Richard Gage was on C-SPAN. Why?

Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was on C-SPAN the other day, and my only question is why was he on there? There's really no reason for him to be on there at all.

Anyways, the first thing he claimed was that only three buildings were destroyed. This is false.

All of the buildings there were several damaged to the point where they had to be razzed due to debris from WTC 1 & 2 hitting them. The reason why 9/11 truthers continue to insist that only three buildings were destroyed that day is because that's all we saw that were destroyed.

The second thing he claimed is that there is evidence of a controlled demolition, especially with WTC 7. This is not true. We know how WTC 7 collapsed. It's a result of the lower floors being heavily damaged by falling debris and the tower being on fire for several hours. The combination of this caused the structure to collapse on it's own, and in a way that looked like a controlled demolition for most people.

He then goes on for several minutes about how WTC 7 is a smoking gun, which as I explained is not true. He also claims that most people don't know WTC 7. This maybe true, but I imagine that most people are more focused on the WTC 1 & 2, and the nearly 3,000 people that died in those towers, and not the zero amount of people that died in WTC 7.

He also continued to insist that the towers came down due to thermite charges, but if this was true then how come they didn't go off immediately when those two jets hit the towers, because those towers clearly began to collapsed at the impact sites? Also it would take an awful lot of thermite to actually cut through those steal beams.

The only logical answer is that there was no thermite charges there and that the towers collapsed as a result of massive structural damage due to the jets hitting them and jet fuel fueled fires weakening the steal beams holding the towers up.

C-SPAN should not have given Gage any time because not only is he just spouting off the same debunked BS that the 9/11 truth movement has been spouting off for years, it also gives the 9/11 truth movement and his group a false sense of legitimacy.

It also keeps a conspiracy theory that needs to die alive.

P.S. before anyone says anything about his group's 2200 members I feel I need to remind you that not everyone in his group is an architect or engineer, and even if everyone in that group was an architect or engineer it still wouldn't mean anything because they are less than 1% of all of the architects and engineers in the US.

"You Know You Are a Conspiracy Theorist If…" a deceptive test to make people believe they are a conspiracy theorist

A few months ago I came across this "test" (which I found to be laughable win I saw it) to help a person tell a conspiracy theorist or not (view the test here).

I have some things to say about this "test" and some comments about "questions" that were asked (well, they're not really questions) as well as a few questions of my own:

You are capable of critical thinking.

This is a paradox. If a conspiracy theorist was capable of critical thinking, then they wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist because people who are capable of critical thinking would figure out that a conspiracy theory was BS.

You distrust mainstream media.

So do most skeptics, although for entirely different reasons than conspiracy theorists do.

You like nature.

Lots of people do. What does this have to do with being a conspiracy theorist?

You think it’s a good idea to spend the Friday after Thanksgiving with your family rather than camping outside Best Buy to get a cheap plasma television made in China.

That doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist. That makes you someone who is smart enough not to waste their time in the cold waiting for some store to open in the hope of finding bargains.

You think it’s a little strange that WTC building 7 came down at free fall speed on 9/11 yet it was never hit by a plane.

This might make you a conspiracy theorist, as well as someone who has conveniently forgotten that WTC7 was hit by something... a skyscraper.

You think that drones in America might not be for Al Qaeda.

This might also make you a conspiracy theorist... or it might make you someone who knows drones that fly over America are also used for multiple benign purposes.

You would like to be able to get on a plane without having to engage in a mandatory radiation bath and digital strip search.

As do many Americans, especially those who have gone through that process.

You have read a book in the past year.

What does reading a book have to do with being a conspiracy theorist?

You think you have the right to protest.

According to the first Amendment I don't think I have the right, I have the right, period!

You think the War on Terror is a scam.

That depends on what your definition of "scam" is.

You think the War on Drugs is a scam.

Again, that depends on what your definition of "scam" is. Does your definition mean completely bogus and fraudulent, or wasteful and unnecessary?

You think the anger directed at America from the Middle East could possibly be related to our foreign policy rather than hating how amazingly free we are.

This just means you've done more than five minutes worth of research about the Middle East.

You think the Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same on the important issues affecting our country.

This could mean you're a conspiracy theorist... it could also mean that you're a Libertarian, or you're just ticked off at both political parties.

You think believing in The Constitution does not constitute a terrorist act.

Who the Hell believes that believing in the constitution is a terrorist act? The only people who believe that are idiots!

You have heard of the Bill of Rights and can even name what some of them are.

As most Americans have and can...

You question whether the government loves you.

The government is not a living entity. It neither loves nor hates, therefore it is pointless to ask if it loves you or not.

You think the right to bear arms is not for hunting, rather so citizens can fight back should the government become a bunch of tyrannical thugs.

Yeah, this could mean that you're a conspiracy theorist... it could also mean that you just don't like the government, or you're afraid that the United States "could" become a tyrannical dictatorship.

You don’t own a television, and if you do, all you watch is RT, especially the Keiser Report and Capital Account.

(Reading that alone makes me wonder if this is satire) If all you watch on television is RT (Russia Today) then there is no need to finish this test. You are a conspiracy theorist.

You don’t think the NDAA is the name of Kesha’s latest single.

Who's Kesha?

You think rich, powerful and connected people should be subject to the rule of law and go to jail if they commit crimes. Even if they are bankers and work at JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs.

I'm sure that Bernie Madoff would disagree.

You think corporations aren’t people.

As do most other Americans.

You think Warren Buffet is a phony and a crony capitalist.

This could make you a conspiracy theorist. This could also make you a socialist, some one who doesn't like the rich, or someone who doesn't like Warren Buffet.

You don’t care that Warren Buffet likes cherry coke, hamburgers and ice cream.  He’s still a bad guy.

What does what he likes to eat has to do with him being a bad person or not?

You know that gold was made illegal by FDR in 1933 and confiscated from the American people.  You know that gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until 1975.

So American history experts are now considered to be conspiracy theorists?

You think politicians that push for war should be sent to fight on the front lines.  If they are unable, their children should go.

Lots of people think this. It might mean that you're a conspiracy theorist, or it could mean that you're someone that is against war and feels that the ones who start them should be the ones who fight them.

You want your food to be labeled GMO so that you can make your own decisions on what you are consuming.

This could mean you're a conspiracy theorist, or it could meant that you're a health fanatic whom has been lead to believe that GMO foods are bad for you.

You grow your own food.

Lots of people do that. This has nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist.

You buy raw milk.

You could be a conspiracy theorist, or much like with GMO foods, you could also be a health fanatic who believes that raw milk is better for you than pasteurized milk (the exact opposite is true).

You think food and energy should be included in inflation calculations.

I'm sure most economist would agree with this.

You are aware that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.2 billion rounds of ammo in the past year.

A lot of people are aware of this. A lot of people are also aware that this is just another example of bureaucratic waste.

You question whether said ammo purchases are in anticipation of a Normandy beach style landing by Al Qaeda.

I'm sure if you believe that is the official explanation for why so much ammo was bought (instead of the real official explanation in that it was a good deal on the price it was being bought at) then you're probably a conspiracy theorist.

You think allowing a small group of unelected people (The Federal Reserve) to print unlimited amounts of money and distribute it as they please might not be a good idea.

I might be a conspiracy theorist if I thought this way too about the Federal Reserve, and I would think this way if it wasn't for the fact that members of the Federal Reserve board have to be confirmed by the Senate first before they can take office, and the fact that the Federal Reserve is not incharge of printing money (the Department of Treasury does that).

Now the final part of this "test" says this:

If you answered yes to more than five of the above, you might be a conspiracy theorist.
You also may be on the government’s terror watch list.  Be very alarmed and report it to the authorities immediately should you discover your neighbors engaged in such uncivilized thought.

I answered yes to 19 of them. I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm almost certain I'm not on any terrorist watch list.

This test is extremely deceptive, and is meant to make the average person believe that they are a conspiracy theorist by throwing in a bunch of mundane questions that almost every American would answer yes to, and enough of them that it would be nearly impossible for anyone not to answer yes to atleast five. Heck, most of these questions have nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist, and should not have been on there.

Being a conspiracy theorist has nothing to do with growing your own food or having no trust in the government. It has everything to do with whether or not you believe in conspiracy theories.

10 More Lies Truthers Tell

A few months I wrote an article about ten of the most common lies that people in the 9/11 Truth Movement (whether it be intentional or not) tend to tell.

While I did touch upon ten of what I considered to be biggest lies, I still felt there were more lies that people in the 9/11 Truth Movement promoted that still needed to be addressed.

So, I have put together another list of ten more lies that Truther tells:

10. Nothing hit World Trade Center 7.

Actually something did hit World Trade Center 7... a skyscraper.

To be more precise falling debris from World Trade Center 1 hit World Trade Center 7 and caused huge amounts of damage to the lower floors of the building. The combination of that, and the fact that the building had been on fire for hours caused the building to collapse.

9. Only two buildings were hit, but three were destroyed.

This is not true. In fact more than three building were destroyed that day. World Trade Center 3, 4, 5, and 6 were heavily damaged that day and what was left of them had to be torn down because they could not be repaired.

Also, many other buildings around the World Trade Center were damaged as well.

8. A nuclear bomb brought down the towers.

If this was true then this would be the easiest one to prove, as all you would have to do is go down to the World Trade Center site with a Geiger counter and one would easily find large amounts of radiation there.

Also, lower Manhattan would be uninhabitable right now due to that radiation, plus the destruction caused would have been far greater, and a lot more people would have died, either from the initial blast from the weapon, or from the radiation and radioactive fall out.

Plus, there would have been an obvious flash some what similar to the Sun when the device went, and there would have been no way to hide that.

7. The towers were reduced to dust and gravel.

Primarily promoted by followers of Judy Wood and those that believe in her theory that the towers were brought down high energy lasers, their claims are that the towers were reduced to dust and gravel by these alleged lasers.

While the collapse of the towers did create a lot of dust and gravel, it also left large chunks of concrete, long pieces of steel beams, and even places where pieces of the outer wall several stories high still stood.

6. Israel did it.

Besides the fact that there is no evidence what so ever that Israel did this, the fact is that Israel had no reason to do something like this.

The United States is Israel's biggest supporter, and President George W. Bush was one of Israel's strongest supporters at that.

To simply put, the people in charge of Israel would have had to have lost their minds to have done something like that. Not only would they have been risking losing support from the United States, but also risked going war with the United States in order to get more support from the United States.

5. No Jews were killed that day because they got a call from Israel to stay home.

While estimates vary on just how many Jews died that day (mostly because by Jewish tradition some people might be considered Jewish, but in reality they don't consider themselves to be Jewish) it's believed that somewhere around 270 to 400 Jews died that day, including five Israeli citizens.

Also, considering how many Jewish people actually worked at the World Trade Center, a few of them would have said by now that they had gotten a call telling them to stay home.

4. We're just asking questions.

Actually no. What truthers are really doing is making accusations while at the same time asking leading question in an attempt to influence others. When confronted about this they'll claim that they are "Just asking questions."

There is actually a term for this, it's called JAQing off.

3. Other false flag attacks help give credibility that the 9/11 attacks were false flag attacks.

There are two problems with this: the first one is that most "false flag attacks" that people in 9/11 Truth Movement claims to be false flag attacks are in fact not false flag attacks and have been proven so.

The second problem is that even if some of these alleged false flag attacks really could be proven to be false flag attacks, it still doesn't prove or give any credibility that the 9/11 attacks were false flag attacks, especially when all the claims about it have been all debunked.

2. New information is constantly coming out proving that the 9/11 attacks was committed by the US government/Israel/Illuminati.

No there isn't. There hasn't been any new information from the 9/11 Truth Movement since 2005!

Any "new" information that the 9/11 Truth Movement claims to have is just old information that's been rehashed and rearranged in an attempt to make it look new, but in reality is just the same old stuff that has dis-proven and debunked for years.

1. There is undeniable proof that the 9/11 attacks were an inside jobs.

No there isn't.

If this was true then members of the 9/11 Truth Movement should present their evidence to the NYPD and get the people arrested who they believe were the "real" perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. This is not done of course because they do not have any proof what so ever that the 9/11 attacks was an inside job, which they probably know, but don't want to admit.

Odds are that any "proof" that they have is going to be the same stuff that's been debunked for years and that no one outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement takes seriously any more.

'Conspiracy theorists' sane: government dupes crazy, hostile: A flawed article about conspiracy theorists and skeptics

A few days ago I came across an article that had been published on PressTV (which is owned by the government of Iran) that was titled "New studies: 'Conspiracy theorists' sane; government dupes crazy, hostile".

The title alone made it quite clear that the article was one sided, and that it is also quite clear what the writer of the article thinks about skeptics and debunkers... and anyone else who believes the reality that the U.S. government did not stage the worst terrorist attack in history.

Let me share with you the first couple of paragraphs of this article:

• The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. 
  
  The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. 

I can tell just by reading this that what this article is claiming is very flawed.

For one thing it's assuming that the majority of people making comments on an internet news article reflects the views of the majority of the people. Even on non-conspiracy theory subjects where the majority of people posting comments may seem like the overall majority, in reality they are just being the more vocal of the two groups.

The seconded problem is this "coded comments" thing. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that the people who did this study read comments individually and were able to establish their content and context? Because of the way it was worded it doesn't sound like it to me. It makes it sound like the people who did the study actually let a computer search for certain words and phrases that are commonly used among conspiracy theorists and skeptics, which is a highly flawed way to research something like this because computers can't understand context like humans can.

This of course isn't the only thing this article claims. It also claims that those that believe what they are calling the "mainstream views" are also display more anger and hostility towards those who don't:

• Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” 

I admit, sometimes skeptics and debunkers do get angry at conspiracy theorists, but actual hostility is actually pretty rare (although it this can be questionable as what some people consider to be hostility might not be considered hostility to others), and usually comes in the form of insults to the conspiracy theorist's intelligence or sanity (both of which after time becomes questionable) and rarely includes the form of threats (unless you include threats of getting banned and having your comments removed). Conspiracy theorists on the other hand engage in hostility towards others all the time, including fellow conspiracy theorists.

This paragraph is also making the assumption that just because the majority of people who comment on internet articles about the 9/11 attacks reflects the majority of the population itself. It does not. In fact the majority of the American people have never believed that the government committed the 9/11 attacks.

The next two paragraphs makes it appear that skeptics are the real conspiracy theorists:

• Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.” 
  
  In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. 

This is of course another common claim and belief among conspiracy theorists in that the skeptics of the 9/11 conspiracy theories haven't done their research and just assume that the official account is correct, when in reality skeptics have done their research and have determined that the official account is for the most part correct, and that it is the claims that the conspiracy theorists make that are flawed and incorrect.

This article also makes it appear that skeptics feel like they are "rivals" to conspiracy theorists. This is completely untrue. Skeptics don't consider themselves to be rivals to conspiracy theorists because skeptics don't consider a conspiracy theorists conspiracy theory to be rival to the truth.

As it turns out this whole article is hugely cherry picked from the original article published by Micheal J. Woods and Karen M. Douglas (read here) and comes to an entirely different conclusion than what the original article did.

This article for PressTV, which was written by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 Truther and conspiracy theorist himself, is hugely deceptive, and is nothing more than an attempt to make people who are not apart of the 9/11 Truth movement look like a bunch deluded people who live in a fantasy world, when in reality the opposite is true.

In conclusion, the article is nothing more than propaganda and dis-information.

A review of "Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists" by Myles Power

On October 31, 2012 blogger and vlogger Myles Power began uploading to his Youtube page the first of a seven part series called "Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists".

The series (as you can tell by the name in itself) primarily focused on several of claims that members of the 9/11 Truth movement made when he went down to the World Trade Center site on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and interviewed some of the movement's members that were there protesting near by.

The main claims that were addressed were the ones concerning the beliefs that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down in a controlled demolition, that thermite was used to bring the towers down, and that a missile hit the Pentagon (along with a few other minor related claims).

Myles does an excellent job at debunking these claims using a combination of science, logic, and photographic and video evidence, while at the same time addressing and debunking these claims in a way that is not only easy to understand, but is also entertaining. I even learned couple of things myself that I didn't even know, such as that the plane that hit the Pentagon struck several lamp posts before it actually hit, and what exactly caused the Twin Towers to finally collapse (besides just the constant heat from the intense, jet fuel fueled fires that were causing the steel beams strength to weaken, the constant pressure from the rest of building up above pressing down on the weakened steel beams, and of course the damage caused by a Boeing 767 traveling 400 mph into this sides of the buildings).

While I did very much enjoy the series, I do have a couple of (minor) complaints.

First is that there were a few more claims that, in my opinion, should have been addressed.

While I know that Myles was primarily focused on the claims from the 9/11 Truthers that he had met made to him, I believe he should have addressed a few other claims that are also made by other 9/11 Truthers, such as the drone theory, the "let it happen" theory, the "Israel did it" theory, the "no plane" theory, and the related "space laser" theory (which he did briefly mentions, but would not bother address simply because it was so insane, which I don't blame him for).

If he does decide to make some follow up videos concerning some of the issues that were not addressed, I do hope that he will address and debunk these claims.

My other complaint actually concerns the sixth part of the series, which talks about the psychology behind 9/11 Truthers (and conspiracy theorists in general).

While I did find that part to be very interesting and informative in showing how conspiracy theorists think, in my opinion I don't feel that the part was actually necessary. Why I do know that part was included to help better show the thought processes of a 9/11 Truther, I feel that part should have been completely separate from the series, rather than apart of it.

Besides these two minor issues, I felt overall that this series was excellent, and I highly recommend viewing it, and not just for skeptics and debunkers, but also for people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and people who just have some unanswered questions about that horrible day.

Below is the first of the seven part series:

The other six parts can be found here

Myles's Youtube Page

Myles's Blog

Myles's Facebook Page

Myles's Twitter Page

10 Lies Truthers Tell

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are probably some of the most thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories out there, with thousands of people devoting hundreds of hours to debunk these theories. Some of these theories have been debunked for so long, and so early on, and have such clear evidence (including photographic evidence) that they can only be best described as lies.

Here is what could be considered 10 of the biggest lies people in the 9/11 Truth movement (or Truthers, as they are commonly called) tell:

(Author's note: these are just the 10 I remembered off of my head. There are actually a lot more than this.)

10. There were pools and rivers of molten steel at the WTC site.

No there wasn't. There are satellite pictures of hot spots where the towers stood, and pictures of steel beams that were red hot, but never any pictures of molten steel, nor has anyone who was actually at the site after the towers fell have ever claimed to have seen pools and rivers of molten steel.

The satellite pictures that show these hot spots show that those areas were actually places where underground fires were, and not molten steel because the temperature of the heat being given off from those areas was not hot enough to cause steel to melt.

9. No plane was witnessed hitting the Pentagon.

Actually there are multiple witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon. There is also video taken from a security camera that, while it is very difficult to tell for many people, does show a plane hitting the Pentagon.

8. No pieces of American Airlines Flight 77 was ever found at the Penatgon.

Actually much of the plane was recovered, including remains of the passengers on board (including the five hijackers), and the flight recorder (although damaged to the point where nothing usable could be recovered on it). In fact there are actually photos of pieces of the planes that were being recovered from the crash site and removed from the site for further investigation.

7. The towers fell at free fall speeds.

No they didn't. The towers fell at speeds slower then free fall. There are videos that show the towers falling at free fall speeds, but these videos have had their speed altered to make it look like they are falling at free fall speeds.

6. The towers imploded.

No they didn't. If you were to watch any videos of the towers collapsing then you would see that the towers collapsed on top of themselves rather then implode into themselves, the results of which spewed out a lot of debris over the site, heavily damaging many of the other buildings there.

5. The towers were designed the withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and should have survived the impacts.

It's true that the towers were designed to survive the impact from a Boeing 707, but only if it was going at landing speeds (180 mph) and was low on fuel. The Boeing 767's that stuck the towers are not only larger then the Boeing 707, they stuck at a much higher speed, thus there was more energy transferred into the impact then what the buildings had been designed to withstand, nor did the engineers who had helped design the towers believe that the towers would be burning so intensely from so much jet fuel for the amount of time that they were.

4. Explosives were heard being used in the WTC towers.

While explosions were heard inside the the towers, they are attributed to things other then explosives, such as transformers and cleaning chemicals. Besides that, no one should be alive if they actually were inside the buildings and heard explosives going off. Those people would have been killed when the towers collapsed.

3. Former CIA operatives have confessed to being part of, or having knowledge of a cover-up.

As far as I am aware only one person, a woman by the name of Susan Lindauer, has claimed to have worked for the CIA (as well as the DIA) and to have knowledge of a cover-up. There are two big problems with this: First, there is no proof she ever worked for either the CIA or the DIA, and second, she is mentally ill. In fact she was declared unfit for trial twice after she was accused in 2003 of acting as a unregistered lobbyist for the Iraqi Intelligence Agency, and engaging in prohibited financial transactions with the government of Iraq under the control of Saddam Hussein.

The charges against Lindauer were dropped against her in early 2009 only because the government decided that there was no longer any point to try to take her to trial anymore.

2. WTC 7 was ordered to be demolished.

WTC 7 was not ordered to be demolished.

The reason why so many people in the 9/11 Truth movement believe that it was is because of an order was given to "pull it" a few minutes before the tower collapsed.

While many in the 9/11 Truth Movement claim that "pull it" is a demolition term to bring down a building, it is not. "Pull it" is an evacuation order. In other words all the fire fighters were ordered to get out of the building because it was determined that the building was going to collapse in a matter of minutes (which it did).

1. Red/gray chips and small iron spheres at the WTC site are indications that explosives were used.

Actually the red/gray chips that have been found at the site have been test and proven to be epoxy resins, paint chips, and rust chips.

The small iron spheres are actually the result of heat rust particles due to the heat from the intense heat brought on by the fires of the burning jet. Rust particles also have a lower melting point than steel, which the temperatures from the jet fueled filled fires were able to generate.

8 Questions for people in the 9/11 Truth Movement

As everyone knows, the 9/11 Truth movement is a loose group of people who believe that the United States government committed the 9/11 attacks.

Now despite the fact that they have never been able to prove that the government committed the 9/11 attacks, they still hold steadfast to the belief that the government did.

It seems to me that most people in that movement have never really sat down and asked themselves some serious, logical questions about the attacks.

Here are eight questions that I feel that people in the 9/11 Truth movement should ask themselves, as well as should be asked by others:

1. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why would they hit more then one building?

Hitting one building with a plane would have been more then enough for the government to justifiably giving it an excuse to go to war. More then one would be overkill.

2. If the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, then why did it attack the Pentagon for?

The Pentagon is the United States top military headquarters. Hitting it with a plane could have killed our top military leaders and seriously harmed our ability to fight. The government attacking the Pentagon makes no sense both logically and militarily.

3. Assuming that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, then why would they be brought down in the first place?

There would be no reason for the government to bring down the towers. Not only would flying a couple of planes into the towers would have been more then enough to justify going to war, but bringing down the towers would be another example of overkill. Also, it would have been cheaper to repair the towers then it has been to clean up the rubble and build new buildings at the site.

4. Why would WTC 7 have been intentionally brought down?

Wouldn't intentionally bringing down WTC 7 have been a pointless action? There would have been no reason for the government to ever bring that building down and create a bigger mess. Not to mention many in the 9/11 Truth movement see that building's collapse as a "smoking gun" for a controlled demolition. If the government did do this, shouldn't they have had the foresight to see that it might look suspicious to some people?

5. Assuming that drones were used, then how come the forth plane crashed in a field instead of hitting another building?

If the government had complete control of all the aircraft, then why didn't they crash the last one into a building? Why would they just waste it and crash it into a field for no reason what so ever?

6. If the attacks were allowed to happen so we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and gain control of those two countries natural resources, then why haven't prices on things like oil gone down?

One of the biggest claims from the 9/11 Truth movement is that the attacks were staged so that we would have an excuse to go into Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq, and gain control of those countries oil fields, along with other natural resources. The problem with this is that the cost of oil based products (gasoline, diesel, home heating oil) has kept going up instead of going down since the invasions of those two countries. So if we invaded those countries for their oil, then how come our oil prices have been steadily rising? And how come very little oil has ever actually come out of those two countries since we invaded them?

7. Why haven't we seen a serious decrease in our civil liberties?

While it's claimed that our civil liberties have decreased since the 9/11 attacks, in fact they really haven't in most cases. Most people haven't even been impacted at all by the Patriot Act. You can still create blogs that speak out against the government. You can still claim the government committed the 9/11 attacks. You can still belong to anti-government organizations. So why haven't people like this ever been thrown in jail? Wouldn't they be the government's biggest enemies?

8. How come the 9/11 Truth movement has never presented any evidence that has not been dis-proven?

One of the main problems with the 9/11 Truth movement is that it constantly presents old evidence that has been discredit and dis-proven, and rarely, if ever, presents any new evidence. So why hasn't the 9/11 Truth movement ever revealed any real evidence of what they consider to be the real culprits behind the 9/11 attacks and would prove what they were claiming is at least possibly true?

ECT Follow up: 9/11 Controlled Demolition: WTC 7

On my previous blog debunking the belief that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed in a control demolition, I discussed how the Twin Towers were not brought down in a controlled demolition, but as the result of massive structural damage brought on by the collision of a couple of jumbo jets.

There is of course this one nagging argument that many Truthers make as "proof" that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by explosives:

The collapse of World Trade Center building 7.

The main reasons why so many Truthers (almost all in fact) believe that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives is because the building itself was not hit by any planes, and it doesn't look damaged in many of the photos and videos of that day, and in the videos of the collapse it does kind of look like a controlled demolition to the untrained eye. Also, it is believed that the order "pull it", which was given shortly before the building came down, is a common order that demolition experts use right when they bring down a building.

While the building itself was not hit by any planes, it was in fact hit by the falling debris from the World Trade Center towers, as was a lot of other building near the Twin Towers, and was heavily damaged, as was a lot of the buildings near the Twin Towers as well. Most people can't tell this from looking at photos and videos of it after the towers collapsed because of all the smoke and dust. All that most people have ever seen is what appears to be an undamaged building.

In fact, it was very heavily damaged. 25% of it's bottom floors were just gone. Added to the damage from the falling debris was the fact that the building was on fire, and that those fires were most likely fueled by the diesel generators located inside the building itself, so those fires just kept on going on and on.

After being on fire for seven hours, and having been heavily damaged, one of the steel trusses finally gave way, which resulted in the other trusses, being unable to take the load of the building on their own, giving way as well, and causing the building to finally collapse in such a way that some people who don't see it at the right angle might think they were watching a controlled demolition.

Of course now there is the phrase "pull it" which was used shortly before the building collapsed, and many conspiracy theorists believe this was the order given to bring down the building. Actually "pull it" is a common evacuation order, which was given after the building began to visible sag. In fact, "shoot it" or "blow it" are the more common term demolition experts use when bringing down a building.

The fact remains is that WTC 7 was not brought down by explosives, but as a result of fire and heavy damage by falling debris.

Also, for further study about how the 3 WTC buildings collapsed, please click on the following link and watch the video in the link:

http://illuminutti.com/2012/04/18/911-were-explosives-used/