terrorism that will likely ever be committed?! are they fukn modest or something?! it makes me think shit ain’t what it seems … call me a fukn moron, i suppose.

  13. MadScientist says:

    I’m just glad that most of the terrorists uncovered so far seem to be so damned stupid; the London subway bombers have been the most sophisticated so far. Imagine what chaos and destruction they’d cause if they only knew as little as Timothy McVeigh. So, here we have more terrorists undetected and I’m disappointed with Obama’s comment that not catching the terrorist beforehand was unacceptable. As I’ve said many times before, terrorist attacks are a rare event and the counter-terrorist measures in place are guaranteed to fail far more often that they succeed (probably by several orders of magnitude, but I’m too lazy to do any math); believing that any significant number of terrorists can be caught before the fact is nothing but a delusion.

    • Max says:

      There are often warning signs beforehand, like Farouk’s father’s warning, Nidal Hasan’s correspondence with Al-Awlaki, etc. In other words, failing to act on actionable intelligence is unacceptable.

    • tmac57 says:

      Would you have been more comfortable if he had said that it was acceptable? Obama is always going to be in a no win situation when anything negative happens due to the unrelenting political machine that will ponce on any opportunity to criticize his every move. The best thing that the U.S. ( or any target of terrorism) can do is to 1st, NOT over react, because that is partly what the terrorist want to happen for many reasons, and 2nd to calmly, but forcefully restate our resolve to not be intimidated, and that we will continue to pursue the criminals that plan and carryout those acts.

  14. PaleGreenPantsWithNobodyInsideThem says:


    *blink blink.

    It’s too early for this shit.

  15. Shayne O'Connor says:

    “As I’ve said many times before, terrorist attacks are a rare event and the counter-terrorist measures in place are guaranteed to fail far more often that they succeed (probably by several orders of magnitude, but I’m too lazy to do any math); believing that any significant number of terrorists can be caught before the fact is nothing but a delusion.”

    First, doesn’t a “significant number of terrorists” = 1?!

    As in – a single terrorist could theoretically, in this day and age, murder hundreds of thousands of people in a series of co-ordinated events (if you’re to believe the hype)?!

    But, seriously, do you believe the counter-terrorism measures that have been introduced are a waste of time? If so (which i presume to be the case, since you’ve just stated that they’re “guaranteed” to fail in a lot of circumstances – which pretty much means they’re not scientifically guaranteed to work – ie, they’re useless), why have they been introduced? Is it because the dickheads that run shit aren’t as smart as you?!

    Maybe they’re not as smart, just a bit more cunning?

    I don’t know for sure … do you?

  16. Max says:

    I can guarantee that the “truthers” will remain thoroughly unconvinced.

    Anyway, check out this article from last year about airport security theater.

    During one secondary inspection, at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, I was wearing under my shirt a spectacular, only-in-America device called a ‘Beerbelly,’ a neoprene sling that holds a polyurethane bladder and drinking tube. The Beerbelly, designed originally to sneak alcohol—up to 80 ounces—into football games, can quite obviously be used to sneak up to 80 ounces of liquid through airport security. (The company that manufactures the Beerbelly also makes something called a ‘Winerack,’ a bra that holds up to 25 ounces of booze and is recommended, according to the company’s Web site, for PTA meetings.) My Beerbelly, which fit comfortably over my beer belly, contained two cans’ worth of Bud Light at the time of the inspection. It went undetected. The eight-ounce bottle of water in my carry-on bag, however, was seized by the federal government.

    So now that an attack happened, the pendulum swings toward deploying the mm-wave whole body scans. Then, they’ll start to catch incontinent grandmothers who wear drainage bags, and the pendulum will swing back.

    • Max says:

      The article also points out that the long lines that result from increased security are themselves potential terrorist targets.

  17. Shayne O'Connor says:

    “So now that an attack happened … ”

    Bahaha. Both sides fukt up dude … *nothing* happened except that.

    • Max says:

      If it makes you happy, substitute: “So now that a terrorist brought explosives aboard a plane by hiding them in his underwear, similar the trick described in the article…”

  18. Trimegistus says:

    I wish I lived in a country whose government was so omnicompetent it could carry off an international conspiracy and conceal it for a decade.

    Unfortunately, I’m stuck in reality.

  19. Chris Howard says:

    I still think Alex Jones works for the CIA disinformation campaign, designed, in part to create an atmosphere of fear, and slowly undermine peoples abilities to think critically and reason, thereby succeeding where the fluoride failed, at creating docile, reactionary, slaves, who are too proud to even question their beliefs, much less the “facts” coming from commissar Jones’ mouth… just how much money does he make as a fear monger? “buy gold” “buy H2O filters” “buy rations” “buy guns and ammo” “buy my DVD’s” but most of all “buy my bulls#$%t.” (Truther run on sentence format)

    This wouldn’t be so much of a problem, except many Conspiracy Theorists advocate violent revolution. I have seen people die (in real life) and it is rarely, ever, honorable or glorious, those are attributes and rationales that we “tack on” after the killing. In my opinion we “church-up” killing, and that is true wether it is a government action, or the action(s) of “True Patriot(s).” Everyone has their “pet” rationales and they’re all bad.
    It always amazes me that those who criticize governments for sending others off to do the dying for the “ruling classes,” are usually the first to advocate armed revolution, and usually wait for others to do the dying for their “glorious revolution.” How’s that any different? Talk isn’t cheap when you’re inspiring others to do the killing and the dying for you.

    All I ask is that if you truly believe that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” and that the Illuminati/Reptilians/Grays/Masons/Jews/Satan/insert “boogeyman du jour” here. _________. are out to rob us of our “precious fluids” and enslave all humanity, and further, YOU are willing to bet the lives of OTHERS, on YOUR theory, then YOU should do all you can do to try to falsify your theory, and see if there are other explanations for the events that you see as “conspiracies.” If you fail to do this, you are either egocentric, unethical, immoral and in all likelihood, lack the courage to do so.

    There are a few requirements that should be considered here:

    1) One must have the courage and integrity to admit when one is wrong, this is doubly true about our most cherished beliefs e.g., Conspiracy Theories that bet with the lives of others.

    2) One must have the maturity and honesty to live, and work in the world as it is, rather than as we want it to be. To make the evidence fit your worldview is probably the hallmark of believing that the world revolves around “you and yours.” i.e., egocentrism.

    3) Passion, without universal compassion is a very dangerous thing. You may be passionate about the “Truth” but what’s the “cash value” of that passion, or your “theory” for that matter? What does it get you? Hitler, Stalin, Custer et al, ad nauseam, were very passionate about what they believed, and had only limited compassion for those that they deemed worthy of said compassion. The rest were killed, and killed over very similar rationales i.e., “racially impure” “inferior” “the bourgeoisie” “Christ Killers and/or Infidels” “reptiles.” etc., In other words, don’t dehumanize people.

    4) Thinking is a lot like music, in that, we have a predisposition for creating music and for thinking, but in order for us to become accomplished at either we must practice. Because our thoughts influence our beliefs and our beliefs guide our actions (Conspiracy Theories that inspire violent revolution) we have a moral, and ethical obligation to think as clearly as we are able, and to admit when we don’t know.

    5) Just as there is a theory, and practice for music, there is also theory and practice for thinking. There are, in essence, guides to good thinking. I recommend “How to Think About Weird Things” by Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn, as well as this: Becoming a critical thinker is in many ways like becoming physically fit, it requires determination, commitment, time and effort, and an understanding that “no pain, no gain” is an absolute in either endeavor.

    Combat is a horror greater than can be imagined, and you will never truly understand it unless you have experienced it. War devastates generations, its purpose is to bring to submission those you see as somehow inferior, evil or inhuman. When it is unleashed, it becomes life and death, a field of opposites, no “gray areas” no Geneva Convention, no law, no honor or heroes, and no real bravery beyond self-preservation. War crimes occur, because war itself is a crime. This includes your idea of revolution.

    Conspiracy Theorists, of the revolution variety, have an ideal and a theory, that when taken to its logical conclusion advocates violence. I have a daughter. She’s two. That’s what you’re gambling with, innocence. If you feel revulsion at the act of killing a two year old girl, a baby, that’s good, it means you’re a healthy human being, I knew people who didn’t and aren’t.

    • oldebabe says:

      A mature and thoughtful post. Thanks.

    • tmac57 says:

      Thank you for that Chris. I hope you get through to at least one person.

    • Jonas says:

      seconded, that was lovely. thank you.

    • Andrew says:

      What about the conspiracy theorists who believed that Al-Qaeda is going to kill everyone so the U.S. must kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.? Your sentiments are sappy sweet, but are pointed in exactly the wrong direction. Conspiracy theories are only dangerous when integrated into massive government propaganda campaigns.

  20. Beelzebud says:

    Next time try posting something with some more substance. The fact that the Shoe Bomber #2 uttered al Quaeda, does not prove anything to the 9/11 truthers, and it really doesn’t say much about his true motives.

    Al Quaeda was an invention by the CIA. That is not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact. Bin Laden referred to Afghanistan as al quaeda (The Base), and the CIA attached that name to him. There was no organization called ‘al Quaeda’, and there still isn’t. Just because some religious extremist can parrot a name, doesn’t mean it’s real. This is all openly available information that has been documented since winter of 2001.

    Any skeptic should know this, especially if you’re truly interested in debunking the 9/11 truther nutbags. Your post uses an appeal to authority towards a religious extremist that, when his terror plan failed, trotted out the old ‘al quaeda’ chestnut to make people wet their pants.

    If you honestly think a post like this will make 9/11 truthers ‘see the light’, then you are pretty naive.

    • Max says:

      I agree that Michael’s post lacks substance and won’t convince any “truthers”, but you missed the mark.
      Shoe Bomber #2 uttered al Qaeda, AND afterwards al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula took credit for the attack. Michael referred to the latter, not the former.

    • Max says:

      What’s in a name? That which we call al Qaeda
      By any other name would smell as foul.

      Take “al-Qaeda in Iraq”.

      The group is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi’s previous organization, Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (“Group of Monotheism and Jihad”), active between early 2003 and late 2004. Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network in October 2004, the group identifies itself as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (“Organization of Jihad’s Base in the Country of the Two Rivers”).

      Same shit, different name.

  21. Joshua Hunt says:

    To all 9/11 “twoofers”:

    “Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

    The 9/11 “twoof” movement is non-existent. Not one spec of hard/credible evidence to show for your crackpot theories. Do something more productive with your time. Re-arrange your sock drawer or get laid. Something, other than spewing fantasies on the internet.

    • Max says:

      Conspiracy theorists can invent leaks, the way they interpreted Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” remark as an admission of guilt.

  22. Babybrox says:

    Truth can never be foiled, only hidden. There is evidence. Real science begins with a theory, starting with the obvious. It’s obvious that the ‘official’ story of 9/11 is a lie. The back-story is where you need to start. Theorists search for fact.
    There are many facts that lay the groundwork for the MIC/PNAC/CIA plan to create the ‘attack’. Just a few…1. Northwoods plan, been used many times 2.Twin Towers were condemned before the event 3. Pentagon damaged only on ‘upgraded’ area 4. Bush in charge of Securacom (Towers and United airlines)prior 5. Videos of ‘planes’ from long-standing stationary cameras belonging to CNN 6. The pre-hiring of Controlled Demolition Inc (Int) to do ‘clean-up’ afterward 7. Stock market evidence 8.Pre-planned ‘exercises’ similar to actual event were being run on that day which are blamed for ‘no response’ of US military 9.Readiness at Johnstown Air Force Training Facility for ‘Flight 93′ 10. bin Laden set up as patsy (hence the term ‘false flag’)and subsequent fake videos of ‘al-queda’ ‘taking responsibility’ (al quaida also means ‘the toilet’) 11. Go find some truth, you have the go ogle.

    Being skeptical of the ‘official story’ makes more sense than being skeptical of the ‘truth’. What I can’t believe is how people stoop to name calling and denigration just to defend the ‘official’ story. Makes me suspicious of their motives, and even of their intelligence. I am offended by words such as crackpot and spewing. Those words could be used to describe ‘anti-truthers’ as well. But what does it accomplish? Truth?
    Curses, anti-truth, foiled again.

    • tmac57 says:

      Babybrox said- “What I can’t believe is how people stoop to name calling and denigration just to defend the ‘official’ story. Makes me suspicious of their motives, and even of their intelligence.”

      Dave said- “Shermer you’re a fucking NWO stooge and an idiot”

      Robert said- “Ditto, Shermer you’re a clown nothing more nothing less! My apologies to clowns everywhere for the denegrating comparison.
      Read this Shermer…. you PUTZ!”

      Shayne O’Connor said- “i know the government, cia, and fbi all say it was al qaeda, but those dudes are prone to lying … or do you believe everything the government and intelligence services tell you? how skeptical of you, you fucking retard.”
      And also said “if you buy wholesale into the whole official version of 9/11 and its effects and the reasons for those effects, you are – at best – not a skeptic; at worst – mentally retarded.”

      Were Dave, Robert, and Shayne defending the “official” story?

      Confirmation bias-Look it up.

    • Jason says:

      the Johnstown Air Force Training Facility this guy is discussing is a minor little airport and a base for the Pennsylvania Air National Guard. Not some major facility like this guy makes it sound.

      also, an earlier commenter suggested that AQ in the AP is like a franchise. that is correct, the AQ in the “whereevers” are like franchises. they act independently but have identified themselves to be of a particular brand. the need for this is partially the result of our counter-terrorism activities, such as attacking funding for terrorism.

  23. rrpostal says:

    My favorite part is that when a scheme works it is “god’s will”, but when the bomb fizzles meekly it is a “technical malfunction”. How is it that so many people of all walks of life use this sort of reasoning. It’s better when it’s not killing me, of course. But thinking like that is susceptible to all sorts of nonsense.

  24. Babybrox says:

    You’re right, name calling comes from both sides of the fence. How clever of them to divide us this way.
    Look up the word skeptic.
    And do some research, everyone. If you’re not with us, you’re with them.

    • tmac57 says:

      Who exactly is “us”? Who is “them”. You can’t use the dictionary definition of skeptic to understand the Skeptic movement.
      Please read the ‘Skeptical Manifesto’ from Skeptic magazine to really understand where the modern Skeptic movement came from, and what it is all about today :

  25. Moe says:

    First time on the site, although I have read & watched many of Michael’s articles & programs and enjoyed them all.
    The problem I have with 9/11 is the physics of it (I have a physics degree). I have a hard time with building 7 falling into its footprint without much more than superficial damage. I also have a problem with buildings 1 & 2 that were made to withstand jet impacts falling into their footprints. You would think that a hit on one side, if it were enough to topple the building, would make the collapse non-symmetrical. Ever play Jenga? And the whole free-fall speed of collapse thing… I’m sorry, but that amount of mass does not move out of the way that quickly without a lot of help. The resistance of each consecutive floor would slow the collapse considerably.
    The buildings appear to have been imploded. Other explanations insult my intelligence. As to who did the rigging of controlled demolition explosives?… insert conspiracy theory here.

    • Joshua Hunt says:

      It wasn’t just the impact of the planes that brought the buildings down. It was the massive fires the engulfed WTC 1 & 2. They burned for a long time. It was a combination of the massive impact of the planes and the fires that brought the buildings down.

      As far as building 7 is concerned. There was massive damage to the building from the debris of the collapsing WTC buildings. The building was also severely damaged and engulfed in flames.

      I recommend this website:

      That should explain anything you’re having trouble understanding.

    • Beelzebud says:

      If you were in NYC in the aftermath of that, you would know that those buildings did NOT fall in to their own footprints. Building 7 was also damaged way beyond “superficial damage”, as one of the towers partially landed on it. So much for falling in their own footprints…

      This is why 9/11 truthers annoy me to no end. This is all easily available information and you nitwits get it wrong every time. Parroting Alex Jones doesn’t count as “research”.

  26. HoosierGuy73 says:

    To skepticdead:

    What contempt you show for atheists! Okay, let’s look at some things. By the way, how are those prayers for peace coming along? Sure are having a noticeable effect, aren’t they?

    A bus crashes and one person out of thirty survives. “God was with me,” he sighs. Really? Why wasn’t he with the other 29 people? Where was God when the Holocaust, Katrina, etc., were happening? How many prayers went unanswered during those events? I’ve heard of women being murdered on the way to or from church–God sure takes care of his folks, doesn’t he?

    A patient’s vital surgery is successful. “God saved me,” he sighs. But what about all those surgeries that didn’t turn out so well? Where was God then?

    A baby is swept up by a tornado and somehow survives. “God saved her,” her parents sigh. But how about the folks killed during that same tornado?

    How about the starving African nations where poor, innocent people are not only starving, but dying of aids AND being killed by ruthless murderers? Are their prayers being answered? Where is precious, wonderful God in these situations?

    Prayer is a crock. God is a crock. The superior power is Nature–it rules our bodies, our environment, the weather, etc.–and it is totally indifferent to the plight of man.

    God didn’t create man. Man created God, to have someone to turn to for help, and to make death less frightening. (“He’s in a better place now.”) But I’ll tell you something: the God that man created to turn to for help is a piss-poor source of it.

    And one last time: How are those prayers for peace coming along?

    • oldebabe says:

      Your comments are right on, and contributed to my becoming a skeptic and critical thinker many years ago. Theists, however, and as you probably know, when faced with reality, etc., say things like `who knows the mind of God?’ or similar explanation, which I think is their fall-back position. I don’t know what this has to do with the `9/11 truthers’ issue, tho…

      • HoosierGuy73 says:

        You’re right about it not having anything to do with the 911 truthers’ position, but I got irritated by that obnoxious attitude toward the person who dared to be nonreligious!

        By the way, another fall-back response religious people invariably use is “It was God’s will.” That goes well with your example of “Who knows the mind of God?”

        Oh, the heck with it. Happy New Year!

      • Bill says:

        This poster never cares what the original topic of the post is. He spews this stuff anywhere and everywhere he can. It’s always the same crap, and always a new screen name to get past the banstick. He spams this stuff across every skeptic blog that he can find.

        Best just to ignore him.

      • HoosierGuy73 says:

        You’re probably right, but I’m new on the site, and also happened to be in an argumentative mood!

  27. HoosierGuy73 says:

    P.S. By the way, atheism is far from “a position against 98% of the human race, both past and present.” You’d better check out polls that show a lot more than 2% of people either have doubts about the existence of God or are downright disbelievers.

    Your noble belief in God sure doesn’t prevent you from spewing filthy garbage at someone who’d dare to disagree, does it? And just think: all you religious people accuse atheists of nasty, immoral behavior! Funn-ee!

    You’d best be off to church now, so you can learn more about how to treat your fellow man!!!

  28. Q Jordon says:

    What? You mean it is not god’s will? Are you saying there might be a chance that it is just chance and random acts of violence towards a nation that interferes with other nations, or is it a case of, once again, a religion being hijacked by fundamentalist and misinformed ignorant peasants?

    What a novel idea – Hold on, I am wiping off my keyboard because of all the sarcasm that is dripping onto it.

  29. HoosierGuy73 says:

    To Q Jordan:

    That’s right, I mean it’s not God’s will. I don’t believe in God–remember? Because I see no evidence of the existence of any “God.” But I DO see a lot of evidence of Mankind’s existence. And–this just in–Mankind has a will! So 9/11 is not an example of God’s will being carried out; it’s an example of Mankind’s will being carried out. (Actually a tiny, little demented fraction of Mankind.) That doesn’t seem too difficult to grasp–depending, of course, on the reader’s intellectual level.

  30. Andrew says:

    Skepticism, apparently, means believing whatever Al-CIA-duh says no matter what. Let’s avoid listening to eyewitnesses like Kurt Haskell by all means, and just believe whatever story the FBI comes up with (even if it has changed twice already). I saw on TV that Al-Qaeda claims it is responsible for the attack and they did it because they love death, therefore the 9/11 official conspiracy theory is true. Genius.

  31. Babybrox says:

    Is a discussion about ‘god’ going to sidetrack your whole thread? This was about ‘truth’ and ‘anti-truth’.
    First, ‘Jason’, JAFTF is not a ‘small facility’. Use the go ogle.
    It has telescoping doors large enough to eat a 757 for a snack, has a giant elevator, best radar system on the planet,and goes deep underground to hangars. Don’t believe every nay-sayer you see, skeptics, look for yourself. Make up your own mind before you dismiss something because a person says something unfounded. Just because he says he lives near it doesn’t mean he knows anything about the place, or what happened on that day.

    Joshua Hunt said:
    “It wasn’t just the impact of the planes that brought the buildings down. It was the massive fires the engulfed WTC 1 & 2. They burned for a long time. It was a combination of the massive impact of the planes and the fires that brought the buildings down.

    As far as building 7 is concerned. There was massive damage to the building from the debris of the collapsing WTC buildings. The building was also severely damaged and engulfed in flames.”

    ‘They burned for a long time’ – This is simply not true, science, video, and a simple check of your watch has already proven it. The rest, well, do I have to? ‘Engulfed’? Video check. As you can tell, the words quoted above are pulled indirectly from the canned lies penned back in 2001. Read it again, it’s like a teacher whiningly telling her students over and over again. Now, class…
    No one who actually has scientific evidence of the ‘alter-conspiracy’ has been allowed to testify before any type of court as to what they found. Also there are other types of evidence, which we won’t go into here, besides physics.
    Demolition brought the buildings down; known, planned traditional demolition, of the two condemned towers, (and 7) when such methods for an asbestos removal program for these two specific buildings had been forbidden by the NYPA. The buildings had to have been already wired, and they were mostly empty. Did you look that up yet? Never mind, I won’t go into it anymore.
    Look for yourself, or don’t. But be skeptics, skeptics of the packaged truth you’ve been served, sorta like you would suspect something is a bit off about that 3 year old tv dinner you chipped out of the freezer for dinner…
    Skeptics actually built the truth movement. Not these psuedo skeptics sent and organized to mislead you.
    There is a lot wrong with ‘official’ 9/11 physics, and the details of how it occurred, but no one has a big enough brain to put it all together by themselves. Not even me. There are so many parts to this story, it’s ludicrous. Research people, not just buildings. Go over what doesn’t look right to you, see for yourself the possibilities of this unwanted truth, and true justice for the dead. For instance, research what official in a city generally ‘pushes the button’ for a demolition of ‘progress’.

  32. Do 9/11 truthers also doubt apollo landings on moon? I am almost sure, that the majority of them do. Many of them are also anti-science wackos.

  33. HoosierGuy73 says:

    I’m sorry for diverting the conversation away from its original topic, but I was so infuriated over the way that skepticdead–who as a Christian is supposed to treat his fellow man as Jesus would–erupted in such a filthy way at those who dared to disagreed with him that I couldn’t resist responding.

    As for the conspiracy theorists, it’s ironic that they call the rest of us “sheep” because we take the common sense position and reject their paranoid views of the world. Actually, they are the “sheep” who accept versions of things that are so outlandish as to be laughable. And the more detailed garbage that is fed to them, the more they flock around it. (Furthermore, they totally ignore the details that disprove their weird thinking.)

    I’m anything but naive about our government’s shortcomings. I think Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam) and George Bush (Iraq) should go down in history as the most dishonorable presidents ever. As far as I’m concerned, they make Nixon look like Lincoln. (Nixon’s dishonesty cost no one his life. Johnson’s and Bush’s cost many, many, many lives.)

    But these were individuals carrying out personal (if tragic) agendas. To orchestrate something like what the conspiracy theorists are claiming about 9/11 would require so many people doing so many things under so much secrecy that such an operation could never even begin to be carried out.

    And I–along with other ordinary people–am not being “a sheep,” naive, or any other pejorative term when I say that the United States Government is not in the business of killing its citizens, destroying its buildings, or any other heinous act of treachery. Indeed, if anyone should claim otherwise, he has not studied history, government, or human behavior.

    I can’t imagine what it must be like to live the kind of insecure life in which you think your government (the United States government, that is) is out to get you. Such thinking flies in the face of not only common sense, but sanity itself.

    • Shayne O'Connor says:

      “To orchestrate something like what the conspiracy theorists are claiming about 9/11 would require so many people doing so many things under so much secrecy that such an operation could never even begin to be carried out.”

      So, if the most powerful and technologically advanced civilisation in the world can’t pull off something as massive as this, how in hell did 19 muslims do it?!

      • Max says:

        19 Muslims hijacked several airplanes and flew them into buildings. They didn’t clandestinely rig multiple skyscrapers with explosives, conspire with airlines to divert airplanes onto secret airfields and substitute empty airplanes, fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon, make fake cell phone calls, silence all witnesses, and so forth in order to make it look like 19 Muslims hijacked several airplanes and flew them into buildings.

      • tmac57 says:

        Shayne, isn’t it obvious that hijacking 3 planes, while requiring planning and coordination and learning basic flying skills, is orders of magnitude simpler than what you and other 911 conspiracy believers are proposing? Also, it has the added benefit of being CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

      • Shayne O'Connor says:

        “simpler than what you and other 911 conspiracy believers are proposing”

        which 911 conspiracy do i believe in? what am i proposing? do i say that the towers were demolished with explosive charges? do i say that a plane didn’t crash into the pentagon? do i say that it wasn’t 19 arabs on the planes? do i say it is a global hawk technology used to fly the planes in the twin towers?

        no – i do not say any of these things. i say that i don’t believe the official story for a second. i also don’t believe 99% of the bullshit that “truthers” say happened on that day.

        so, while it may make it easier for you to dismiss me, lumping me in with 9/11 truthers who believe stuff that is just incredible holds no basis in reality. you just can’t get your head around the fact that i don’t believe the official story. you think there is nothing to be skeptical about in regards to 9/11.

        By the way, if you want to be CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS how about you try to get one of the EASIEST FACTS right – 4 planes were hijacked … unless, of course, you believe that it wasn’t a plane that was flown into the Pentagon. Speaking of which – there is one logical argument that pretty much destroys the idea that it was anything other than a hijacked plane that flew into the Pentagon … why, seeing as there was a plane that went missing – one that the US govt says flew into the Pentagaon – why would the conspirators *not* fly the plane into the Pentagon?! If they did indeed use a missile instead, this leaves the quite problematic issue of getting rid of a 747 and all of its passengers. It’s not like the so-called missile did much damage to the Pentagon, so why not just fly the plane full of passengers into it instead of having to get rid of them later?! To me, that is a logical and pretty airtight argument against anything other than a 747 flying into the Pentagon …

        Sorry if that deflates your representation of me as just another Loose Change retard.

      • tmac57 says:

        Shayne- Yes you are correct that there were 4 hijacked planes. I admit my error.
        You have stated: “I don’t pretend to know the truth of what happened on 9/11, nor who is responsible … I only know that there is a lot more than meets the eye.”
        How do you KNOW this?
        You said: “So, if the most powerful and technologically advanced civilisation in the world can’t pull off something as massive as this, how in hell did 19 muslims do it?!”
        My question to you is :Isn’t it more likely that 19 Muslim extremists hijacked those planes, and crashed them, as opposed to the U.S government or whoever, doing the deed and then conspiring to make it look like what the “official story” says?

    • JBG says:

      look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident

  34. HoosierGuy73 says:

    P.S. I might add that the United States Government IS in the business of wasting our tax dollars, pandering to the lobbyists, and playing politics. But this is a far cry from killing our citizens.

    • Shayne O'Connor says:

      Look at MK-Ultra and other de-classified secret programs .. what happened during MK-Ultra to innocent civilians is almost worst than death. Don’t think that there aren’t evil, evil people in positions of power who think that money and control are more important than human life. The US govt has no trouble killing innocent civlians if it helps achieve their goals in geo-politics.

  35. Vie says:

    “Ditto, Shermer you’re a clown nothing more nothing less! My apologies to clowns everywhere for the denegrating comparison.”

    Whether Shermer is or is not a clown makes no difference and…

    “Shermer you’re a fucking NWO stooge and an idiot”

    Even if this was true, it wouldn’t be relevant. They would be valid points if the only evidence for 9/11 or other terrorist activities came from Shermer- if he were the only reason anyone believed the official story.

    But he isn’t. The best reason to doubt that 9/11 is a conspiracy is that it is a monumentally bad idea. As far as conspiracies go, the 9/11 conspiracy is an 11.5 on the stupid scale and here’s why.

    The theoretical motive for the government engineering 9/11 is to gain public support to send troops to the middle east so we could snatch their oil, or at least attempt to manipulate oil trade in our favor. If we had more control over the oil, our already rich nation would be richer.

    Brilliant… except that if your goal was to get richer, why would you stage an attack on such an expensive target? There are obviously other targets that could have cost as many lives and created as much outrage, but cost less in the end. If your primary interest in undertaking this whole endeavor was the bottom line, then why wouldn’t you chose the target that would yield the greatest results while consuming the least amount of economic resources?

    That’s economics 101.

    That plot only makes sense if it was your desire to cripple or damage America’s economy.

    There are other obvious problems with the 9/11 conspiracy theory. If the government is capable of orchestrating 9/11, gaining the cooperation of multiple government agencies, tricking the press, ect then why can’t they get rid of the so-called “witnesses to truth” who claim they have direct evidence of 9/11. (Ever seen that stupid conspiracy theory show?)

    You’d think a government capable of pulling off a MASSIVE hoax could whack a couple of private citizens who jeopardized their whole scam.

    But they didn’t. Why would they leave such dangerous loose ends free to talk to the media and tell their stories?

    They wouldn’t. They would have killed, arrested, or otherwise silenced anyone who MIGHT have possessed damaging information that could have revealed 9/11 as a hoax.

    And, according to truthers, they left a paper trail! The GOVERNMENT who created the conspiracy couldn’t get rid of GOVERNMENT documents that would prove their guilt?

    If the government had went to such lengths to perpetrate this hoax, don’t you think they would have covered their tracks? Unless there was no conspiracy at all…

    The counterargument is that the government is so brilliant that it had the foresight to make incredibly stupid mistakes on purpose, to trick everyone into thinking that is WASN’T a conspiracy because it was too stupid.

    That’s a possibility,but when evaluating a theory it’s always wise to remember Occam’s razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or: “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. If you only know how to read kitschy posters, then that means “The simplest solution is usually the best”.

    The simplest solution is that 9/11 appeared to be a terrorist attack against a symbol of American imperialism via capitalism, designed to be expensive and cripple the American economy, because it was just that. Of all available explanations, it is the simplest one that explains the available data.

    In addition to this- truthers want to believe contradictory ideas- the government is all powerful (but can’t off a few troublemakers, cover it’s tracks, or in any way succeed in any other mundane endeavor). The government did it for money (even though the whole endeavor has been rather expensive and a major contributor to our economic crisis). The list could go on. It’s a double-think.

    It isn’t silly to question “official stories”- but it’s equally irresponsible to uncritically accept alternative arguments that don’t make any sense.

    • Max says:

      “Why would they leave such dangerous loose ends free to talk to the media and tell their stories?”

      You argue that the existence of leaks proves there’s no government conspiracy, while other skeptics argue that the absence of leaks proves there’s no government conspiracy. Which is it?

      What I’d ask is why demolishing one tower wasn’t enough to gain public support. Was it really necessary to attack the Pentagon?

      • Max says:

        And if the goal was to wage war on Iraq, why blame Osama and then try to link him to Saddam instead of just blaming Saddam from the outset?

      • Vie says:

        Actually… I had intended to make that very point Max. There was no solid strategic reason for blaming Osama if the goal was to storm Iraq. Saddam was already a villain in the eyes of America, and it wouldn’t have been a stretch of the imagination to pin the 9/11 attacks on him.
        The addition of Osama would have only complicated the “goals” of the conspiracy- gaining greater control and access to Iraq’s oil, by creating an enemy needlessly and forcing US forces to divide their attention between two targets.

      • Max says:

        And if they could mastermind 9/11, why couldn’t they plant some WMDs in Iraq and catch Osama?

      • Vie says:

        No- I argue that it’s improbable that a government capable of maintaining a conspiracy as elaborate as 9/11 (one which would require the cooperation of a multitude of government agencies, setting up the patsies, ect.) would not be able to control a private citizen.
        What was it like…”Whoops, my bad… that guy who saw us planting the bomb in the tower is talking to the media…we probably should have shipped him off to gitmo… somebody’s getting canned.”
        And the people who argue that Average Joe somehow escaped the almighty government (and the government in their conspiracy theory fantasies would have to be all-powerful and uniform in it’s malfeasance) through nothing but sheer American grit (and a tiny touch of pixie dust) are not being being reasonable.
        That would be the entire purpose of me pointing out how little sense it made…

  36. HoosierGuy73 says:

    To dunningisaturd:

    You’re merely repeating what your fellow religionist said: that 98% of people believe. Actually, polls show that, rather than 2%, closer to 9 or 10% of people question God’s existence.

    But that’s beside the point. Is that how you formulate your beliefs, by how other people feel? My beliefs have been involuntarily based on my observations of life. And my observations have been that most prayers go unanswered. Why don’t you address my questions? Where was your omnipotent, loving God during the Holocaust? 6 million Jews died nightmarish deaths. How about the poor souls in parts of Africa today? Where is your omnipotent, loving God? Why does he allow so many humans to endure such awful lives and deaths?

    Claiming most people believe is NO support for your argument. As I said before, man created God to have someone to look to for help. So–in all too many instances–where is the help? It isn’t coming, because the supposed source of help doesn’t exist. Can you offer evidence that contradicts this common-sense thinking, other than to claim (inaccurately), “98% of people believe”? I don’t think you can, which is all the more reason for me to feel that, yes, I am right, and all those “believers” are wrong. And that is NOT arrogancve. It’s a result of decades of observing life. It is plain, ordinary common sense. Ever experienced an attack of common sense?

  37. Babybrox says:

    “Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

    Joshua Hunt said that, and I want to ask, Was that a death threat against people who research 9/11, or an observation that they have killed witnesses to their dirty work? Ben Franklin would know our government did it, too. He was no fool. So stop quoting him to refute truth, please. He wouldn’t appreciate it, I am certain.

    They would do it, and they did do it. That’s all there is to it. Shayne O’Connor said it best – you think our rogue government could not have done it because it was too complicated – but you believe some kids could?
    Logic evades you people, you’re not skeptics at all. You are underlings in a subversive training cult. You’re supporting the rogues’ efforts. You all believe only other countries enact “conspiracies”? Our CIA is the conspiracy expert. They wrote the book.
    I can’t believe there are still people who do not understand the link between bin Laden and the Bush regime, well, I guess you don’t know how to use the go ogle. (That was not an insult, just an observation about why you don’t know anything-you’re afraid to look)

    It’s people like you guys here who will contribute to the downfall of our civilization.
    Big Brother will stomp your face too, even if you are ‘supportive’. Don’t believe in Big Brother? Whatever you want to call it, it is real. NWO, PNAC, Globalization…ever heard of the Amero and the NAU? It’s real.
    I love my country, and while you all sit here in denial I am going off to fight the war of words with sheep like you.
    I am not the wolf, I am the shepherd’s dog, barking at you, telling you, warning you…and all you do is ba-a-a-a-ah.

    PS God has nothing to do with the truth about 9/11.

  38. HoosierGuy73 says:

    To Babybrox:

    I’m well aware that God has nothing to do with the truth about 9/11, but if you’d look at the previous blog, you’d see that I was replying to the ill-mannered, obnoxious “believer” who was so intent on discrediting my position. Sometime back, I apologized for straying from the subject at hand, but these Christians keep acting so UNChristian that I sometimes can’t refrain from answering them.

    The point was NOT that our government couldn’t carry out 9/11, but that it couldn’t do so without it leaking out. The pseudo-facts and half-truths that you “truthers” bring up do not constitute support, evidence, or any kind of indication that the government was involved and that this “leaked out.”
    As every rational person knows, “some kids” did indeed carry it out–and the fact that they did so definitely did “leak out.”

    You have criticized me for writing about the nonexistence of God because it is off the subject, and I explained why I wrote what I did. But do you know what? Those who believe in God are FAR more reasonable than you conspiracy theorists. They can at least say that most people do believe in God, but you conspiracy people are a tiny minority with beliefs so cockeyed that most people (including me) think you’re nuts. How you can hold the positions you do is positively incredible. One example: the Bilderberg Group, who–according to you– are plotting our demise. This bunch of people first met in 1954. Presumably they had similar goals to the ones today. Well, then, wouldn’t you say that after 56 years it is logical to believe that they have been pretty damned ineffective in whatever awful things they wanted to carry out? Has your life changed because of the Bilderberg Group? Mine sure hasn’t. Do you know anyone whose life HAS changed because of the Bilderberg Group? So why are you so terrified of them?

    I read one claim by a conspiracy theorist that all the U. S. presidents are related! Yes, that’s what some knucklehead said. Of course, all this aristocracy has been out to get us all the time. Oh, how scary!

    You’re paranoid. You’re too insecure–and intellectually lacking–to understand how the world works as well as even a 10-year-old does. And yet you patronize those of us with a firm, mature, logical grasp of reality as if you and your fellow loonies possessed TRUTH itself.

    You are SO pathetic.

  39. HoosierGuy73 says:

    To Babybrox:

    P.S. If you’ll look back at one of my earlier blogs, you’ll see that I’m not naive about the U.S. Government. Lyndon Johnson and George Bush were miserable SOB’s whose vanity and lying cost many, many lives. But they were individuals carrying out private agendas. Our government wastes our tax dollars, panders to lobbyists, and plays politics (which, unfortunately, sometimes involves duplicity). But the U.S. Government does not bring down buildings or kill its citizens. And if you think our government is no better than any other nation’s, you REALLY haven’t read much history, current events, etc.

    You claim to love our country. Well, for better or worse, our government is part of our country. And, after all, we still have the power to vote scallywags out of office, don’t we? I’m sure you see our voting rights being taken away sometime in the not-too-distant future, right? Probably by robots connected to those cameras that catch people violating traffic laws!

  40. Petr Buben says:

    1. What “CNN reports” is very much just another inside job, propaganda. .. I have not seen them report scientific facts and evidence about 9/11 controlled demolition inside operation pretext for wars. Have you??

    2. al Qaeda, confused as any other American, will take credit for anything they like . Especially for anti-American terrorist attempts, because they resent occupations, aggressions, colonization of their Arab lands by US and the western Christians, started during never elected pr Bush.

    Let me explain – al Qaeda probably even to this day does not know that they have been had, aided – that secret entities have their 9/11 not only allowed, but also made it happen real good. This per irrefutable scientific evidence by now, too.

    The big factor in stirring terrorist anger and actions is US remote UAV airplanes bombing and killing people on the ground in occupied countries, Afghanistan and also Pakistan. This foments terrorism well. Just as any occupations, wars.

    Detroit failed bomber was inside let it happen operation too – but a good one – nobody was killed, they set it up so bomb did not explode.
    See, and

    What is “foiled by 12-25-09″ inside fail bombing attack is peace, a chance for peace, and 9/11

    In fact, NOT revealing and investigating 9/11 Truth controlled demolition inside operation pretext to war is leaving the same forces in place, might bring more pretexts for wars inside covert ops. …

  41. HoosierGuy73 says:

    To Petr Buben:
    What portion of the government are you claiming was involved in carrying out 9/11? Most? Some? A few? How do they conceal what they’re doing from the rest of the government? And you surely cannot think that ALL of the media are in on it. The media sniff out everything. That’s what drives them: uncovering things the rest of us don’t know about. If any part of the government were involved in something this huge and heinous, it could not escape being discovered by non-participating government people, nor could it avoid some media detection. Please tell me you don’t think that all the government and all the media were in on it. If that is the case, there’s not even any basis for a discussion.

    • Max says:

      And did the Bush administration hatch the whole plan in 8 months, or does the conspiracy span multiple administrations as well?

    • Max says:

      And if all the US media was in on the conspiracy, what about foreign media?

      • HoosierGuy73 says:

        Max, I think you make an excellent point, because the U.S. media and the foreign media are intertwined as they pursue their identical goals. There’s no way either could discover anything without the other becoming equally aware of it.

  42. Vie says:

    Well, obviously some “media” found out about the “conspiracy”, but of all the media outlets to sniff out the alleged truth, why would it be just fringe media outlets?
    Does it makes sense that the fringe media, with it’s limited resources, circulation, and staff, were the only ones capable of hitting upon the biggest story of the century.
    Even if we assume that some media outlets were bought off by the government, it would be a gross underestimation of greed to assume that a rival station or journalist wouldn’t swoop in and snatch up the story. It would be THE STORY, and I find it improbable to believe that EVERY serious mainstream reporter was bought off by the government. Think about the sheer amount of money it would take to pay each and every journalist to NOT report the story of the century.
    Then back to my original point- the government managed to quiet all major news sources, but couldn’t silence the fringe media outlets?

  43. Eternally Learning says:

    “‘The martyrdom brother was able to reach his objective with the grace of God but due to a technical fault, the full explosion did not take place.'”

    …ok… seriously…?! If God wanted you to get there and is so great that he is worth dying for, why did he allow the “technical fault?” Does that mean that God made a mistake or does God’s grace not cover technical details? I’d say that this defies belief, but I guess I’m already proven wrong…

  44. Benji says:

    All you who are foolish QUAKE at my truth!

    You fools, the “truthers” are nothing but government cronies planted to obscure us all from the REAL conspiracy!

    That there were never any twin towers in the first place! Don’t believe me? Go ahead, go to New York and find them! I bet you won’t find any. The so called “ground zero”? Nothing but garbage and waste to make it appear that the two towers were destroyed by the terrorists that were really the Bush administrator that was really all lies. All those so called “photos” were created by the government. Wikipedia is in on this! They set up a fake page about the towers! New Yorkers are in on this! Ask one about the towers and watch them bow their head to avoid eye contact. They just sob in self defeat under the gaze of my bloodshot, puss drippy eyes of truth, eyes that haven’t blinked or slept since I first learned the truth when it hit me in the face after I was fired from my job in McDonalds and I saw that movie Minority Report in the local cinema, the popcorn was horrible, salted with the salt of lies!

    This conspiracy runs back as far as 1946, names included New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, master conspiracy designer and architect Minoru Yamasaki, Austin J. Tobin’s insidious Port Authority, Karl Koch, the names go on! How deep does this conspiracy go! Fear not! my long rod of Truth penetrates deep into this moist pocket of wanton lies!

    I know, many will continue to disbelieve, and liars and deniars will continue the lie. Many here are in on it!

    The trade centre was a fraud, YOUCANT PROVE ME WRONG!! The truth will live on! It lives in my frothy, preachy mouth!! I garggle truth 24/7!

    • tmac57 says:

      Benji-You are my hero! Keep up the good fight. We will live to see the day that the ‘towers believers’ will have to eat their words (salty as they are), unless the NWO comes to erase OUR “truths”.

  45. HoosierGuy73 says:

    You’re kidding, aren’t you? Just having some fun by posting something really far-out, right?

  46. HoosierGuy73 says:


    In all seriousness, would you claim that every man or woman who would tell you about having worked in the WTC–or that every spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, or friend of someone who had worked in the WTC–would be lying? That every single one of these people had been “bought off” by the government?

    Would you please respond to this message, because if you don’t, I will assume you cannot refute what I have said, and therefore have been totally defeated.

  47. HoosierGuy73 says:

    (Me to self)

    What am I saying? We all saw the towers go down on live television. Why am I giving this person the time of day, let alone trying to reason with him?

    Lie down, HoosierGuy. You need to rest.

  48. Shayne O'Connor says:

    HoosierGuy – surely you’re not serious in thinking Benjii was serious?! If you are, then you go down with the likes of Shermer & co when they were japed by that Shirley dude for his show … up-tight skeptics who take everything a bit too seriously.

  49. HoosierGuy73 says:

    Oh God. What can I say? After reading 100% genuine kooks on the Jesse Ventura program sites (you ought to see some of those), I was ready to believe almost anything about what some people believed. So yes, I did take Benji seriously. What’s an especially nice shade of red? Paint my face that shade.


    I must say that Benji is pretty good at what he does!

  50. Babybrox says:

    AN APOLOGY: HoosierGuy73, I was NOT writing to you! I think what you say is right on! I am sorry you thought I meant you-I was talking to this page’s writer, Shermer, and his ‘followers’, so once again, I apologize that you thought I meant you-I say, Keep up the good work, your words inspire me, not the opposite…And Shayne O’ too!
    To the fake skeptics here: TO 9/11 TRUTH DISBELIEVERS, There is factual and physical evidence the towers were imploded, and no argument on earth could change that fact. If you believe the ‘official story’ you are a fool. …know who wired the buildings, but not going to say it, because it is actually pretty dangerous to cross these killers, and this site reports directly to them. Therefore, I leave you to your lame arguments and sugar beliefs, and I wish you luck under the New World Order…you’ll need it.

  51. HoosierGuy73 says:

    Babybrox, it’s nice of you to apologize. But if you look closely at most of my posts, you’ll see that we are on opposite sides of the fence.

    In light of how many people would have to be in on such deeds, and in light of how hard it would be for them to conceal it from colleagues who were NOT in on it, I can’t believe that anything about 9/11 was an “inside job.”

    And, with all its shortcomings, I don’t see any reason for our government to want to do such a heinous thing.

  52. Mike C. says:

    This is my first comment on and about this most interesting site, so I will be brief with my observations:

    1. There sure are a lot of angry people around.
    2. There sure are a lot of angry people around who don’t seem to know much, if anything, about the subjects written about on this site.
    3. There sure are a lot of bad spellers around.
    4. There sure are a lot of people who need library cards around.

    Thanks and keep up the great work.

    • HoosierGuy73 says:

      Here’s how I’d like to see #4 worded: “There sure are a lot of people around who need library cards.” (LOL)

  53. Alittlehelp says:

    I haven’t had the patience to read all the comments, but will the 9/11 conspiracy theorists PLEASE take a look at “The Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright? He traces the origins of fundamentalist Islam back to the 1940’s and gives an excellent history of the events leading up to 9/11. I believe some of your questions will be answered.

    • tmac57 says:

      That was a great book, I kept thinking about it as the “Bin Laden didn’t do it” crowd made their comments. Of course the deniers will say that either Wright is a CIA disinformation operative, or a “dupe”.

  54. Mike C. says:

    Re: Babybrox comment.

    I live 5 blocks from the WTC site, and have for twenty years. My wife and I, along with the neighbors on our floor, watched the buildings collapse (I shot a couple of rolls of films during the entire terrifying event), and I don’t recall Building #7 “imploding.” My memory, the memories of my Tribeca neighbors, and most reliably the developed photos show it simply collapsing, like the other buildings on that horrendous yet lovely blue-skied morning.

    • HoosierGuy73 says:

      Mike: Just joshin’ you in that last message. I can’t imagine what it must have been like to experience that day in the way you were able to. I’ll be there are images seared into your brain that will never go away.

  55. Mike C. says:

    HoosierGuy73: LOL – I was just being silly, and thanks for the replies.

  56. Mike C. says:

    Oops, meant silly in my first comment. Every year on September, 11, many folks in the neighborhood, including the local fire fighters and police (great guys and gals by the way), stop by one of the local taverns, and one of the main topics this year was how infrequently many of us (the civilians amongst us, anyway) do think about that day.

    • HoosierGuy73 says:

      I meant to say “I’ll bet,” rather than “I’ll be.”

      As to how seldom you all think about 9/11: well, it was 8 years ago, and life does go on. But if you get to talking about it with someone, or thinking about in once in a while, I would think that you are able to conjure up images that those of us not on the scene could never have. Not that I mean to argue: you know your mind better than anyone else does! I’m just saying that seeing it first-hand has leave a stronger impression than merely seeing it on television does.

      Mike, I gotta be outa here for now. I believe you and Alittlehelp both made valuable contributions to the forum, and I appreciate them.

  57. Michael Horn says:

    Here’s another quick diversion from the topic. Maybe someone here can help. I’d been engaged in a delightful dialogue with Michael Shermer, who I truly do respect, regarding UFOs, where we of course disagree. However, as soon as I introduced the information in my article

    it seems that Mike got quite stumped and has…disappeared.

    Of course I know that he is busy and has other things to do but since skeptics always (and quite rightly) want extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, I thought he’d like to have some of the best, most irrefutable evidence available…documentation from the Library of Congress.

    As a matter of fact, I had hopped over to Phil Plait’s blog, where he asks for “predictive evidence” and provided the same to him. He also seems strangely tongue-tied. Heck, I dropped emails to a number of the skeptics and their organizations linked form this site and they all seem to have taken an extended vow of silence.

    Now I know that some people have a tendency to say things like, “Well that’s because there’s nothing credible to comment about, etc.” But in addition to the LoC copyrights, for the truly scientifically minded, I’d like to quote Mike’s own words here, ” It just means that we don’t know everything. That is the very nature of science.”

    So, while I again acknowledge that this is off topic, any help in getting a representative from the organization, should Michael want to completely avoid the topic, to engage in a little discussion would be appreciated.

  58. Miko says:

    As I recall, somewhere around six terrorist groups claimed the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the immediate aftermath. Is there any reason why we should take al Qaeda at their word and not any of the other groups? As opposed to, say, waiting for the overwhelming evidence to come in and then placing the blame on al Qaeda based on that instead.

    • tmac57 says:

      There were multiple lines of evidence for the 9/11 attacks that backed up the al Qaeda claim, so for that attack at least, I think we should take their claim seriously, as well as the threat to do it again. As for the recent attempt, I think that we should not take them at their word only, but I think that the intelligence agencies should do due diligence to corroborate that claim, and they probably are.

    • Max says:

      No, I’m Spartacus!

      According to the “unclassified summary of evidence” presented during the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in 2007 a computer hard drive seized during the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed contained the following:

      – information about the four airplanes hijacked on 11 September 2001 including code names, airline company, flight number, target, pilot name and background information, and names of the hijackers
      – photographs of 19 individuals identified as the 11 September 2001 hijackers
      – a document that listed the pilot license fees for Mohammad Atta and biographies for some of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.
      – images of passports and an image of Mohammad Atta.
      – transcripts of chat sessions belonging to at least one of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.
      – three letters from Osama bin Laden
      spreadsheets that describe money assistance to families of known al Qaeda members
      – a letter to the United Arab Emirates threatening attack if their government continued to help the United States
      – a document that summarized operational procedures and training requirements of an al Qaeda cell
      – a list of killed and wounded al Qaeda militants.

  59. HoosierGuy73 says:

    Every “truther” should read Max’s post.

    • Max says:

      They can dismiss the evidence by saying it was planted. In their minds, all evidence against the conspiracy theory is evidence for the conspiracy.
      But then I ask why the conspirators couldn’t plant some WMDs in Iraq during the war, instead of finding evidence that Saddam shut down the WMD program.

    • Shayne O'Connor says:

      there is the possibility that there were 19 hijackers who *thought* they were working for al qaeda, but were actually being duped by intelligence services. this theory can explain a lot of things, like how a government conspiracy can be so easily kept under wraps … i also think it can explain why bin laden waited four years to take responsibility for the attacks.

      • Max says:

        Explain why Binalshibh told al-Jazeera that he and other members of the Hamburg cell received training in 1999 in Kandahar, where he met key players in the 9/11 attacks. Do you suppose he was really in Area 51, and al-Jazeera is a CIA front (<_<)

  60. margaret asquith says:

    A young man hiding a few grams of explosives in his underpants and 4-planes, hijacked and precision flow into buildings are on a completely different scale. It doesnt prove at all that al-qaeda was behind 9/11.

    Second, since when does a statement on a website “prove” anything?

    I can publish a web statement that I went to the moon disguised as Neil Armstrong. Does that “prove” i did?

    The real proof is the failure of US military to intercept planes for over 90 minutes – thats proof there were under orders to let it happen. The real proof is Attorney General Ashcroft failing to return urgent phone calls for several weeks prior to 9/11 from a senior FBI agent who had discovered the plot.

    The real proof is Bush and his security briefs continuing their school visit for another 10 minutes even after the second plane hit and it was clear American was under a major terrorist attack and Bush could be at risk too.

    The real proof is how steel columns in the twin towers, designed to withstand heat upto 1480 degrees, should collapse by an aeroplane hit and an office building fire.

    The real proof is why nobody has officially reported on the reason for WT 7 collapsing.

    The real proof is why the Bush regime quickly ordered the WTC rubble to be quickly assembled and shipped off to Asia melting, whereas it was vital forensive evidence from a major crime scheme.

    The real proof is how an intact Arab passport was claimed to be found amongst the rubble.

    The real proof is how 3 of the alleged hijackers claimed to be by the CIA are actually still alive and well and living in their Arab countries.

    The real proof is why jewish traders on Wall street sold off substantial shares in the 2 affected airlines days before 9/11 and also of Morgan Stanley which occupied many floors at the WTC. Those traders made tens of millions of dollars of quick profit immediately after 9/11. Thats proof of an inside job!

    9/11 was a zionist plot, made to look like arabs. It was dreamt up by zionist extremists, planned and executed by Mossad, and carried out with the co-operation of senior Bush regime officials.

    • Adam_Y says:

      The real proof is how steel columns in the twin towers, designed to withstand heat upto 1480 degrees, should collapse by an aeroplane hit and an office building fire.

      Stupidity at its finest. Steel melts at 1480 degrees. It weakens significantly at much lower temperatures.

      The real proof is why nobody has officially reported on the reason for WT 7 collapsing.

      Lying or dumb? Pick your choice because this is factually incorrect.

    • HoosierGuy73 says:

      How do you pronounce “factoid”? What are your sources for all these outrageous claims? Likely other mislead “truthers.” What are THEIR sources?

      • tmac57 says:

        Sources is really the crux of the problem in these kinds of exchanges, isn’t it? You can find just about anything on the intertubes as a “source” to confirm your bias’s. The trick is in the vetting of the sources. Once a person latches on to (becomes wedded to?) a line of reasoning, they can always find an internet site,talking head,celebrity,book,authority etc. to back up their beliefs.

      • HoosierGuy73 says:

        Very true, tmac57.

    • Max says:

      “Margaret”, are you really a female, and do you think the Holocaust was a hoax? Thanks.

  61. Me says:

    It is amazing how skeptic’s are some of the most gullible people. It’s also one of the easiest jobs in the world. Just sit there and propagate the status quo with a smirk on your face.

  62. HoosierGuy73 says:

    The status quo is the norm. The really gullible people are those who believe in radical, bizzare, nonsensical departures from the norm.

  63. HoosierGuy73 says:

    Folks on the forum,

    This is hardly new, but if you do a web search for Popular Mechanics 9/11, you’ll come upon some very interesting information.

    • Me says:

      And contradictory information for gullible smirkers.

    • HoosierGuy73 says:

      My message was to “Folks on the forum,” which includes not only my fellow realists but those gullible enough to believe in radical, bizzare, nonsensical departures from the norm.

      Me, do you get all “hot and bothered” when you watch Jesse Ventura and his comical conspiracy show? (And I deliberately use the term “show” rather than “program.”) Just think what it would be like if all those conspiracy theories were true! And that’s just what Jesse and his poor, paranoid followers apparently believe! I heard a promo for it expressing a fear that the world may end in 2012! Now THAT’S scary–right? We’d all better get our affairs in order-right? LOL LOL LOL

  64. Nick says:

    99% of 9/11 “Truthers” are intrinsically nutty to begin with and aren’t concerned with actual research (sorry, watching “Loose Change” on YouTube doesn’t count as research, and neither does listening to AM radio wingnuts). You have to realize that their affirmation of most of these beliefs is merely a manifestation of primitive human psychology.

    However, I will not deny the historical record and human nature. The general batshit disposition of humanity and their corrupt governments have (and always will under this social paradigm) had a propensity for deliberately conducting disasters as particular means to (usually economic) ends.

    And perhaps even worse than the ignorant conspiracy theorist, most fallacious and pathetic are the ones who affirm a deficient and biased government’s initial account of a complex story.


  65. Pen says:

    Related to this topic, I am curious:

    Some of you may have read this, very old, article…

    I have a question, also posted as a comment there:

    I realise this thread is rather out of date now but my comment above [see comment previous to this on website above] poses a question to all of you here – including the author – who think the article is a good and accurate one. I need to do a short preamble, so please bear with me:

    If someone is an atheist, the only thing you know about them is that they do not believe in God (or gods). That is it, no more, no less. They may be highly intelligent, rational, critical thinkers or they may believe that homeopathic treatments work beyond placebo, that crop circles are messages from aliens and that tarot cards predict the future.

    If someone is a “truther” the only thing you know about them is that they do not believe the official version of what happened on 9/11. That is it, no more, no less. They may be highly intelligent, rational, critical thinkers or they may believe that no planes hit the twin towers, that George Bush masterminded the entire thing (personally, I think this is less likely than crop circles/aliens heh heh!!!!) or any other nonsense.

    Bearing this in mind, it would appear that Phil Mole and those who agree with him here are “truthers”.

    If [as the article claims] you believe that “the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained [from the debris from the collapse of building 1]”, you must be sceptical of the NIST report that claims that the falling debris “had little effect in causing the collapse” which, they say, was primarily due to fires. Congratulations, you doubt the veracity of the official report – like all other “truthers”.

    On the other hand, if you entirely agree with the NIST report and can see that the collapse of WTC7 is not consistent with the damage from the falling debris, then you must recognise that the author of this piece does not know what he is talking about and some, most or all the rest of the article could also be a load of cr… rubbish. Congratulations, you disagree with this article, like many or all other “truthers”.

    Welcome to the club!

    What I am interested in is whether Phil Mole or even Mr. Shermer himself still accept the official – as in the NIST report – on the collapse of building 7 or are they now sceptics?

    If they do accept that WTC7 collapsed because of fires – not because of collateral damage – perhaps they could explain what evidence so radically changed their opinion… that way, some of us who doubt the veracity of the NIST report might be swayed.

  66. bluubonnet says:


    Gee, I guess you’re correct if you suspend all laws of Physics, you shameless GD corporate whore!!! No one exists that isn’t a blithering idiot that believes you on this.

    Too bad, because other things have you’ve done have credence. This is obviously selling your soul to the defense industry. You’ve lost all your credibility by selling out. Probably lost lots of respect from those that otherwise liked you. You’ll carry this ugly mark forever. You did it to yourself. SCUM.

  67. bluubonnet says:

    Oh, I see that the anti-truth team that uses derision instead of science as a means to bring down the truth movement are here. None take them seriously either, anyone grounded in reality that is. You all can go to hell, back where you came from!!!

  68. bluubonnet says:

    Gee, I wonder how much Hoosier is getting paid. Not enough when you consider the hell he must feel at some level within himself when he looks in the mirror every day.

  69. Hsiu Phagan says:

    Timothy McVeigh was a insane person that has gotten way more attention than he ever should have other than as a case study of someone who was criminally insane.