9/11 an Inside Job?
“Edmonton Questions 9/11”
This is what you see upon entering such nether-regions of the web as Edmonton 9/11 Truth.com
You also get to see lots of ads for documentaries that will supposedly open your mind to the obvious fact that the government(s) are actively keeping the truth hidden from us about September 11th.
They even had MP Laurie Hawn watch one of their documentaries, and they post his reply:
I watched the DVD in its entirety. There were interesting questions raised, but I didn’t agree with all of the assessments of what physically happened in the collapses.
Which essentially means he thinks they’re a bunch of nuts.
But are they? Or are there really questions to be raised about the events that unfolded.
Dr. Kevin Barrett and Dr. Anthony Hall think so. Barrett, a Libertarian Party candidate in Wisconsin, and Hall, a professor at University of Lethbridge (home to reputable scholar Dr. Linville), will be in Edmonton on September 6 to discuss the questions they have surrounding the events. They will also be accompanied by a screening of “Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of our Repbulic”. I’ll also mention that this event is sponsored in part by Earth’s General Store on Whyte Avenue.
So what are the questions? In 2005, Popular Mechanics ran a nice article on “alternative” 9/11 Theories, they outline many of the most popular ideas, and elloquently dissect each idea.
The favourite that I keep hearing is that WTC Building 7 also collapsed on September 11th, and was “actually” a controlled demolition. The “truthers” point to a couple videos (from off angles) that they say show the collapse as a demolition as opposed to a structural failure.
What happened (in the view of most scientists who actually investigated the situation) is that a combination of flying debris, internal fires, and poor design led to the failure of that building.
Many of the supposed questions come down to either ignorance (in not knowing all the details from the reports), misrepresentation (seeing videos which don’t show all the evidence), or outright lieing (making shit up, for example there being no plane wreckage at the Pentagon).
The people who believe and promote 9/11 Truth in local areas are victims, not causes. They have found a bit of information (that is usually professionally prepared), and they latch on to it. The issue comes when they are presented with further evidence that backs up the “official story” and they denounce it, ignore it, or lampoon it.
For more information (please actually read some of this if you think I’m wrong before commenting):
- There’s Maddox’s review of Loose Change (This is the offensive way to respond to conspiracy theoriests)
- Time Magazine
- Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories
- 911Myths
- Do You Believe the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (more links at the bottom of this article)
WordPress
Facebook
Google +
theres an article somewhere, called something like the “loose change guide” or something equally unimaginative that fisks the entire movie. line by line from the transcript. its amazing. its a useful resource, one of the only ones that I remember from my days of trolling the troofer’s groups on facebook. Mind, most of the knowledge I got in first year engg was enough to debunk the majority of their claims. so silly.
Allen above is just another neocon crash dummy. His stupid comment is just a reflection of what his one brain cell can generate on a good day. He needs to move out of his parents basement and get a real job.
So far the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) has not released a report explaining the collapse of WTC 7. They are working out several scenarios that could explain how a steel structure building can collapse at free fall speed with no significant structural damage (see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413&hl=en-CA) and a few sparse fires. As far as WTC 7 being a poorly designed building is concerned, it is a nothing more than a fairy tale. It has never been documented anywhere.
What really happened was that WTC 7 was wired with explosives with the expectation that an airplane was going to crash into it after Buildings 1 and 2 were hit. A third plane did not arrive because Flight 93 was 45 minutes late leaving the gate (due to delays of removing runway construction equipment which was overlooked by the planners by the way) at Newark Airport. By the time that plane was commandeered as the priority targets were already hit by the other two planes, it was too late to turn back to NYC and so it wandered over Pennsylvania until it was shot down. Meanwhile building 7 was still wired with explosives. Fires were set and the building was imploded at 5:21PM.
Dan,
First, Alan is not spelled “Allen” and it would have taken you less than a second to check that fact by scrolling up a tenth of a page.
Second, I know for a fact that Alan is no neocon, he’s at least as socialistic as I, perhaps even more. We’re big-government people. We’re also anti-stupid.
Finally, I shouldn’t be surprised that you couldn’t take the time to read any of the links that I told you to before commenting, because http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm is a complete description of the fall.
There is NO evidence for explosives. There is NO evidence for arson.
Further on WTC7:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
Stop buying into conspiracy crackpottery and check some facts about the “truth”.
Who cares how his name is spelled. And it does not matter whether or not he is self identified as being to the left of Stalin or to the right of Hitler. What does matter is this: whoever you are, I perceive you as a front for the force behind the events that occurred that day. The purpose of the attacks was to set in motion long laid plans to turn the United States into a fascist dictatorship.
It is easy for you to ignore the facts because you do not care about the facts. Why? Your goal is to spread propaganda in an effort to create a distraction from the real issues.
I care how my name is spelt. Its my name. Before we can get to what you’re talking about, it may be worth figuring out who you are talking to.