Are Any 9/11 Conspiracy Films Plausible?
In search of intelligent life among the 9/11 tinfoil-hatters.
for the past few years, I've received a steady, unsolicited stream of books and dvds that purport to reveal What Really Happened on September 11. None of them have come close to convincing me that George W. Bush and his neocon cronies were either evil or, more important, smart enough to have orchestrated the terrorist attacks on the United States. Perhaps that's because I'm one of the media gatekeepers that the "9/11 truth movement" is fond of blaming for its lack of visibility and credibility. (According to Barrie Zwicker's Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11, Mother Jones is part of the "phony 'left' media" co-opted by the "diaboligarchy.")
But I've held on to my growing library of 9/11 skepticism both as an artifact of an unpopular delusion and a guilty pleasure. In spite of my shadow-government puppet masters, I find the "Truthers'" mix of feverish delusions and all-American idealism oddly entertaining.
So when a couple of feature-length 9/11 conspiracy movies recently landed on my desk, I felt a twinge of anticipation. The Reflecting Pool and Able Danger are, as far as I can tell, the first thrillers inspired by Truther theories. Maybe, I thought, these films would have a dash of paranoid style. And just maybe they'd have what's missing in the online hall of mirrors that spawned the 9/11 truth movement—coherence.
These films are another sign of the endurance of the biggest conspiracy theory since—pick your favorite—the cia/the Mafia/Castro killed JFK. September 11 truthiness will be one of the many bad hangovers of the Bush years. A 2006 Scripps Howard poll found that 36 percent of Americans think the government was somehow behind the attacks. Significant numbers also subscribe to the Truthers' various hypotheses for how it all went down: 16 percent said that the World Trade Center was actually destroyed by hidden bombs; 12 percent said the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane, but a missile. (The survey did not tally the popularity of other nuggets of —Truther lore, such as the idea that 7 wtc was purposely demolished, that Flight 93 was shot down, that Mohammed Atta was a patsy, or that no planes hit the twin towers.) A handful of celebrities—Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson—have recited parts of the Truther catechism. There is 9/11 conspiracy folk music (Jesse Goplen's "Controlled Demolition") and hip-hop (Mos Def and Immortal Technique's "Bin Laden," which declares, "Bush knocked down the towers"). But the closest thing to a breakout work of pop culture is Steve Alten's The Shell Game, a Clancyesque thriller in which neocons try to best their 9/11 scheme by detonating a suitcase nuke in Los Angeles and pinning the blame on Iran.
What better way, then, to popularize an only-in-the-movies version of reality than with a movie? It's telling that the director of Loose Change, the best-known series of 9/11 conspiracy documentaries thus far, originally planned to write a screenplay for a fictional thriller. The Reflecting Pool and Able Danger aspire to be conventional movies; they adhere to the formula for conspiracy thrillers, from The Parallax View to The Da Vinci Code. Both follow a protagonist whose discovery of the awful truth is confirmed by the mobilization of powerful forces intent on silencing him. Yet while most conspiracy flicks rely on viewers to check their BS detectors at the door, the 9/11 movies don't want you to suspend your disbelief. Just the opposite: They want you to walk away a believer.
Fittingly, The Reflecting Pool begins with a journalist receiving a 9/11 conspiracy video. Lead character Alex Prokop, a reporter for a liberal California newsmagazine, is initially wary of questioning the official story. But in the first of many journalistic sins, he teams up with Paul Cooper, a 9/11 "researcher"—one of the exalted Googlemaniacs who form the truth movement's brain trust. Cooper's daughter died when Flight 11 supposedly hit the north tower, and he's pursuing a rico suit against half the government. Aside from that, he's a totally reliable source.
Prokop and Cooper interview a parade of composite characters who rehash the conspiracy movement's greatest hits. Prokop doesn't swallow every wacky hypothesis; he flips out after a Deep Throat-style meeting in a parking garage with a guy who rants about "holographic technology." Then he and Cooper go back to their hotel room and use wooden blocks and model airplanes to deduce that the Pentagon must have been hit by a missile.
While The Reflecting Pool is plodding and pedantic, Able Danger at least tries to make the preposterous fun. Shot in a neonoir style, its hero is Thomas Flynn, an affectless Brooklyn hipster who's written his own alternate history of 9/11. A mysterious Central European woman finds him, claiming to be in possession of a hard drive containing evidence of official foreknowledge of the 9/11 plot. After getting his hands on her MacGuffin, Flynn gets tangled in a web of deception and cartoonish characters, such as Luther, a cravat-wearing, Muhammad-praising baddie who sounds like a B-movie Nazi: "Vat shall ve talk about?"
Able Danger tips its tinfoil trucker's cap to The Maltese Falcon, but its other inspiration appears to be Enemy of the State, the 1998 thriller in which Will Smith is stalked by an all-seeing National Security Agency. The high-tech surveillance team that's tracking Flynn identifies him as a "high-value target: anti-regime propagandist." When the men in black drag Flynn into an suv, one reminds him, "Don't think because you operate in a little café in nowheresville Brooklyn that you're not being watched." Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the government isn't reading your blog.
Needless to say, the Truthers have yet to find their Chris Carter or Oliver Stone. These movies repackage 9/11 skepticism in an accessible format, but they're practically inscrutable without descending further into the rabbit hole. Able Danger can only be understood by reading The Big Wedding by Sander Hicks, an indie journalist whose version of 9/11 involves an alliance of Islamists, neo-Nazis, technofascists, and a Republican "pedophilia cult." And God help you if you turn on the droning filmmakers' commentary on The Reflecting Pool dvd.
But the most annoying thing about the movies—and the Truthers—is that the actual truth, in all its awful complexity, isn't enough for them. No matter that 3,000 Americans died because of bungling and blowback, or that the Bush administration twisted their deaths into pretexts for unnecessary war and executive power run amok. The Truthers want more. They've missed the real lesson of the Bush administration, which is not that a secretive cabal runs the White House, but that its diabolic intent has been trumped by its staggering incompetence. Seven years on, the neocon notion that imperial power can reshape reality has been fully exposed as a fantasy. Yet the Truthers cling to the myth of official omnipotence, making them some of the last Americans who still believe that this administration could successfully pull off anything bigger than T-ball on the South Lawn.
To be sure, the Bush administration has made it all too easy to succumb to conspiratorial thinking. Due to official stalling and stonewalling, the full story of September 11 remains a work in progress. The 9/11 Commission's official account glossed over uncomfortable questions but read like a page-turner. Fittingly, a nation hungry for answers gobbled it up; nearly 9 million copies of the report were sold or downloaded, and it enjoyed a second life in comic-book form. The 9/11 skeptics have tapped into this desire for answers—a common Truther refrain is that they're "just asking questions." But that's like proponents of intelligent design saying they don't know how the universe was created. The Truthers aren't filling in the gaps in our reality; they're already living in an alternate one.
As Don DeLillo, no stranger to the power of conspiracy theories, observed shortly after 9/11, the terrorist attacks were a profound break in our narrative about how the world works and America's place in it. "The narrative ends in the rubble and it is left to us to create the counternarrative," he wrote in Harper's. That was before the Bush administration stepped in and wrote a counternarrative in which the United States was locked in an endless existential battle with a fathomlessly evil foe.
The dubiousness of that hastily improvised scenario is now apparent. Yet the 9/11 truth movement's narrative is just as maddeningly inadequate—and unimaginative—as the neocons'. —A parallel universe inhabited only by patriots and pawns is an intriguing place to spend a couple of hours if you're watching 24 or a movie like Able Danger. But it's not the world we must face after the final credits roll.
Page 1 of 1 
Hmm. Hadn't thought about it before. But now that you mention it, maybe Barrie Zwicker has a point....
The article is absurd, as a survivor and someone who works on putting the reinvestigation of 9/11 on the ballot in NY I say to you don't quit your day job cause investigative journalism is not your forte.
This article is a bunch of hooey. And now I have to reconsider Mother Jones as an independent news source. All the questions about 9/11 aside, - which if we were able to openly debate them in our so-called free society would be a great first step - all you have to do is view the YouTube video of Bush at ground zero on 9/14/01 - three days after the event. He is relaxed in a beige jacket with his arm swinging around a sobbing fireman as he jokes with the crowd. I've never seen Bush having such a good time. Watch it and ask yourself "What's wrong with this picture?"
I am reasonably sure That there will never be a direct link made between the Bush Administration and the people that were responsible for 9/11. Having said that *IF* there is one I am sure the administration has some plausible deniability for it. The Bush administration is not stupid. Something like this would be so covered up in 3rd and 4th and 5th party go-betweens that NOTHING *EVER* will be able to be proven. There may be some sort of leaps of faith that "prove" that there was something done. Maybe some day in the future this may come to pass but the only option we have at this time is to get rid of the republicans that *MAY* have done so.
Mr. Gilson, me thinks thou dost protest too much.
You are clearly a top expert in this matter, having pooh-poohed your disdained "Truthers" in such an assortment of words.
You could have saved a lot of ink by simply saying: "I don't believe the conspiracy theories because I simply don't believe them. And my mind is made up. I'm right, you're wrong. So there! Nah, nah, nah!"
And you call yourself a journalist?
Remind me to cancel my subscription.
This article has done more damage to MoJo's good reputation than you could possibly realize.
Your arrogance is astounding.
What's wrong? Given your synopsis there is plenty wrong. Any president that is so relaxed has to have
known about this ahead of time? I do not remember the picture you are referring too, but if its anything close to the children's school where the president was essentially blase about the incident I would be extremely suspicious about the whole incident as well.
I had a higher opinion of your paper before reading this article. A physics professor at Utah claimed that it was 'impossible for steel girders to melt by jet fuel'--It required a much high degree of heat. You blatantly disregard facts in order to have us believe that Bush/Cheney gives a damn about American lives when he took us to a phony/lying war--killing 4000 Americans, 30,000 wounded, along with 1.5million Iraqis and displacing 4m more---who denied returning wounded medical treatment and supports health insurance companies whose main aim is to deny payment to its members. This is the same man who left Katrina victims to sink in the water and herd them into a dome like cattle--while his mother said "why are they complaining they are better off than they were". No!! America has fallen victim to an Administration that shows no caring or mercy to the common man/woman---to survive we must CHANGE completely this band of thieves.
I am sorry you failed in your duty to seek truth---wherever it takes you, regardless of personal costs.
Maybe the Bush administration couldn't pull it off, but the neocons have connections with Israeli intelligence and THEY, my friend, do have the capacity.
In spades.
It is a sad and regretful thing but this article has convinced me that I must cancel my MoJo subscription. I'm sure the real Mother Jones would understand.
I don't claim to know the truth of 9-11. But I will say this:
When someone starts with the name-calling and tin-foil-hat song and dance, I immediately take notice. Where is the thoughtful debate? Instead of instant dismissal, how about a discussion of facts, and counterpoints?
Until then, I'm unconvinced.
This article smacks with ignorance and a total lack of questioning. Get a clue and get rid of this mainstream editor.
Dave Glison appears more fit for Fox news or the Washington Post.
Well, nowhere in this article are any of the disturbing questions posed by, say, Loose Change, even remotely countered or disproved. So, until then, we have the actual melting point of, say, titanium, and the idea that a few seconds' worth of burning jet-fuel could melt it. Or, uh, that there was no Flight 93 in Shanksville, or any of the other demonstrably false assertions of the official review. So, not sure why this article was/ had to be written.
I will agree that the biggest flaw in 9/11 conspiracy thinking, though, is that the Bush administration is capable of a tight, secret operation. The demonstrated incompetence and contempt of logic/ reason/ science/ planning, what-have-you that has emanated from the White House and Pentagon for the past 8 years is the strongest argument against it being anything other than what the administration says it was.
But the questions remain. Articles like this certainly do nothing to answer them.
The incompetence defense
The incredible absurdity is the proposition that Bush & crew pullled this off and it is still a secret, unproven, merely theory.
There is so much hard evidence it is laughable. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et.al. participation is utterly proven by the abundant evidence. It is however unprosecuted. And the reason it is unprosecuted is because cowards like the author of this article are too gullible, stupid, or greedy to do their job.
I was about to subscribe, but decided against. I get enough spam as it is.
This is a very poor article. A hit piece at best. Buildings don't fall into footprints and dust wo/ explosives. Mr. Gilson, I refer you to Architects for 911 Truth. You obviously need a physics lesson.
Wow - MoJo jumps the shark! You guys really are the "phony left media"! Bye Bye! RC
The largest problem that the theorists conveniently overlook is that any conspiracy implies a level of intelligence, cooperation and secrecy that our government is certainly incapable of providing.
This is very disspointing to read from Mother Jones.
To you who doubt:
Explain the collapse of building 7.
The fires that burned beneath the towers.
Show me the plane at the pentagon.
Explain the eyewitness testimony of explosions from the basement of the towers.
The next steps of multiple theatres of war in the zionist important Middle East.
False flag operation advancing the agenda of the zionists!
Israeli nationals and lobbyists,lapdog neocons, and the military industrial complex responsible.
Shame on you mother jones for being as fair and balanced as Fox on this one!
Mr Gilson if you had given serious consideration to the ANALYSIS in the books written by David Ray Griffin you might see the contradictions in the official VERSIONS [!!!] of what happened on 9-11.
Not every "truther" is saying GWB and his team did it. What is obvious to every CRITICAL THINKER is that the official explanation (and the piece in Popular Mechanics edited by Mr. Chernoff's cousin) cannot be true.
Pray tell us why NIST has not been able to come up with an explanation for the collapse of no 7 in all these years? (Make sure you read the bottom of their FAQ page, i.e. where they tell you that their story is a working hypothesis.)
Isn't it strange?
And there are so many more questions raised by the official VERSIONS.
Obviously a 9/11 conspiracy exists: the officially sanctioned conspiracy are the Al-Qaeda hijackers. But to blithely assign the descriptor 'conspiracy' to any challenge to that official version frankly reeks. Anyone bored by Mr. Gilson's tepid review of his "guilty pleasure" would benefit from a close-read of "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin, who eloquently poses the burning question of any criminal investigation -- Cui bono?
this article is a "black mark" on
motherjones and an embarrassment
to subscribers.. contributing "george
bush is stupid" to the investigation
of the events of 09/11/2001.. thanks
but no thanks.
Thought this would be of interest.
Since September 2001 I have maintained a free and confidential "9/11 list-serv".
The "9/11 list-serv" distributes daily e-mails containing newspaper articles and other relevant information re: 9/11 issues of interest to 9/11 families, 9/11 organizations and interested individuals.
The 9/11 List-serv archives can be accessed at http://groups.google.com/group/911-list-serv
If you would like to 'subscribe' to this free news service - send an e-mail to amkorotkin@aol.com with the word "subscribe" in the subject box.
I was at the towers reporting for the MSM and saw things that don't makes sense, that still haunt me to this day. The 9/11 truth movement exists because we still don't know what really happened that day.
The movement falters and is easily dismissed because the theories claim to know WHO did it and WHY. We're not even there yet, we simply don't have all the facts - and we need them to prevent this from happening again. Many issues that are be easy to refute or confirm still go unanswered. That's not in dispute by anyone who's read the 9/11 commission report and has studied the evidence.
Sad article. Mr. Gilson, you didn't even assess the facts and evidence the "truthers" present. Saying our government lies with impunity isn't even a theory, it's a fact. And, no, most reasonable truthers don't think Bush planned this, but that does not mean there is no conspiracy.
Come on MoJo can do better than the bidding of the establishment in writing this hit piece. Please cancel subscription.
This is the second article I have read in MoJo that poo-poo's anybody who questions the official story of what led up to and what happened on 9/11. The events of 9/11 and the follow-up anthrax attacks have been the basis for several fundamental changes in the structure of our government. The ensuing fanned-flame paranoia has been the basis for such flawed legislation as the 'PATRIOT' act and the Military Commissions act as well as the telecom-immune FISA bill and, of course, the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars we have spent and continue to spend on the Iraq war. Anyone who spends a few hours researching the eyewitness accounts of NUMEROUS people who SAW, HEARD and FELT what happened because THEY WERE THERE, will have a healthy skepticism of the official government explanation. Then there are the scientists who braved public scorn to put together and publish analysis detailing why the official story cannot be true. It is expecially disturbing that most of the 9/11 commission members were excluded from viewing much of the information collected. Several have publicly protested. Are they crackpots too, Mr. Gilson? In your article, you offer no specifics and no information that has any merit toward discounting the questions asked by the people who want the truth, the people you disparagingly call 'Truthies'. Mr. Gilson, please tell me who paid you to write this article??? For that matter, who actually owns Mother Jones magazine?
Maybe this is your way of flushing out the people that actually disagree with you but whether it is or not I think you'll notice that no one is buying your point of view.
I don't see how you can come to the conclusions you have and still expect to be taken seriously. Only the most dim witted people accept that what happened is as it was reported and when you look further into it it seems amazing that there hasn't been civil unrest/war, to remove the current power structure, from the financial/banking world, to the government that accommodates their plans.
Very well tied together. You visited my favorite point... how could you expect this administration to pull off a fake 9/11 conspiracy when they couldn't even hide some fake WMDs to justify the Iraq war?
Everyone gives Bush far more diabolical credit than he deserves. He really is just a simpleton.
In this world of reality versus contrivance the masters of illusion have sadly won the day. You have to be aware of this entire process from the top down and see that every step this administration has taken has been with the premise that they make their own reality. If you ask them they will tell you this as several administration officials would attest to. Look at the Republican record and Bush's record for corruption and scandal and their propensity for constantly repeating the lie knowing that they will wear down a lesser mind into submission. For all your cool you have been scammed in the nicest way possible of course without any hint of its having taken place. In fact you have been used all along. It takes guts and strength to see past these illusions especially when they are so far fetched
Mother Jones keeps shooting herself in the foot on the 911 issue. Your readers have open minds, not so your editors. You are losing your readers over this issue. They look to you for fearless reporting, not government propaganda.
Conspiracies depend on GOP like lies wrapped around a tiny kernel of potential truth.
The only conspiracy I find is the one Halliburton is carrying out in order to recoup all the money it lost while Dick Cheney was its CEO.
A journalist must know his audience. This piece is being criticized most because of its tone. Many "Truthers," as you call them, are likely to be the kind of folks who also read Mother Jones. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't have published your commentary--you just should have written it with a little less intolerance and disdain for those who look at the facts and "see" things differently. After 8 years of so many misdeeds by Bush & Co., is it really surprising that some folks believe the official explanations for 9/11 to be at best questionable and disingenuous?
First comment: South Park made most of the points of this article back in 2006's "The Mystery of the Urinal Deuce."
Second: Whether or not those "just asking questions" already have their minds made up or not, if the questions are pertinent, and can be answered, then we should get the answers. Part of what allows 9/11 Truther silliness to continue is that their opponents tend to dismiss Truthers with epithets such as "tinfoil hat brigade," etc. The problem with asking any questions about the "real story" of 9/11 is that even articulating sincere questions can get you marginalized as a kook. This country was founded on a profound mistrust of government. Ideally, we should be skeptical of and challenging toward government on EVERY occasion. But that's just too much effort, requiring too much preparation and discipline for people who have more interesting things to do and merely want to live their lives. So we let a lot of things slide, and get in the habit of trusting -- or at least not challenging -- the government much of the time. Then, those who revert to skepticism when considering important matters such as 9/11, are told that their doubt and hostility are unwarranted and even irrational, when what OUGHT to happen is that every reasonable and many unreasonable questions should be seriously entertained and answered to the best of our ability given the best facts (and, when facts are absent, the most rigorously tested extrapolation) we can muster.
Third: I don't think we will be able to approach the "real truth" of 9/11 unless we embrace an adversarial process, by which interested parties can ask and press questions, and those of whom they are asked (or who are in a position to know) MUST answer to the satisfaction of the petitioners and onlookers. I've seen so-called "debunking" sites, which purport to answer Truther questions and challenges, but they often don't answer the actual questions that have been asked. Instead, they say things like, "Truthers often ask," or "Truthers seem to believe...," and then go on to paraphrase the question or belief in a way that is compatible with the answer that they then present. I want to see respondents deal one-on-one with the people asking the questions, and not excused until those people or impartial judges agree the questions have been answered thoroughly and honestly. It would be a long, painstaking processs, but by accumulating questions and answers in this way, we might eventually get somewhere. Mis-paraphrasing questions, providing non-responsive answers, or ignoring or belittling the questioners will not help illuminate the truth, whatever it may turn out to be.
Try thinking Mosad. Israeli intelligence, at your service.
Defenders of the official account of 9/11 would have you believe there are no credible critics of the official account. However, consider the following:
- Raymond McGovern, PhD, former Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) and 27-year CIA veteran. (According to the CIA, NIE's are "the most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues") "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke."
- William Christison, former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 250 CIA analysts. 29-year CIA veteran. "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. ... The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them."
- Melvin Goodman, PhD, former Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs and Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it."
- General Albert Stubblebine, former commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence. "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
For decades, we relied on these individuals to collect information essential to our national security and provide critical analysis during which time the U.S. faced much more real and much more serious threats than anything today. We cannot now ignore their stunning condemnation of the official account of 9/11.
Information about 1,000 other credible critics of the official account of 9/11 is available at the website PatriotsQuestion911.com
Just as Jim Garrison & then Oliver Stone, regarding the JFK assassination, the 9/11 Truth movement is an important part of the cover up of what actually happened on September 11, 2001. The theories, videos, books and web sites lead people in the opposite direction. The facts & evidence have never been investigated. We the people need & love fall guys too much. Oswald didn't shoot John Kennedy. Senator Arlen Specter fed the Warren commission the single shooter/bullet theory. The name Al-Qaeda never existed, Osama bin Laden never mentioned it until the Bush/Cheney invented it. Eight years out and the lies and cover-up still makes money for the perpetrators, the traitors. Just as in the JFK cover up, the truth only surfaces when someone in the know is on their deathbed. Most with inside knowledge know not to speak, and those who do not are eliminated. Journalists like Dave Gilson are paid to play the game, sing the company song rather than investigate the facts.
I am not into 9/11 conspiracy theories, but this article is truly bad writing. It is basically a movie review for a couple of new movies which make no claims of being anything other than fiction. But the author uses the conspiracy angle of these movies as an excuse to pontificate about real inconsistencies in the 9/11 report. He dismisses real conspiracy advocates as whackos and titles the article's illustration "In search of intelligent life among the 9/11 tinfoil-hatters."
Yet nowhere in this article does he once try to dispute any claims of the "whackos". If they are so crazy, Dave, it should be easy to shoot them down. Here's a simple one... why did the towers collapse from the bottom and fall straight down instead of toppling sideways? I'm not posing any theories of my own... I just think someone as brilliant as yourself should be able to provide us with a plausible explanation.
It doesn't bother me personally, there are plenty of alternative sourses. But I am canceling out here. I don't have time for fiction.
Well folks, I think that
Well folks, I think that every movie about this crisis will have an impact. Just my 2 cents. Kirsten at how to build a chicken coop plans guide.
The Bush/Cheney regime incompetent, hardly, they have gotten virtually everything they have demanded from a congress obsequiously rolling over at every command.
ok. I get it. This is Mojo's lame attamept at playing devil's advocate. I forgive you.
gatekeeper is hardly adequate; writer(sic)clearly hasn't deigned to examine the host of witness testimony, physicists, pilots, oh well why go on. [deleted] mother jones.
Seems Bush & company were smart & evil enough to convince other countries to join him in his war, why not 9/11?
And exactly what do you find so credible about the official story? What really happened is entirely open to speculation because, amazingly, all the evidence was IMMEDIATELY destroyed for the greatest crime ever conducted in this country (that in itself, a major crime). It took them quite a while to figure out who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal building, but they miraculously identified every one of the crew who did 9/11 and the whole story/plot/motive revealed in less than 24 hours. Why? Because people believe most what they hear FIRST. And as you have so adeptly proven, once you believe something, even hard evidence to the contrary makes it difficult to let go of the deeply believed notion (especially since it seems like everyone else still believes it). Reminds me of my kids and Santa Claus. No matter how much I tell them it isn't true, they look around and say, "But how could that be. How could you have gotten everyone to go along with such a ridiculous lie?" It's time to let go of Santa Claus, my friends!
Another MoJo subscription bites the dust thanks to you. Those of us who are not afraid of the truth have no use for the likes of you.
Delusional? Dude, get off that horse you're on (or at least turn around and face forward), Your ignorance of the way things work...or don't, these days as far as the government and it's puppeteers is astounding. Not surprising for a sheeple but surprising for an editor for a magazine that claims to have it's ear to the ground. "Nothing happens without the government knowing about it", wasn't that Roosevelt? WAKE UP! you can take me off your e mail list, the BS meter just went into overdrive.
How did all those airplanes get off their original runways without anyone knowing? Explain that. Just one big secret plane in any large airport would mess up and cause a commotion with the numerous other flight schedules just taking flight secretly, which would be recorded by the people in charge of the flights at the airports, and there was supposedly four large airplanes that escaped secretly. That is too much for me to buy in and of itself, much less the heat of the fuel burning too low to have caused the situation.
It was a sacrifice of people by the Bush administration to start an endless war on terror. Some day it will be known, fully.
I am definitely a believer that what happened on 9/11/01 was similar to what happened in Germany when the Reichstag Building was burned. The backers of the Bush administration are not stupid. Stupid is only a cover up to get away with what they do, like Reagan's Alzheimer cover up while he dies of old age, never having to be held responsible for his dastardly deeds. I think when a President claims he doesn't know what he is doing, he needs to be checked more thoroughly by the left's own independent doctors to ascertain the truth.
Hey - Dave Gilson is a "senior editor" wow - read his editorial and see if you find any arguments of substance - here is my critique of his article - I think "Mother Jones" is a funny name and oh yah Dave Gilson doesn't even call himself a Mr. let alone a Phd.
Come on Dave - give us another editorial with say 10 clearly stated arguments of substance refuting 911 theories - I don't say there aren't - I just think this editorial is an example of what Journalism shouldn't be - get a job in the mainstream media
See the video: Hal Sisson 911 For Whose Bebefit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's almost 1 hour long. Then decide!!!
Well folks, I think that I
Well folks, I think that I hadnt seen a movie that would be great about this situation. Kirsten at buy regcure guide.
I will now, after reading this article, perhaps question and look for political bias ... in Mother Jones. There is truly enough evidence to drive a truck through that challenges official stories. You buy into the coincidental view of history obviously and have not a clue what conspiracy is about, and that is watching the patterns of history repeating itself time and time again. Your denial and search for empirical evidence shows you don't "get" the past and understand how it directly affect the present, and how the same old school has been doing these things since well before the Romans hit power.
Please open your eyes and study things and get out of denial. You are doing both yourself and your readers a great disservice with this tripe.
This is a great article. It helps debunk some of the most assinine conspiracy theories ever devised. I think people should subscribe to Occam's Razor i.e. the simplist explanation is usually the best explanation in describing events like alien abductions, 9/11 or that the moon landing was a hoax. If you wish to believe in these foolish things you might as well worship Zeus, consult astrologers, and/or accept creationism as the best explanation for the emergence of life on Earth. People are like me are not close minded. We feel that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
