It's all good. No matter what, i'll be voting Rep in '08 anyway. If only because the thought of Hilary being prez makes me nauseous!

Hi folks. I found your site searching Google for a photo of something and just happened to click on your site. I enjoyed reading about your family and your funny cat pictures. ;-))

I would like to direction your attention Scott to something you should politically know about: the very real likelihood that 9/11 was an inside job. The twin towers came down at free fall speed in a cloud of pulverized dust, there were explosions going off all over the complex as reported by fire-fighters, escaping tenants and first responders, there were molten pools of steel burning under the piles for 4 months, the buildings were powered down the weekend before for "cabling upgrades", our air defenses were completely absent for 1 hour 45 minutes, there was no plane at the Pentacon as well as none at Shanksville (there was an 8 mile debris trail in Penn. pointing to a shoot down by loyal military officers). 9/11 was conducted on a morning of no less than 25 military drills; the highest density of drills in US history. 9/11 was apparently executed by making small adjustments within the drills flipping them "live" by a rouge faction within the US command structure NOT loyal to the Constitution. These people (neo-cons, republicans and democrats) ALL work for the international bankers/financiers not you and me and are determined to declare martial law soon in the US (notice the nazi-style police state evolving around us?).

I recommend 1) a video on Google called "9/11 Mysteries", 2) Webster Tarpley's book "9/11 Synthetic Terror: MADE IN USA" and 3) researching OPERATION: MOCKINGBIRD and PAPERCLIP. I think decent folks like you need to know what's really going on. I urge you to investigate for yourself.

;-)
Jon

1/10. Lazy troll attempt. Looks like the poster scanned through the archives for every blog entry Scott made on the subject, then posted a declaration that reality was the opposite of each one in a list.

Most likely true, but it's such a ludicrously loopy comment I'll let it stand.

Is it me, or are we beginning to attract a much higher quality of wacko to the site lately? Perhaps we're finally making it to the big leagues!

I'm all for it - they're damned amusing if nothing else. Now, if they can keep showing up when I've got a morning wait in an airport, I'll be a happy camper.

Relax, folks. Not here to upset you or your views. I found your site looking thru Google picture search for a project I'm working on. I liked your site, got interested in what you had to say on many things and thought you'd care to hear an alternative viewpoint on 9/11...which is the basis of EVERYTHING occurring domestically and internationally now. If it's a lie, then that would seem to be something that should interest us all; especially if we have children and want a better future for them.

I voted for Bush twice. I've had a lot of discussions (arguments mostly) with my family who are democrats. I supported the "War on Terror" and believed the official 9/11 story until I got a call from my brother in 2005 (who lives in Brooklyn, NY) who asked me to see what I could find about what he was hearing from people he knew who were at the cleanup at "Ground Zero". What I ultimately found for myself just doesn't jive anymore with common sense. A lot of professionals in the field of engineering, politics, intelligence, military, science, etc. are also saying the same thing including Architects for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth. They are not "loopy"...I would say you (as I was) are just very behind the times and have not done your homework yet.

1) The towers were designed to withstand aircraft impacts. The north tower had a fire on 6 floors in 1975 that burned for 3 hours--no steel had to be replaced.
2) How did the buildings both come down at free-fall speed perfectly in their own footprints? What was responsible for the creation of all the building's pulverized concrete? In other words: what turned the buildings contents to virtual talcum-powder as described by firefighters?
3) Where were our air defenses for 1 hour and 45 mins? Why were the 25+ war game exercises on 9/11 only given a one sentence mention in the 9/11 report?
4) Why were reporters talking live about explosions in the towers but that footage was never shown again? Why were there explosions in the subbasements according to William Rodriguez (decorated by Congress as a hero on 9/11) and Phillip Morelli?
5) Why the molten pools of steel burning under the piles for 4 months? What was the energy source responsible for that?
6) How did WTC building 7 (a 47 story skyscraper) come down like a controlled demolition at 5:20 PM when it was a football field away, not hit by a plane?
7) With only a 16' diameter hole in the facade (before the section collapsed), where's the plane at the Pentagon? Why won't the Pentagon release any video of the alleged plane strike showing a 757?
8) Why were the towers powered-down the weekend before (research "Scott Forbes 9/11")?

Those, amongst many, are questions I think need to be answered.

To me, the "left vs. right" mode of thinking is leading us into trouble. I've decided that right vs. wrong is more workable and important. Everyone must come to their own conclusions and confront this on their own.

All the best to you and your's!

;-)
Jon in CT

1 - when the buildings were designed, the size, weight, and speed of the aircrafts were a bit different than what hit them. As for the fire, it's not just the amount of time, it's the heat of the fire, the time, and the overall stress load that causes failure. The girders were built to withstand 2 hours of flames based on a sprayed on foam insulation. Here, said foam would be knocked off by the aircraft. And it goes without saying that paper burning isn't nearly as hot as say, avgas, hydraulic fluids, etc.
2 - they didn't. They actually spread out over a decent area. In fact, some of one of the buildings managed to hit WTC7, no?
3 - our air defenses weren't designed to counter internal threats at that time. The planes in the air turned off their transponders, which made them invisible. From that time until they hit, they'd simply be radar blips. Since our radar faced out, there was no military radar to help identify them. That and the ATC groups weren't really all that good about letting NORAD and the like know what was going on and what they needed to do. Note that NORAD has only had to intercept one plane in it's entire history prior to 9/11 - and that was a plane with everything functioning, and it still took over an hour to get there.
4 - because reporters have never been known to be the brightest bulbs on the Christmas Tree? Huge flat slabs of concrete falling on each other, steel columns failing, etc., can all be very loud noises and easily mistaken for explosions.
5 - There weren't molten pools of steel burning under the piles.
6 - WTC7 was hit by one of the towers, which took out it's structure. It was also on fire and becoming less and less structurally sound. The firefighters were pulled out prior to the building collapsing of its own accord.
7 - Well, there are plenty of pictures of plane parts laying around the Pentagon. It's also not unlikely that the majority of the bulk of the plane went into the building itself. As for the Pentagon not showing the hit and all, why should they? It's a classified site - who knows what info can be gleaned from the footage. Enough eyewitnesses have confirmed the plane - in fact, lampposts were "decapitated" by the inbound plane.
8 - normal maintanence?

All of these questions have been completely and fully answered.

Answer these, because all of this needs to happen for your scenarios to occur:

1 - how did demolition engineers manage to make it into the towers and plant the explosives on all the necessary structural members - because they have to be placed directly on the structural members to be effective - without anyone noticing? How did they run the miles of detcord without anyone noticing? How did they managed to do this job without leaving any incremenating evidence, such as holes in the drywall and the like, without anyone noticing? And they managed to do all of this on the exact floors where they planes would hit.
2 - how did this group of professionals not have a single person that talked after seeing what actually happened?
3 - how did no single person in the entire government manage to not leak a bit of the conspiracy?
4 - If amateurs can spot this, why aren't the different engineering associations screaming and yelling for an investigation? Over 3,000 Americans were killed that day, so it would seem that their silence would indicate complicity of a sorts.
5 - Exactly how did all of this occur. In detail, not just random questions on different spots - but in depth detail that has a timeline, specific actions that were taken, and how was any sort of detection avoided. Also, what happened to the people involved in the how conspiracy. Where are they? And why aren't they talking? If you're going to point to video or transcript evidence, link to the complete transcript or video, not just half a sentence here, something there.

This is the challenge that Troofers face - and it seems that no one can actually do this.

All right, since I'm trying to avoid facing a project problem, and haven't engaged in this sort of thing in a long time, let's dance.

I'm quite certain Mr. Simon has very quick rebuttals to all of this. I've never waded into truther territory before, but it smells a lot like the creationism swamps I once played around in long ago. If he's even half as good as the freshman class of 1990, this is only a start...

1. Examining the Wikipedia summary of the '75 fire indicates it was a much smaller event than you seem to be implying. It differs in both degree and kind, and therefore in my opinion is not related to this discussion.

2. a) The buildings did not fall "perfectly." Debris from the towers beat the living crap out of every building around them. The contents were not perfectly "talc'ed", they were a damned (and literal) bloody mess. Items both big and small survived depending on luck and composition. They built a ship with some of it.

3. a) From memory, Aviation Week reported no Air Force aircraft had any reason to be on alert status. F-16s are not Buicks. As I'm sure Ron will attest, one does not simply rush out, punch a key, and drive off. They are (well, were) not routinely left sitting on the tarmac gassed and ready to go. A tragedy? Yes. A travesty? Perhaps. A conspiracy? Prove it. The military drives everyone inside it absolutely bonkers with paperwork. If there is a conspiracy, there is a paper trail. Go find it. b) Wargames: List, please. Aviation Week reported the few fighters who did get off in time to do anything were loaded incorrectly, and the pilots, when interviewed, said they'd had quite a frank discussion about who was going to ram the airliner to bring it down.

4. a) Footage, please. The events occurred in the living room of the most saturated and wealthy media market on the planet. If it was said, it was recorded, by many many sources. Go find them. People reporting explosions is not the same thing as there actually being explosions. For something this monstrous you must provide physical evidence.

5. There were hundreds of cars full of flammable fluids and electrical supplies powerful enough to weld metal parked in the basement garages of both buildings. There's your energy source. Disagree? Sources, please.

6. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, it was pummeled by tons of debris from the collapse of the towers. This damage started fires which contributed to the collapse.

7. Airplanes are not tanks. They're very delicate and finely engineered to take only expected loads. In other words, they fly good, but bounce bad. There wasn't much left; there never is in a high-speed aircraft crash. Engines, being tough and made of strong things like steel, survive reasonably well, and the remains of two PW2000 were indeed found inside the ruins of the Pentagon.

8. If Forbes is the only one who's come forward with this information, in my opinion the simplest explanation is (and again this is my opinion) he's lying. Simple as that.

What I find most striking is how similar these questions are to those that swirl around Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination. Which is why I don't think they'll ever go away, although they'll certainly make charismatic and clever authors, speakers, and other opportunists a good solid living, perhaps forever. I can only hope they haven't separated Mr. Simon from any of his hard earned cash. I'll keep an eye on this stuff if it's free, but I'll be damned if I give any of these loons any of my money.

OOO! Good idea Ron! I should've thought of it too. To dogpile a bit:

1. Please explain how Flight 93 fits into this. What went wrong there?
2. Evidence from the events has been extensively examined and reported on by at least three different, independent TV documentary units (Discovery, PBS, and History) and at least two independent engineering associations. All together, hundreds of people were involved in the production of these chronicles. Why do they all come to such similar conclusions? Why has no-one... no-one involved come forward to admit a hoax? Six times?
3. All widely accepted theories explaining the collapse both accounted for observed information and made predictions about unknowns which were subsequently proven true. What predictions do the alternatives make, and how can they be proved or disproved?

I am to please. And yes, I can attest that any military aircraft, unless on active combat patrol or ready-status, do not sit in a ready position. Since the standdown of SAC, I believe that has been ceased.

In order for the fighters to become airborne and effective, they've got to get the BB-loaders out there and load the munitions (they like to call themselves Munitions or Ordnance or something fancy like that, but they're basically just strong backs that aren't all that bright), they've got be loaded with fuel, go through pre-flight, warm-up, and then launch.

During that time, the pilots have to get into flight suits (not just the fun ones they wear around, the actual garments designed to let them withstand high-gee manuevers, get a flight plan, tower clearance, and get to the planes.

In non-war or emergency situations, that isn't happening quickly. To note that they managed to get a few up within an hour is damned quick for the situation back then.

Now, around DC and NYC, my guess is that we might have some quicker response times. But prior to 9/11, doubtful.