View Full Version : Conspiracy? What Is The Truth About 9/11?

01-18-2009, 01:20 PM
Conspiracy? What is the truth about 9/11?


By Gary Dickson -- Record-Bee columnist
Updated: 01/16/2009 05:09:44 PM PST

Almost before the smoke had cleared from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and from within the cavity at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories began to appear. There were so many and they emerged so quickly that President Bush addressed the matter on November 10, 2001, in a speech to the United Nations. The President condemned the introduction of "outrageous conspiracy theories ... that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

Bush's comments failed to stop citizens from issuing their own 9/11 theories and his appeal didn't suppress the audacity of claims made by some conspiracy theorists. Today, there are millions of pages, on the web and in print, which offer wide ranging explanations of what happened on 9/11. This led Time Magazine to print, "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality." On September 11, 2006, a large group of protestors assembled at Ground Zero wearing "Investigate 9/11" t-shirts. In 2008, 9/11 conspiracy theories topped a "greatest conspiracy theory" list compiled by The Daily Telegraph, Great Britain's best selling newspaper.

I recently watched "Loose Change" on PBS. I had not previously heard about this documentary and I found myself mesmerized by the pace that it leads viewers through explanations concerning dozens of questions that have arisen surrounding the events of 9/11. And, "Loose Change" likely makes the most audacious claim of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Viewers are bluntly told that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were orchestrated by the United States government. Wow! That's a hard pill to swallow. Yet, many people still believe the CIA assassinated President Kennedy and the Moon landings were faked in a NASA studio.

One of the most interesting elements surrounding "Loose Change" is that its writer and filmmaker, Dylan Avery, did not plan to make a documentary about 9/11. In 2002, while hoping to be admitted to film school, he set out to write a script and make a film about a fictitious World Trade Center-type of assault, with a twist. The attack would not be what it seemed. Instead of an act of terrorism, his storyline was going to feature government insiders who planned and carried out the attack for their own evil purposes. The deeper he dug into 9/11, for background information, the more he became convinced that the 9/11 attacks, in reality, were just like the fictitious story he was creating.

Since 2002, Avery has produced three versions of "Loose Change". Naturally, he has received criticism from numerous individuals and organizations. His first two versions were produced on a shoestring budget. The last one, "Loose Change Final Cut", had $200,000 of financial backing. With each new edition, Avery strengthened the information on some theories and abandoned suppositions that had been disproved by facts or scientific argument. Although this young man has incurred the wrath of many, he has also been applauded for his diligent efforts to make his documentary as factual as he can possibly make it.

To most Americans, the idea that our own government would carry out such an evil act on its own people is beyond the realm of acceptability. Be that as it may, Dylan Avery's fearless work has caused many skeptics to think twice. But, political activist George Monbiot says that if it were true, Dylan Avery would have already disappeared, like Jimmy Hoffa. But, I don't believe that. If the government did make 9/11 happen, the one thing that would cause widespread suspicion now would be the death or disappearance of Dylan Avery.

Everyone has a right to think what they wish concerning the historic and tragic events of 9/11, but I believe everyone should at least view "Loose Change" and consider the information that Avery presents. In the seven-plus years since 9/11 many puzzling issues concerning that horrific September day have become issues of debate.

Note: If you can't catch the documentary on PBS, you can view it on your computer at YouTube.com, or purchase a copy from a variety of outlets.

Gary Dickson is Record-Bee publisher. He may be reached at 263-5636 ext. 24 or by email at gdickson@record-bee.com

01-24-2009, 05:05 AM
The WTC towers were destroyed 70 years after the Empire State Building was completed.

Design and construction

The Empire State Building was designed by Gregory Johnson and his architectural firm Shreve, Lamb and Harmon, which produced the building drawings in just two weeks, using its earlier designs, for the Reynolds Building in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and the Carew Tower in Cincinnati, Ohio, as a basis. The building was actually designed from the top down

That top down design makes a lot of sense. The building MUST support its own weight through its entire height. So design a few levels, figure out how much they weigh and then you know how strong the next few levels must be, all of the way down the building. After all, what kind of computers did they have in 1929?

The NIST NCSTAR1 report says the south tower was deflected by 12 inches at the 70th floor by the impact of the plane even though that was 130 feet below the impact point. The building then oscillated for FOUR MINUTES. How much of the kinetic energy of the plane went into causing that oscillation? How can that be computed without knowing the distribution of mass, especially steel and concrete. So why don't we have the info on the quantity of STEEL and CONCRETE on every level of the towers after SEVEN YEARS? Why hasn't the so called Truth Movement been after the engineering schools about that information? Why isn't Richard Gage and AE911Truth making a big deal about it?

The kinetic energy of the plane had two effects, it punched a hole in the building doing structural damage, and it caused the building to oscillate. One of the survivors said the floor started moving like a wave. But how can the structural damage even be approximated without separating out the energy that shook the building from what did the damage and how can that be done without distribution of mass? All engineering students should understand something this obvious even if they don't know how to do the calculations.

The distribution of mass is also relevant to computing the conservation of momentum effects in the collapse and the supposed potential energy that people want to claim explains the pulverization of concrete.

All of the engineering schools should have been screaming for this data for years and the Truth Movement should have noticed their silence.


This whole thing is a farce without such simple to understand and obviously important information. The designers had to figure this out just to estimate the construction costs before people would even make the decision to finance the construction. Who puts up $300,000,000 for a guess? The NCSTAR1 report does not even tell us the total for the concrete.

So why should we think the top 15 stories of the north tower could come straight down destroying everything below without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level all of the way down. And if we had the data on 110 levels why leave out the 6 basements? We don't even know the tons of steel in the impact zone that the fire supposedly weakened. That quantity would be relevant in analyzing conduction.