While I am open to and inclined to believe that there is still a lot unknown 
about the 911 attacks, many of the arguments that Bhairitu makes appear to have 
substantial counter arguments as I have outlined below. .  
 A general criticism, not of Bhairitu’s arguments specifically, is voiced by 
Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, [9/11 conspiracy 
advocates]"use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, 
throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their 
findings as the only possible conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a 
common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the 
argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." Michael Shermer, in 
Scientific American http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American, said: 
"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a 
well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All 
the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such 
notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on 
single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple 
lines of inquiry. 
 If the following counter arguments don’t hold water, please explain, I am all 
 1)    1) Bhairitu: We allege it was a conspiracy by a faction in the 
government and some corporations.  
 Rational Wiki: [Regarding claims that] Powerful money/Bush 
family/military-industrial conspirers did it, all of whom needed a new war in 
the Middle East for various commercial reasons (oil 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oil, arm sales, real estate, precious bodily 
fluids etc.):  While it could easily be said that "they" used 9/11 to create an 
unrelated Iraq War http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Iraq_War, they did not blame 
the Iraqis http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Iraq, but al-Qaeda, which isn't really 
as convenient if you want to declare war with Iraq and not lose some friends. 
To quote Bill Maher http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bill_Maher, "[That Bush had 
prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks] is an absurd statement, because it 
contains the words Bush and knowledge."  
 …  the biggest problem is that for the Bush administration to enact such an 
abhorrent plot and keep it a secret would seem to require a level of competence 
they never displayed at anything else. While there is some evidence that 
intelligence http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligence_(government) regarding 
the attack was ignored, that does not mean it was a nefarious plot. As Heinlein 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heinlein said, "You have attributed conditions to 
villainy that simply result from stupidity."
 The second problem is that if BushCo did stage the 9/11 attack, their failure 
to place the blame directly on Saddam Hussein 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein's regime is rather baffling, since 
their alleged main "use" of 9/11 was to force the US into war with Iraq.
   Rational Wiki: [Regarding claims that] It was carried out by Mossad to 
galvanize US support for Israel and destroy their enemies:  The story of Mossad 
allegedly telling Jews http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jew to stay home the day of 
the attack, or that no Jews died in the attack, both of which are false, 
brought this one forward (the most common of these claims is that 4,000 Jews 
were warned to stay home).[41] 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-40 However, as 
Bush was already one of the strongest supporters Israel has ever had, it is 
questionable as to why they'd need more of his support. The idea that the Jews 
were forewarned may originate in the fact that 9/11 happened to fall at the end 
of the month of Elul, during the days leading up to Rosh Hashanah 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jewish_holidays#Rosh_Hashanah, when observant Jews 
would have additional prayers at their morning prayer services and therefore 
would likely be late to work. However, given that there were several Orthodox 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Orthodox_Judaism minyanim (prayer groups) 
organized within the WTC, it is unclear how many, if any, Jews were away from 
the towers due to prayer services. Then again, if Mossad had wanted to destroy 
the towers when there were no Jews in them, they could simply have waited a few 
days until Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur, 
when practically no Jews would have been at work.
 9/11 conspiracy theories(Wiki): In 2006, members of the group Scholars for 
9/11 Truth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth argued that a 
group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century 
(PNAC), which included Paul Wolfowitz 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld, set on US world dominance and 
orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-192 In 
September 2000 the PNAC released a strategic treatise entitled Rebuilding 
America's Defences. David Ray Griffin 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin in his 2004 book The New Pearl 
Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 argued that 
the treatise may have been the blueprint for 9/11 attacks. Specifically the 
language in the paper that read "the process of transformation, even if it 
brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some 
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" was describing an 
alleged motive.[193] 
 The Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, was drafted by Paul Wolfowitz 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz on behalf of then Secretary of 
Defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Defense Dick Cheney 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney. This was described as "a blueprint 
for permanent American global hegemony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony"; 
by Andrew Bacevich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich in his 
bookAmerican Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy.[196] 
 Matt Taibbi argued in his book The Great Derangement that conspiracy theorists 
have taken what is written in the paper "completely out of context", and that 
the "transformation" referenced in the paper is explicitly said to be a 
decades-long process to turn the Cold War 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War-era military into a "new, modern 
military" which could deal with more localized conflicts.[197] 
said that, for this to be evidence of motive, either those responsible would 
have decided to openly state their objectives, or would have read the paper in 
2000 and quickly laid the groundwork for the 9/11 attacks using it as 
 2)    2) Bhairitu: The planes were a cover and they alone would not have 
collapsed the building.  See, Mr. Science, you don't even know that the 
buildings were designed to take a hit by those size planes.  This because a 
large plane hit the Empire State by accident back in the 1940s but it also 
didn't sustain much damage from that.  So they made sure future buildings were 
also built to take such hits.
 RationalWiki: The two incidents were very different. Although smaller than the 
towers were, The Empire State Building is a much heavier building. The Empire 
State Building is a steel-framed structure with movement-resisting bolted or 
riveted connections: this means that every joint resists bending moments and 
wind forces and the load from any failed/ damaged columns can be redistributed, 
whereas the WTC's steel framed-tube configuration allowed only the exterior 
wall to resists bending moments due to wind. The Empire State Building's 
structure can redistribute loads from failed/damaged columns, but the core 
steel columns of the Twin Towers only supported downward loads.
 The B-25 was a twin-engine World War II 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/World_War_II bomber. It was much smaller and far 
slower than the Boeing 767 airliners which crashed into the Twin Towers. The 
B-25 is estimated at 9,750 kg flying 320 kph, versus a Boeing 767-223ER (AA 11) 
or 767-222 (UA 175) with a mass http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mass of at least 
90,000 kg flying at 750 kph (or 950 kph) respectively. Liberal estimates of the 
B-25 give 40 million kilojoules of kinetic energy 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Energy#In_physics on impact, while a conservative 
estimate gives AA 11 2 billion kilojoules and UA 175 3 billion kilojoules, 
resulting in least 50 times the kinetic energy on impact.[22] 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-21 Furthermore, 
the B-25 was a propeller-driven aircraft, which meant that it was powered by 
high-octane gasoline instead of jet fuel, and the B-25 carried way less fuel 
than does a modern airliner. Finally, the fire in the Empire State Building was 
different than in the World Trade Center and the FDNY was able to extinguish it 
before it got out of control.
 3) Bhairitu: Also planes hitting the building would not have made them fall 
over.  To do that is a bit tricky and they hit too high to do that.  Thus it 
required demolition to complete the job.  
 9/11 conspiracy theories(Wiki): The National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) concluded the accepted version was more than sufficient to 
explain the collapse of the buildings. NIST and many scientists refuse to 
debate conspiracy theorists because they feel it would give these theories 
unwarranted credibility.[93] 
Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model 
of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings 
without the use of explosives.[94] 
 As a result, NIST said that it did not perform any test for the residue of 
explosive compounds of any kind in the debris.[43] 
 Soon after the day of the attacks, major media sources published that the 
towers had collapsed due to melted steel.[97] 
 Knowledge that the burning temperatures of jet fuel would not melt the steel 
support structure of the WTC contributed to the belief among skeptics that the 
towers would not have collapsed without external interference (something other 
than the planes). NIST does not claim that the steel was melted, but rather 
that the weakened steel, together with the damage caused by the planes' 
impacts, caused the collapses.[43] 
NIST reported that a simulation model based on the assumption that combustible 
vapors burned immediately upon mixing with the incoming oxygen showed that "at 
any given location, the duration of [gas] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 
15 to 20 [minutes]. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were 500 
°C or below.
 RationalWiki: They (more or less) did fall symmetrically in their own 
footprints due to material fatigue at and above the fire and impact floors 
causing the upper floors to detach and fall through lower undamaged sections, 
which can be clearly seen until they're obscured by dust and smoke. NIST 
concluded that:
 ·         The collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC 
towers and nowhere else; and

 ·         The time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 
and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by a) the extent of damage caused by 
the aircraft impact, and b) the time it took for the fires to reach critical 
locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not 
resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive 
top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
 Based on observations of the collapses as they happened and hundreds of 
experts' analysis of the building site and materials, the NIST was able to 
consider and reject other possible explanations for large buildings collapsing 
in their own footprints. The first is the theory that damage to the WTC floor 
systems caused their progressive collapse, known as the "pancake theory."[11] 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-pancake-10 The 
second is the theory that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled 
detonation. Neither theory matches the observation that each building appeared 
undamaged except at its top until it collapsed. The NIST concluded that damage 
to perimeter support columns initiated the detachment of the floors at and 
above the fire and impact floors, which subsequently fell into and through the 
towers. The claim that a building damaged by metal fatigue cannot collapse in 
its own footprint does not square with observations of the collapses as they 
happened, nor the conclusions of experts evaluating the effects of physical 
damage to and the weakening by unusually high temperatures of critical building 
 4) 44)   Bhairitu:  Silverstein goofed and said they had to "pull" building.  
It wouldn't be possible to set the building up for demolition under those 
conditions and that fast.  It was set up in advance.
 Rational Wiki:   [ The claim that]  WTC 7 was demolished by order of the WTC's 
owner.. comes primarily from two miscommunications. The first was by BBC News 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BBC, which broadcast an erroneous report that WTC 
7 had collapsed while the building could still be seen standing through the 
window of their New York studio.[8] 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-7 The second 
was an evacuation order ("pull it") that went out shortly before the building, 
badly damaged in the collapse of the main towers and on fire, collapsed of its 
own accord. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's 
(NIST) 2006 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade 
Center Disaster report, the reasons for the WTC 7 collapse include:
 Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited 
fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. 
However, only the fires on some of the lower floors — 7 through 9 and 11 
through 13 — burned out of control. These lower-floor fires — which spread and 
grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these 
floors had failed — were similar to building fires experienced in other tall 
buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the 
lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the 
collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually 
spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began. 
 ... [T]he thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and 
girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those 
typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; 
significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span 
floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were 
designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced 
horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to 
prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.[9] 
 Although it wasn't completely obvious to the untrained eye at the time, WTC 7 
had been seriously compromised by a 20-story gash in one corner facing Ground 
Zero, and by the time the evacuation order was given was visibly sagging. 
Conspiracy theorists have also tried to claim that "pull" is standard jargon 
within the demolition industry to fire off demolition charges within the 
building; demolition experts have denied this; the usual term would be "shoot 
it" or "blow it." 
 It's been repeatedly reported that Larry Silverstein had insured the Twin 
Towers a year earlier, and it is more than "coincidental 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Coincidence"; that this insurance covered terrorist 
attacks. Further, Silverstein had numerous legal disputes that aimed to 
increase the payout by arguing that there were two separate attacks. To a first 
approximation, this was successful and Silverstein managed to claim 
approximately $4.6 billion.
 What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total cost of 
the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way 
below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was 
also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the 
attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable 
cost once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an 
insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the 
insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew 
exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it 
was the worst ever.[5] 
 We've already noted that the World Trade Center had already been bombed once 
before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had 
been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy 
would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.
 5)   5)  Bhairitu:  Most of us know that a large jet liner could not have 
maneuvered to hit the Pentagon.  There would have been crash debris and a much 
larger hole.  It was most likely a missile.  
 RationalWiki: [Regarding the claim that the ] damage at the Pentagon is not 
large enough to have been caused by a passenger jet: These claims rely on the 
remote assessment of non-specialists against the on-site investigation of 
experts on structural engineering. The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete 
building with blast-resistant windows. It was struck by an aluminum-skinned 
commercial aircraft that had already lost a wing before hitting the building. 
The damage is consistent with this scenario.  
 RationalWiki: [Regarding claims that] it was a missile that hit the Pentagon:  
The preponderance of evidence suggests that a commercial aircraft hit the 
Pentagon. An aircraft is known to have gone missing, the wreckage of the same 
aircraft was found at the Pentagon, and the damage was what structural 
engineers expected from such a strike. If the alleged conspirators went to this 
level of effort to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the 
Pentagon, why then use a missile? Using a plane would be simpler (as you 
already have one ready for the task), and there wouldn't be the risk of 
 9/11 conspiracy theories(Wiki): Political activist Thierry Meyssan 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Meyssan and filmmaker Dylan Avery 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Avery claim that American Airlines Flight 77 
did not crash into the Pentagon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon. 
Instead, they argue that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements 
from inside the U.S. government. Reopen911.org says that the holes in the 
Pentagon walls were far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757: "How does 
a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 60 ft. 
across?" Meyssan’s book, L’Effroyable Imposture (published in English as 9/11: 
The Big Lie) became an instant bestseller in France and is available in more 
than a dozen languages. When released, the book was heavily criticized by both 
the mainstream French and American press, and later, from within the 9/11 Truth 
movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement by researchers such 
as Hoffman[101] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-101 and 
websites such as oilempire.us.[102] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-102 The 
French newspaperLiberation called the book "a tissue of wild and irresponsible 
allegations, entirely without foundation." 
 9/11 conspiracy theories(Wiki):  In response to the conspiracy theorists' 
claim of a missile hitting the Pentagon, Mete Sozen,[106] 
 a professor of civil engineering at Purdue University 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_University argues that: "A crashing jet 
doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete 
building. When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one wing hit the ground and the 
other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns."[103] 
to ArchitectureWeek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchitectureWeek, the reason 
the Pentagon took relatively little damage from the impact was because Wedge 
One had recently been renovated.[108] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-108 (This was 
part of a renovation program which had been begun in the 1980s, and Wedge One 
was the first of five to be renovated.[109] 
 Evidence contradicting some conspiracy theorists' claim of a missile's hitting 
the Pentagon have been described by researchers within the 9/11 Truth Movement, 
such as Jim Hoffman, in his essay "The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical 
Evidence Shows",[110] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-110 and by 
others broadly refuting the role of other conspiracies in the attacks. The 
evidence refuting missile claims includes airplane debris including Flight 77's 
black boxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box,[111] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-111 the nose 
cone, landing gear,[112] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-112 an 
airplane tire,[113] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-113 and an 
intact cockpit seat[114] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-114 were 
observed at the crash site. The remains of passengers from Flight 77 were 
indeed found at the Pentagon crash site and their identities confirmed by 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-115 Many 
eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Further, Flight 77 passengers 
made phone calls reporting that their airplane had been hijacked. For example, 
passenger Renee May called her mother to tell her that the plane had been 
hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane. 
Another passenger namedBarbara Olson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson 
called her husband (U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson) and said that the flight had been 
hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-117 Some 
conspiracy theories say the phone calls the passengers made were fabricated by 
voice morphing, the passengers' bodies disposed of, and a missile fired at the 
 The public interest group Judicial Watch 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act request on December 15, 
2004 to force the government to release video recordings from the Sheraton 
National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and 
the Virginia Department of Transportation. On May 16, 2006, the government 
released the Pentagon security camera videos to Judicial Watch.[121] 
 Judicial Watch reports that the video shows American Airlines flight 77 
crashing into the Pentagon.[122] 
 The image of American Airlines Flight 77 which appears in the videos has been 
described as "[a] white blob" and "a white streak" (by the BBC),[123] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-123 "a thin 
white blur" (by The Associated Press 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-124 and "a 
silver speck low to the ground" (in The Washington Post 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-125 A 
sequence of five frames from one of the videos already appeared in the media in 
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-126 Some 
conspiracy theorists believe the new video does not answer their 
 9-11 conspiracy theories - RationalWiki 
 9-11 conspiracy theories - RationalWiki  
 No it wasn't.
 View on rationalwiki.org http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories
 Preview by Yahoo
 "9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclo...  
 9/11 conspiracy theories attribute the planning and execution of the September 
11 attacks to parties other than, or in addition to, al-Qaeda[1] or claim there 
 View on en.wikipedia.org
 Preview by Yahoo


              • ... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
              • ... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... salyavin808
            • ... Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
              • ... salyavin808
          • ... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... seerd...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
              • ... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... salyavin808
            • ... Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... nablusoss1008
    • [Fairfield... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
  • Re: [FairfieldL... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to