Footer Pages


How true is 9/11 truth?

I don’t think I will ever know whether or not the massacre of September 11th 2001 was carried out by, or with the knowledge of, the authorities. But I think the overwhelming balance of probability lies on the side of the view than the crime was the work of an Islamic extremist group, working against the US government, not for it. I explain why in this article.

The movement which argues that ‘9/11 was an inside job’ modestly dubs itself ‘the 9/11 truth movement’, so I will refer to its collection of explanations as ‘9/11 truth’.

This truth comes in two varieties

  1. Theories whose predictions have been falsified
  2. Pseudo-theories which do not make falsifiable predictions

An example of a 9/11 pseudo-theory is the explanation of the varied reactions of members of the Bush government to the attacks. Suppose there are two possible behaviors. One is what one would expect from someone who was surprised by the plane crashes, and one is not. 9/11 truth says that if the politician behaved as if he knew something, well, that shows he knew something. If he behaved the other way, he was covering something up. A ‘theory’ which predicts two incompatible consequences equally well is a pseudo-theory.

An example of a falsified 9/11 theory is the idea that the government organized the attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. Shortly after September 11th, US forces set up shop in the north of Afghanistan. Conspiracy believers muttered about an oil pipeline. After much pleading from the Taliban government’s opponents, the US airforce bombed the Taliban, who ran away. The Northern Alliance advanced, and president Bush asked them not to take Kabul. They ignored him. After ten years, the USA has achieved nothing. The contrast between the US government’s purported diabolical brilliance, and its actual incompetence in Afghanistan, is falsification – unless you argue that the incompetence itself is fake, in which case you have a pseudo-theory.

If it is unlikely that the administration planned to occupy Afghanistan, were the 9/11 events a ‘false flag operation’ designed to produce a pretext for the occupation of Iraq in 2003? Three considerations make this unlikely.

  1. The official report (1) does not say that Iraq was involved in the hijackings.
  2. It was unnecessary for the official report to blame Iraq. The government simply said it, and the majority of Americans believed it.
  3. The USA had a better pretext for occupying Iraq back in 1991 – Saddam’s attack on Kuwait, followed by a US invasion, backed by most of the world.

This theory says, in effect, that in 2001, the administration thought

We failed to occupy Iraq when we had a chance. Let’s murder thousands of Americans and blame it on fifteen Saudis, a Lebanese, an Egyptian, and two guys from the UAE! That’ll give us a great excuse to invade Iraq in two years’ time

It’s true that many Americans can’t tell the difference between Saudis and Iraqis. Exactly. Because much of the US public is so ignorant, bellicose, and servile, the government didn’t need 9/11. Most Americans were peace-lovers in 1914 and 1941, but it was no longer true in 2001. Even if it were so, a lesser tragedy, in which Iraq appeared to be involved, would have done the trick. If the official report is a cover-up, as the truthers allege, why does it explicitly deny evidence of co-operation between the alleged perpetrators and Saddam’s regime (1, pages 61 and 66)?

Prior false flag incidents directly implicated nations the USA wanted to fight. The government at various times had Spain, Germany, and North Vietnam attack, or appear to attack, American ships, because it wanted to wage war against them.

If the authorities could carry out an operation of this size and complexity, they could have more easily effected a lesser incident, which made Saddam Hussein look responsible. But they didn’t. They didn’t need a false flag incident at all.

Real theories apply Occam’s razor, selecting the hypotheses with fewest assumptions. In contrast, pseudo-theories need to add ever more complex sub-pseudo-theories to prop them up. An economical explanation of the success of the hijackers is that they took advantage of the policy – staff and passengers should co-operate with hijackers. Previous hijackers had not crashed planes, but flown them to Cuba. The faithful averred that the military was ‘stood down’ on the day. Then it became apparent that the airforce is not normally ‘stood up’ for a hijacking anyway. Believers then claimed pilots were told there was to be a ‘practice run’ for a real hijacking.

The need for complexity is also evident in the truthers’ attempt to explain the collapse of the two towers and the neighboring World Trade Center Seven building. The latter was not hit by a plane, so, they reason, it must have been brought down by explosives planted beforehand. Further, these Einsteins figure, the way the twin towers fell down shows that aircraft fuel alone could not have been responsible.

In their sincere efforts to oppose war, Zionism and Islamophobia, some of the truthers try to implicate Israel. A recent article on claims  “the only individuals arrested on 9/11 were Israeli Mossad agents that just so happened to specialize in explosives and electronic intercepts” (2). But this is circular: the ‘controlled demolition’ argument depends partly on the significance of the agents’ alleged specialities, and vice-versa.

Some of the devotees seem to be as sure that the Jewish state had something to do with September 11th, as they are of Israel’s actual, proven crimes. They want to make this theory central to Palestine solidarity – but it’s already weak, and that would make it weaker. They make much of the claim that a few Israeli citizens welcomed the attacks – the famous ‘dancing Israelis’ hypothesis – and ignore the continuing celebration of September 11th by some Muslims, which I’ve seen with my own eyes. When a French terrorist murdered several Jewish children recently, Gilad Atzmon speculated that maybe Israel was involved. Pointless, tasteless comments like this divert attention from his genuine insights, and alienate rational people.

It is assumed by many 9/11 truthers that Israel gained a lot from 9/11. How much support did the USA give to Israel before 9/11? Pretty close to unconditional. Was it necessary to carry out the biggest terrorist attack in American history, and blame it on Muslims, in order to head off an unwonted upsurge of American independence from Israel? It was not. Since 9/11, US subservience has continued, just like before. Another prediction bites the dust.

One of the reasons the 9/11 truth movement continues unchallenged is because more logical people regard its beliefs as too obviously unlikely to waste energy rebutting them. Moreover, the zeal with which truthers defend their faith, and their concerns about the motives of unbelievers, do not encourage contradiction. I don’t doubt the disciples’ good intentions, though, disturbingly, they doubt mine, and those of anyone who is deaf to their earnest exhortations. A draft of a documentary by ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ asked psychologists to explain

why so many people, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, still cling to the official version of 9/11

The answer was ‘cognitive dissonance’ (2). It’s difficult to debate with people who use psychoanalysis to explain why you disagree with them. Like Freud’s pseudo-theory, it’s circular, reinforcing itself by explaining away attempts at falsification.

Where does one start? Why did the authorities ‘have to’ destroy three major office buildings in New York? Having arranged for planes to crash into two of them, did they know this would not actually destroy the buildings, so they ‘had to’ blow them up, because ‘they needed the spectacle’? I understand George Monbiot’s question –  “why do I bother with these morons?” (3) – but I resist it. As with other religions, there are intelligent people who believe in the 9/11 articles of faith.

I also reject Alexander Cockburn’s claim on Counterpunch that ‘many’ of the truthers have ‘racist’ views. When Iran’s president claimed that ‘most’ Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job, his US counterpart dismissed the statement as ‘hateful’

These are not effective arguments against 9/11 truth.

JoAnn Wypijewski struck a better tone, also on Counterpunch (4). She explained the demoralizing effect of the 9/11 truth movement.

After that first September 11, though, New Yorkers did talk, and they talked about US foreign policy, and the place of America in the world across the past 50 years, and Israel-Palestine, and why the hell people ‘hate us’ so much.

But five years later, she regrets, these discussions have been replaced by 9/11 truth.

It was like religion, and profoundly sad,

Wypijewski remarks of her discussions with the devotees hanging around the hole where the World Trade Center used to be.

It’s sad because it’s demoralizing. It’s demoralizing because it makes the powerful sound almost invincible, rendering us helpless.

In spite of the efforts of some of the contributors to and elsewhere, it defies reason to blame all the crimes attributed to Sunni Muslim extremists, from September 11th, to the frequent murders of Shi’ite pilgrims in Iraq, via the London Underground bombings, and hundreds of others around the world, on Mossad, MI5 or the CIA. Of course, I know the Western governments are the biggest terrorists, and their crimes are recruiting sergeants for Islamic terrorism. But they don’t control it.







30 Responses to How true is 9/11 truth?

  1. Jonathon Blakeley June 16, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    Controversial… I don’t think Gilad deserves criticsm, his article was speculation but it certainly was warranted IMO.

    As for your 9/11 analysis … Not a persuassive argument, you seem to be locked in to a thesis “truther” religion view of things & the Afgantistan/Iraq War which was only a small part of their Zionist plan.

    Was it necessary to carry out the biggest terrorist attack in American history, and blame it on Muslims, in order to head off an unwonted upsurge of American independence from Israel?

    I would say YES, it guranteed ISRAEL support and allowed Israel to further enhance its position and steal more land and erect the security barrier.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 16, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

      “I don’t think Gilad deserves criticsm, his article was speculation but it certainly was warranted IMO.”

      Gilad? Or Jay?
      Mosty definitely worth having it to discuss.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 17, 2012 at 2:32 am #

        I thought it was a typo but I see now that you meant Jay’s criticism of Gilad. Agree with you.

  2. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 16, 2012 at 11:04 pm #

    “…. explanations as ’9/11 truth’. This truth comes in two varieties:
    Theories whose predictions have been falsified
    Pseudo-theories which do not make falsifiable predictions”

    1. Jay leaves out the by-far largest category of people:
    those who before or even without attempting to speculate on the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHY, find it simply impossible to believe the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY, announced from the first moments after the attack and elaborated over the next months until the final form cobbled into the 9/11 Commission Report.
    That fantastic (in the full sense of the word) Report that selectively excluded “disculpatory evidence” by eye witnesses, made in the absence of independent forensic analysis of evidence that had been hastily carted away.
    These people I would call Disbelievers of the OFFICIAL theories, which cannot be proved and make falsifiable predictions

    2. Jay should also classify the other side, let’s call them 9/11 DENIERS.
    They also come in two categories:
    –Those who try to refute the data presented by the more than 1500 architects and engineers with pseudo-scientific data and thus fail.
    –Those who eschew that side of the argument entirely and pick at the margins of the issue, focusing on the hypotheses on WHO was responsible, WHAT did the US government know, WHO stood to gain/did gain from 9/11.
    Jay belongs to this second category.
    It is important to remember that no matter how probable/improbable the answers to these last questions are, the first order of importance is to answer the question: could this event have happened as we were told happened or not?
    If the answer is not, all other speculations follow naturally.

    But to start at the tail end, arguing that no, Israel could be involved, because, look, nothing essential has changed in our relationship, after 9/11, etc, is pseudo-logical and has nothing to do with science at all. In fact it makes it seem like THAT is the predetermined conclusion that must be reached… somehow, anyhow.
    In fact it is pretty much like a police report concluding that Mrs X was beaten to death by a hostile neighbor who somehow gained entrance to her triple locked house exactly during the brief hour when she happened to be alone at home. Not by her husband (who had knocked her about before but she dropped charges and refused to sue), no way. Furthermore the police disposed the cremation of her body the next day so there is no forensic evidence.
    I, for one, am not a 9/11 Truther, first and foremost I am a Disbeliever of the 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory.
    I cannot help wondering: if they lied so blatantly about it, WHY did they? For WHOM? How they used their colossal criminal lie afterward, there is little disagreement about, even among some 9/11 deniers.
    I hope we’ll know more some day.

  3. who_me June 17, 2012 at 12:05 am #

    Jay Knott

    i remember you trying to convince me andrew mathis wasn’t a zionist. this speil of false association, applied zionist propaganda and bias misrepresented as reason and fact is about as convinving and has about the same credibilty.

    rack up a nudder:

    “this isn’t a urinal, is it?”


  4. Hue Longer June 17, 2012 at 2:06 am #

    “I understand George Monbiot’s question – “why do I bother with these morons?” (3) – but I resist it”. I’m happy you resisted but it seems you couldn’t hold out and typed this

  5. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 17, 2012 at 2:13 am #

    The photo at the top of the article is good, but it needs a caption. Or text balloons coming out of their heads:
    Rumsfeld (speaking): What I thought I could say about no WMDs found in Iraq is “absence of proof is not proof of absence.”
    Bush (thinking): “Hmm, man, I wish I could get to my flask, I’m parched. What the hell is he saying?”
    Chenney (thinking): “he, he, he, give to him Rummy, big time, like a shot in the face pointblank.”

    • Jonathon Blakeley June 17, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

      done.. good suggestion, it was begging for it. all that empty space… now filled.

      I love putting comic captions on the elite.

      Ha ha

  6. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 17, 2012 at 2:40 am #

    How many zeros are in the $2.3 trillions that Rumsfeld announced on 9/10 had “disappeared”?
    The next day the “terrorist” attack on the Pentagon hit exactly the office where the documents of the incipient investigation were kept.
    It was a section being ‘”refurbished” and nothing else was there except the Budget Analyst Offices, so minimal casualty risk and big “payoff.”
    How many conventional wars net such a financial coup?

  7. Deadbeat June 17, 2012 at 8:17 am #

    I agree with Ariadna. I consider myself a 9-11 skeptic of the official account and I think the Architects and Engineers make a compelling case regarding Building 7 falling in its footprint at near free fall speed. Also Larry Siverstein is clearly seen to have given the command to “pull” Building 7. Also the government was very quick to dispose the steel before there could be independently examined. And there is also the “dancing Israelis” and the explosive found in a van on the GWB.

    The point is that the government’s behavior creates suspicions and had the government been transparent it would have quieted and quelled the 9-11 skeptics.

    I find the arguments against the 9-11 skeptics to be full of ad hominem and disparagement rather than rational counterarguments with evidence to support their positions. They use terms like “conspiracy theorist” in a fashion like Zionists use “anti-Semitism” in order to automatically denigrate and dismiss the skeptics and to shut down discussion rather than engaging the skeptics in honest debate.

    9-11 Architects and Engineers produced a new movie, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out for download and is on tour with select showing around the U.S. It a compelling flick and I recommend taking a look.

  8. Somoe June 17, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    I was hoping to find a little more meat on the bones of your flimsy arguments, but sadly found no flesh to them whatsoever. You make attacks on the intelligence of those who argue that the official conspiracy theory is the least likely explanation and then completely fail to counter with any real evidence that you might have to the contrary.

    What are you trying to achieve with this article, Jay?
    You have failed to convince me of the truth in your point of view and i did approach it with an open mind.

    Ariadna, your comment is, as ever, perfectly grounded in truth. There are many questions that arise out of the realisation that we have been lied to and it is only correct to explore them fully.

    I doubt the intentions of anyone who attempts to silence the questions and answers that arise by belittling and demeaning the value of such query. No, we should not just shut up and ignore the mountains of evidence that point to the fact that the masses are being manipulated and that it has been happening for a very long time.

    9/11 was the boldest attempt yet to seize control of the world’s collective psyche and imprint it with a false reality, to conceal the theft of trillions and to in some way ‘justify’ their war on Islam by naming Islamists the cause of this tragic event. It reeks of Israeli/neoCon involvement…to deny it is to be willfully blind. That’s not to even mention all the evidence cited by Ariadna and Deadbeat that points unerringly at Israel and zionist neo-cons high up in the administration.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 17, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

      How about the undercurrent of disbelief in this:
      “If the authorities could carry out an operation of this size and complexity…”

      Who? The Mosad, CIA, elements of the Pentagon? All combined?
      No way! Even a child can tell you that an operation of this size, complexity and technological sophistication is beyond them.
      That could only have been done by those devilishly clever boys with box cutters led by the tall diabetic in the cave.

  9. Scott Free June 17, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    Unfortunately, this line of attack(?)against “9-11 truthers” (un-named) has been an irritating detail in Jay’s approach. I agree with Ariadna and Somoe in deconstructing the “9-11 truther straw man”. The central question is the official government conspiracy theory which has been used to launch wars, constrict civil rights and demonize Muslims. This most famous conspiracy ‘theory’ is blatantly ignored by Jay, putting him in the precarious position of defending Bush, Obama and their masters.

    • Jonathon Blakeley June 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

      Exactly. 9/11 made muslims public enemny no. 1. benefitting Israel

  10. happeh June 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    “What are you trying to achieve with this article, Jay?”

    After this article and a couple of the other more recent articles, I think it is pretty obvious this is a Zionist/Pro-Israel blog masquerading as a liberal blog.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 17, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

      You make it sound like diversity of opinion = masquerade.
      Disagreeing with Jay’s p.o.v. is one thing but the idea that he/anyone is trying to deprive you of yours and implant theirs is unwarranted. You seem like someone of firm convictions, so what’s the danger in informing yourself of the arguments of others? You are quite capable of countering them, aren’t you?

      And other thing: who said this is a “liberal” blog” and what does “liberal” mean? All you are promised upon entering is…. deLiberation.
      So stop whining and get to deliberating.

    • who_me June 17, 2012 at 9:11 pm #


      “this is a Zionist/Pro-Israel blog masquerading as a liberal blog.”

      did your translation software translate deliberation as liberal? ;D

  11. fool me once... June 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    “After this article and a couple of the other more recent articles…”
    Do you mean Jay’s recent articles? Can you be more specific?

  12. who_me June 19, 2012 at 7:33 am #

    remember this story?

    Down the Rabbithole

    “I mentioned this in passing last week. An FBI agent, Stephen Ivens went missing under suspicious circumstances. Now an article originating at European Times , a notorious rumormonger, says that Ivens approached the Russian Consulate in San Francisco warning they were all crazy. He says he and another agent named Donald Sachtleban uncovered a huge falseflag plan. Before he could tell more , he was chased away by American agents. That’s when he supposedly disappeared after first getting some supplies from his home.

    Also coincidentally Donald Sachtleben…the same Donald Sachtleben said mentioned by Ivens , a 25 year FBI veteran, a bomb expert investigating all the big falseflag cases of the last 15 years from OKC on, including 9/11, just happened to be arrested for child porno. What ? WTF ? Yep, like he couldn’t cover his tracks better than that. And it’s a well known technique of the cabal to charge their traitors to their cause with child pornography as a means of completely disarming any damaging information.”

    • who_me June 19, 2012 at 7:39 am #

      the article mentioned above:

      FBI Agent Fleeing Massive Manhunt Warns “They’re All Insane”

      “A bizarre Foreign Ministry report circulating in the Kremlin today states that this Friday past (11 May) Russian Envoy Vladimir Vinokurov, the Consulate General of San Francisco, was approached near his hotel room during a visit to Los Angles by an agent of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identifying himself as Stephen Ivens [photo top right] who warned that he and a former FBI agent named Donald Sachtleben had uncovered evidence of an impending terror attack on US soil stating that those behind the attack were “all insane.”

      Even more bizarre about this case, this report continues, is that the retired FBI agent named Donald Sachtleben mentioned by Ivens, who also knew about this impending “plot,” was arrested within hours of Ivens disappearing and charged with trading child pornography.

      Most important to note about Sachtleben was, aside from his being an over 25-year veteran of the FBI, he was a special agent bomb technician before retiring in 2008 who specialized in counterterrorism and bombing investigations and whose most important case was the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York City.”

      • who_me June 19, 2012 at 7:53 am #

        “Thea said Stephen, a former Los Angeles police officer turned FBI Special Agent, had been diagnosed with depression due to some unspecified incidents while working for the FBI.”

        he only had been working for them for 3 years. that’s a short time to rack up a depression. unless what he discovered was something pretty devastating, like a false flag set-up, or evidence of previous ones.

        ivens is still missing. sachtleben is facing a possible 30 years.

        “Sachtleben is currently an Oklahoma State University visiting professor, according to his online resume. He is director of training at the school’s Center for Improvised Explosives, but all references to his work have now been removed from the university’s website. There was no indication from the school as to whether it had suspended him.”

        the cnn story fails to mention his work on 9/11. remember what they did to ritter? this looks like a similar frame-up.

        so what did these two discover?

  13. etominusipi June 19, 2012 at 8:26 pm #


    One of the reasons the 9/11 truth movement continues unchallenged…

    a ludicrous premiss. the author is either wilfully blind or disingenuous, perhaps both.

    also, let us deconstruct “the 9/11 truth movement continues”. since there is no ‘movement’. this sentence should begin one reason why a continually increasing number of people are questioning the ‘official narrative’ concerning the 9/11 attacks…

    it’s difficult to debate with people who use psychoanalysis…

    Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance is a useful explanatory paradigm in psychology. it has nothing to do with psycho-analysis

    the author is either being disingenuous, or is wilfully ignorant.

    the 9/11 articles of faith ……

    this method of ‘argumentation’ is beneath contempt for several reasons. i need not elaborate.

    the author is disingenuous.

    it defies reason to blame all the crimes…

    in what way defies? and whose reason?

    does it defy reason to ‘blame any of the crimes’ on the usual suspects? how many such crimes might be allowed to us?

    more importantly, in what sense is the demand for an impartial enquiry into the 9/11 events and their aftermath (including the cover-up, the movement of US authority towards a soviet-style secret state, and the greatly aggravated US-Israel aggression against Islamists) blaming anyone? we may have our suspicions. they may be based on good information. but the enquiry, to be objective, must not be based on any assumptions.

    the author is disingenuous and wilfully blind

    try to implicate Israel

    Israel’s fingerprints are everywhere in this crime. there need be no trying, moreover Netanyahu implicated Israel. Larry Silverstein implicates Israel. Dov Zakheim implicates Israel. etc. etc. etc.

    the author is being disingenuous.

    these Einsteins figure

    again, as a form of argument, beneath contempt. the collapse of building 7 was due to what? a couple of burning curtains?????????????????

    tentative conclusion: the article is a rather dated exercise in hasbara trolling.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 20, 2012 at 2:51 am #

      Repeating received ideas does not necessarily exclude one’s sincerity in believing them.
      Not all people who are devoted believers in the Boxcutters’ Conspiracy Theory are trolls.

      Cognitive dissonance (CD) makes sense as an explanation and it may also explain why, in an effort to decrease the discomfort of CD they generally avoid discussing the central event as officially narrated, and prefer to nibble on the speculations related to WHO did it, trying to deride them.
      Unfortunately, because Israel “looks good” for it, that places them in the position of denying at all costs that Israel may be involved, a focus that inevitably exposes them to the risk of being seen as trolls.

  14. Jay Knott June 21, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    Thanks, Ariadna. I don’t reject ‘9/11 truth’ because I’m a ‘gatekeeper’ or ‘controlled opposition’ (actual 9/11 truther arguments). But several of the comments, as I predicted, question my motives, rather than attempting to engage with my explanation of logic. Ideas like ‘9/11 truth’ tend to select people who don’t understand words like ‘falsification’ and ‘circular’.

    You imply that 9/11 truth is no more complicated than the official conspiracy theory. A real terrorist attack would be complex. But how much MORE difficult would it be for someone to organize what LOOKS LIKE a Islamic terrorist attack, but isn’t? And then carry out a cover-up… This is especially true if you believe the mysterious ‘they’ planted explosives AS WELL AS persuading men to hijack the planes and crash them. Oh, wait: in dismissing the ‘clever boys with box cutters’ theory, you seem to suggest the planes WEREN’T hijacked.

    Like I said, the ‘explanations’ of 9/11 truth require more complex explanations to explain them. You seem to think you can use smiley faces to dismiss evidence of terrorism – nudge nudge, wink wink, you imply, we all KNOW that passport, and that will, were fake… 😉

    You argue that the evidence against your unspecified conspirators is as strong as that of a murder allegation against a man with a record of beating his wife, who was the only person who could have entered a ‘triple locked house’. But this house wasn’t locked.

    You say I deny Israel did it because ‘nothing essential has changed’. But I also argue that Israel had no reason to be involved, because US subservience COULD NOT increase by much, since it’s already at around 99%. And the ‘evidence’ of Israeli involvement is circular, or insubstantial. And I’ve SEEN Muslims celebrating 9/11. But that doesn’t count. I must be a ‘denier’. You actually use that word?!

    I do ‘eschew that side of the argument [physics] entirely’. That’s because you can’t do science until you’ve understood logic. Ariadna – how can you use the QUANTITY of ‘architects and engineers for 9/11 truth’ as an argument? I thought you had a scientific background.

    JB asserts 9/11 enabled Israel to ‘further enhance its position and steal more land’. This thesis is easy to test. Did 9/11 INCREASE the rate at which Zionism ‘enhanced its position’? The attack on New York didn’t give Israel its excuse. It was attacks in Tel Aviv.

    The program of the Jewish necon cult – – doesn’t mention Afghanistan. But it does suggest overthrowing Saddam Hussein. If they were clever enough to falsely make it look like Saudi terrorists did it, why didn’t they implicate Iraqis?

    9/11 truth belongs to the general category of thought which turned Bolshevik Russia into a lunatic asylum. Julian Assange is threatened with death by US politicians, and falsely accused of sex crimes in a REAL conspiracy – he needs and deserves solidarity.

    Yet contributors to this site are suspicious of him because he doesn’t believe 9/11 was an inside job. Stalin’s followers’ method was self-reinforcing: it was impossible to get out of. Anyone who challenged it was suspect. Dissenters were labeled ‘fascist’. Today, it’s ‘hasbara troll’. The danger is that the 9/11 truth approach, if left unchallenged, will have a similar effect on Palestine solidarity.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

      “A real terrorist attack would be complex. But how much MORE difficult would it be for someone to organize what LOOKS LIKE a Islamic terrorist attack, but isn’t? And then carry out a cover-up…”

      To me exactly the opposite is true. I cannot buy the story that the boys with boxcutters who had taken lessons to fly Cessnas and did poorly even on those too were able to fly jets and carry out a complex operation of this sophistication, have top secret military information available (NORAD, etc) and also the incredible, unexplained luck of the interceptors sleeping on their jobs.
      I am not capable of suspending disbelief the way you can.

      “you imply, we all KNOW that passport, and that will, were fake…”
      If you believe that passport was sitting unscathed on top of the rubble of melted steel, Jay, you can believe anything. Sorry.

      “I do ‘eschew that side of the argument [physics] entirely’. That’s because you can’t do science until you’ve understood logic.”

      So you could “do science” but what stops you is that you’re talking to idiots incapable of logic so it would be wasted on them.
      That is actually insightful. Perhaps that was the rationale in concocting the Boxcutters’ Conspiracy theory: we can tell them anything and they’ll buy it because they don’t understand logic, much less science.

      The bottom line is simple: the Boxcutters’ Conspiracy theory is impossible to swallow. Start from there.

      “The danger is that the 9/11 truth approach, if left unchallenged, will have a similar effect on Palestine solidarity.”

      Is that the danger really?!? Can you please elaborate on how demanding an impartial investigation on 9/11 would harm the cause of Palestine, and can you additionally define “Palestine solidarity,” please?

      • Jay Knott June 27, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

        By “the 9/11 truth approach” I don’t mean “demanding an impartial investigation”. I think that is a good idea. The British government set up an enquiry into the Princess Diana conspiracy theory, which drove a horse and cart through it. I mean… well, just look at some of the comments. The circular logic which produces phrases like ‘9/11 denier’, ‘hasbara troll’, ‘gatekeeper’, ‘controlled opposition’, ‘ controlled asset of the New World Order’ – these are from actual truther arguments. This is the ‘approach’ which I think is harmful.

      • Jay Knott June 27, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

        “If you believe that passport was sitting unscathed on top of the rubble of melted steel, Jay, you can believe anything”.

        Well, maybe. But who claims that? ‘Melted steel’ is an invention of 9/11 truthers. You need to stop making things up.

        • fool me once... March 14, 2013 at 12:14 pm #

          “Well, maybe.”
          Whilst rummaging through some zio waffle on the net I came across a bit of info that may give substantial weight to your tacit inference that the the passport was indeed unscathed. I admit this info has a hint of jewyness, which may give rise to claims of bias, but that aside I’m sure you’ll agree, gives a foundation pebble on which to build your temple and alter to the deity known as תשע אחד עשר
          Are you ready?
          “Inscribed in black ink and pencil, it covered the first six days of the 16-day mission. The papers remained white even though, exposed at high speed 37 miles (60 km) above the Earth, they should have burned. Other fragile items withstood the disaster as well, like a Caenorhabditis elegans worm culture, and a damaged hard disk drive. This is a common occurrence in the debris trail of air disasters, where parts or objects in the aircraft are blown out of the vehicle and fall freely; when the Columbia disintegrated, it was already an aircraft (if exceptionally high and fast still) rather than a spacecraft.”

          You may find this interesting as Ramon is to feature in a new, NASA endorsed no less, documentary;

          • fool me once... March 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

            Ramon, from Wiki link above;
            “Although considered a secular Jew, Ramon reportedly sought to follow Jewish observances while in orbit. In an interview he said, “I feel I am representing all Jews and all Israelis.” He was the first spaceflight participant to request kosher food. He reportedly sought advice from a Chabad Lubavitch rabbi, Zvi Konikov, about how to observe the Jewish Sabbath in space, as the period between sunrises in orbit is approximately 90 minutes. This was referenced by the words “Jerusalem we have a problem” in Rabbi Konikov’s speech at the Kennedy Space Center Memorial for Columbia on February 7, 2003
            Aboard STS-107, Ramon carried a pencil sketch, “Moon Landscape”, drawn by 16-year-old Petr Ginz, who died in Auschwitz. Ramon also took with him a microfiche copy of the Torah given to him by Israeli president Moshe Katsav and a miniature Torah scroll (from the Holocaust) that was given him by Prof. Yehoyachin Yosef, a Bergen Belsen survivor. Ramon asked the 1939 Club, a Holocaust survivor organization in Los Angeles, for a symbol of the Holocaust to take into outer space with him. A barbed wire mezuzah by the San Francisco artist Aimee Golant was selected. Ramon also took with him a dollar of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson. Ramon and the rest of the Columbia crew died over East Texas in the Southern United States during entry into Earth’s atmosphere, 16 minutes prior to scheduled landing.”

  15. who_me June 21, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    Jay Knott

    in your writing on 9/11 you don’t make one single logical adult argument. you don’t discuss any evidence. your red-baiting is like that of a j edgar hoover groupie or a neo-nazi skinhead. in fact all you do is insult people and generally behave like a typical jewish zionist disruptionbot or an old time mccarthyite froth spewer.

    are you even able to make a logical argument based upon reason? or are you just another opinionated little boy?