[deleted]

Lots of questions, here are the quick answers. Obviously any one of these would require alot of effort to "thoroughly" go through with well sourced evidence. Let's use this as a jumping off point for more discussion.

1. It was before 9/11 when doing-what-you-were-told was the way you dealt with hijackings. I doubt it would work again.
2. I've dealt with this elsewhere in the thread. It is fairly "lucky". Paper does and will survive impact so its survival doesn't surprise me at all. The fact that it was found so "quickly" is what is alarming. The problem for the conspiracy theorist is that this is a completely unnecessary detail. Why plant it? Even w/o the passport, the case is rock solid.
3. What about it? Donald Rumsfeld is a warmongering asshole. This type of stuff runs the risk of puzzle-piecing more than actual legitimate inquiry. It's impossible to say Bush/Cheney/et-al engineered 9/11 just because of how convenient it was for invading Iraq. That's just wishful thinking. You need actual positive evidence to make a claim like that.
4. The CIA, you mean? It is well known that Bin Laden and other members of the mujahadeen had contacts in the CIA from the Russian-Afghanistan war. A full discussion of Sibel Edmonds is pages of work (and you can add her to my list, somewhere else, of things I'd like more fully explained).
5. There have been several semi-conflicting answers to this question. The most likely "official" answer is that the evidence tying Bin Laden himself to other attacks is stronger and a conviction would be more likely. Bin Laden was not the "mastermind" and was no believed to be directly involved with 9/11 like other attacks. He was, however, the head of the organization that did it -- Al Qaeda.
6. NORAD had already scrambled fighters to try to intercept these planes. No one was ever in position to shoot any of them down. Cheney's involvement is irrelevant. The pilots were launched and flew to a waiting area and waited for targets. NORAD couldn't provide targets because they were waiting on the FAA to give them. The FAA was confused as all fuck because the transponders were off. Dick Cheney's and his orders had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. NORAD never had anyone in position to do anything about the planes -- with our without an order to shoot them down.
7. The FDNY knew WTC7 was in imminent collapse danger. They had cleared an area already, they had moved people back, they were making announcements over loud speakers. Everyone in the immediate vicinity of WTC7 knew that the FDNY was telling them it was collapse risk. It is not surprising that reporters made the mistake of announcing it had ALREADY collapsed when the warnings was that it was going to eventually collapse.
8. None of the calls made from high altitudes were from cellphones, but from airphones. The only calls from cellphones occurred at low altitudes which is perfectly plausible. You can align the call times with the FDR data to see when they were made.

Sourcing all this is alot of work, if anyone wants to call bullshit on something in particular, go ahead, and I'll dig up some links.

Some food for thought on #1: I've been in the military for 14 years and do a lot of Anti Terrorism training. We're still being taught to remain inconspicuous on commercial flights just do what a hijacker says. On a personal (and logical) level I would want to be as close to the cockpit as possible to prevent a hijacking.

6: I'm also an air traffic control radar technician. Any plane can be tracked without a transponder. Air traffic control computer systems build "tracks" of data from reflected RF (planes), the transponder data from the plane (flight number and a couple other items) is associated with the radar track. If a plane turns off their transponder the track is still there but associated transponder data is gone. An alert air traffic controller would then try to establish communications with the plane to find out who they are and what their intentions are. They might make a manual change to the track and put it in some kind of "unknown" category. Transponder data is basically a "nice to have" feature that makes and air traffic controller's job easier. Anyone can change the info the transponder is transmitting or turn it off completely, RF still bounces off big pieces of steel flying through the clouds and a radar doesn't care if a track has transponder data or not.

I'm interested to know if you've read the NORAD transcripts about what happened?

From what I understand, someone at the FAA did realize the transponder was off and reported it up the chain of command. Somewhere between there are communicating with NORAD the communication broke down. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how that failed.

You do realize that if the government were 100% forthcoming and correct about 9/11 it would be the first time in history they've been 100% forthcoming and correct about anything, right?

Yes. As I've said elsewhere, there are places where the government explanation leaves alot to be desired.

The mistake, however, is claiming that since the government is not 100% forthcoming, that you can discard any explanation as fabrication and insert whatever fanciful story you want.

I agree with that. However, that is not what the more credible 9-11 researchers, many of them engineers and architects, are claiming. I too discard the wild-eyed conspiracy stories, but others, coming from professionals, do make me pause a moment and wonder.

EDIT: Like you, I ignore the less credible theories. But do you also dismiss 100% of the more carefully-researched investigations? Are all of these building professionals, some of whom are risking an entire career's worth of credibility to even pose questions about the event, just a bunch of crazies in your estimation?

However, that is not what the more credible 9-11 researchers, many of them engineers and architects, are claiming.

Eh. It clearly depends on who we are talking about because my guess is you are referring to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth in which case I will question your characterization of them as credible.

There are people who have done real academic and building research on 9/11 (Eager, Greening, and others), published proper papers in both scientific journals and trade journals. However, they rarely get any pub from the truthers because they, to a man, disagree with them.

But do you also dismiss 100% of the more carefully-researched investigations? Are all of these building professionals, some of whom are risking an entire career's worth of credibility to even pose questions about the event, just a bunch of crazies in your estimation?

I take all evidenced claims seriously. All are found to be seriously wanting, including the professionals you are likely alluding to (Gage? Harrit? Jones?). Only the most crazy theories (holographic planes, space weapons) do I throw out on the sheer nuttery of it.

Is there any part of a 9/11 conspiracy theories that you do agree with? Or anything at all you find suspicious about the 9/11 story?

There are alot of parts of the 9/11 investigation that leave alot to be desired and are answers we'll probably never get. In almost every case they point to agency CYA, not foreknowledge or conspiracy, though.

The biggest example, in my mind, is the story behind Able Danger.

If we are talking about the physical events of 9/11, however. The official story has pretty much everything correct. For example, some rather rational people still say things like "flight 93 was probably shot down" but the evidence is fairly clear on the matter.. flight 93 was intact when it hit the ground.

flight 93 was intact when it hit the ground.

Aren't most planes that are shot down mostly intact when they hit the ground? A missile just damages the plane badly enough to cause a crash (this is why most fighter pilots can survive a shootdown by simply ejecting). A heat seeker missile would just hit a jet engine and not blow up an entire 757.

Having said that, since there will be a lot of crazy in this thread: I think 9/11 truthers are full of shit. I think the Flight 93 shootdown thing is very improbable (like less than 5% chance) mainly because I think some more evidence or whistleblowers would pop up if it did happen.

Presumably, I suppose, but the evidence goes farther then that. The flight-data-recorder (FDR), for example, shows absolutely nothing that would indicate the plane was hit by a missile. So, at a minimum, the FDR would have to be faked. And faking that kind of data is not as easy as it might appear -- especially with horders of truthers pouring over it looking for evidence of fakery.

Out of all this, I understand that you can't explain every single one, please explain Insider Trading. That article screams Pearl Harbor to me.

The SEC investigated the insider trading scandal and parts of that investigations have been public in various forms. In particular the insider trading revolves around put options on American and United airlines.

First, there is some argument about whether these trades were actually all that unusual. But let's put that aside.

In one case, almost 95% of the options purchased were by a single organization who was investigated and, in the investigators words, had no possible connection to Al Qaeda.

In the other case, some rather influential options newsletter had put one of the airlines as a tip in their newsletter, and people bought the options.

I can't tell you who made these tips, or who bought the stocks, because that information, as far as I know, has never been released. We basically have to trust that the SEC, FBI, etc. are not lying to us. This gets us into the usual problem whereby if you presume a government conspiracy, this answer is unsatisfying.

However, it is safe to say that the conspiracy must be extremely large if it is to include the SEC.

911myths has a relatively decent overview of this stuff.

Do you see any resemblance at all to a controlled demolition in the way building 7 fell?

What kind of evidence would it take for you to change your mind on this subject?

Do you see any resemblance at all to a controlled demolition in the way building 7 fell?

Of course there is a resemblance. However, in order for you to say that is WAS a demolition, you'd have to say that ONLY demolitions can look like that.

What kind of evidence would it take for you to change your mind on this subject?

For starters, an explanation for the fact that the audio evidence is completely inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

I have a mate who's a structural engineer for steel and concrete clad factory units ( not dissimilar to the construction of The World Trade Centre )

I remember watching the news footage with him a couple of days after it happened in our local pub and he was absolutely adamant then that the planes would not have been enough to bring those buildings down. To the point where he was getting so wouned up about it, screaming bullshit at the TV, that we were asked to leave because he was upsetting the customers.

Now when a good friend, who's usually quiet as a mouse and who's been in that game for over twenty years is screaming foul. Then you have to start asking yourself the odd question or two.

I have a mate who's a structural engineer for steel and concrete clad factory units ( not dissimilar to the construction of The World Trade Centre )

You should tell your mate that the WTC was not a steel/concrete construction but a pure steel construction. The dissimilarities are staggering. In fact, it's been highly studied and seriously suggested that if the WTC had been built with steel-reinforced concrete, not just steel, that it would have survived (at least for orders of magnitude longer). In fact, concrete construction companies have been using it as an example of their method of construction's superiority.

However, none of that gets to the point. The point is we can both line up 100 people with various levels of expertise, show them the video, ask them what happened, and take a vote. At the end of the day, that doesn't mean much.

The people at NIST wrote a very long and detailed report explaining exactly what they think happened after alot of study. Has your mate read that report? What flaws did he find it? The scientific process is one of studying, finding conclusions, and peer-review. All of the "my buddy is an engineer and watched the video" in the world doesn't overturn scientific consensus.

The reason we invented the scientific method was because our intuition fails. Even expert intuition fails. That's why we do science.

I was told a few years ago by a civil engineer the reason the towers fell the way they did was a largely due to the way they were constructed. I was wondering if the following is indeed correct / plausible explanation. It all seems logical to me.

He said they were not constructed in the 'traditional' method; instead they were a central core with the elevators/electrical/pluming with a outer 'shell' composed only steel. The core and the shell were only connected with beams designed to carry the load of the floor / occupants. He then showed us a structure composed of a bottom plate and a top plate (a fair distance apart) connected with only with small metal rods. As you can imagine it was pretty unstable, prone to torsional and compressive loads. He then added additional plates in between the top and bottom plate (think of them as floors) and voila it was very stable. Anyways, that was the his attempt to show us the basic idea of the structure of the towers.

He then went on to explain that the jet fuel (which burns at a higher temperature than normal office fires) melted the connecting beams between the outer shell and inner core (similar to removing the intermediate plates in his demo structure). He really stressed that the impact of the plane did not cause the building to fail, of course the WTC was designed to survive a plane impact, it's happened by accident with other tall towers in the past. He said that it was designed so that the connecting beams could survive a normal office fire, but no one really designed the beams that support the floors to hold up to 200k litters of jet fuel burning.

Anyways he then took out the intermediate plates form his little demo, and applied a vertical compressive force simulating the weigh of the floors on top of it. Of course the metal vertical rods buckled outwards eventually leading to failure. He said that caused an entire floor of the tower to drop down onto the next floor that was also weakened. By the time all of this hit the unawakened floors, it had enough momentum and force to buckle to next floor leading to a domino effect.

Anyways, that's how the guy described it, it sounds logical to me. I was wondering if this theory was indeed correct / plausible as to the reason the towers fell the way they did.

He said they were not constructed in the 'traditional' method; instead they were a central core with the elevators/electrical/pluming with a outer 'shell' composed only steel. The core and the shell were only connected with beams designed to carry the load of the floor / occupants. He then showed us a structure composed of a bottom plate and a top plate (a fair distance apart) connected with only with small metal rods. As you can imagine it was pretty unstable, prone to torsional and compressive loads. He then added additional plates in between the top and bottom plate (think of them as floors) and voila it was very stable. Anyways, that was the his attempt to show us the basic idea of the structure of the towers.

This part is accurate.

He then went on to explain that the jet fuel (which burns at a higher temperature than normal office fires)

Jet fuel burns at a much lower temperature than a normal office fire.

melted the connecting beams

Neither jet fuel nor an office fire can melt steel.

between the outer shell and inner core (similar to removing the intermediate plates in his demo structure). He really stressed that the impact of the plane did not cause the building to fail, of course the WTC was designed to survive a plane impact, it's happened by accident with other tall towers in the past. He said that it was designed so that the connecting beams could survive a normal office fire, but no one really designed the beams that support the floors to hold up to 200k litters of jet fuel burning.

Not exactly.

Here's the dummy's guide to what happened.

The plane impacted the building. The primary role of the impact was:

1. It damaged some columns hastening the collapse
2. It removed a large amount of fireproofing on the effected floors
3. It started a very large office fire.

The large office fires heat (but do not melt) the steel. Steel loses rigidity when heated and becomes much less load-bearing. The floor trusses began to sag under the weight of the floors which caused an inward pressure on all the columns. The "tube-within-a-tube" and all-steel construction are to "blame" for this. Eventually, the inward "pulling" from the floors sagging caused the columns to buckle, which initiated the collapse. Once a column buckles, the force redistributes through the rest of them causing all kinds of bad shears/torques, popping rivets and tearing columns... a rapidi cascading failure of the columns (you can actually see this torque in the upper half of one of the towers during the collaprse), once the vertical columns are gone, it's just gravity from there.

The "pancake" model of one floor falling to the next into the next is a gross oversimplication but once initiated it's about right.

What's the wildest theory you've seen thus far?

What's your motivation for debunking the theories?

Have you found anything that you can't come up with an answer for yet regarding the attacks?

What's the wildest theory you've seen thus far?

I don't like laughing at people who are obviously mentally ill but fuck me I've seen some crazy shit.

1. One of the "architechs for 9/11 truth" believes the towers came down with nuclear weapons.
2. Some rather "prominent" people have floated the ideas that the planes were holographic... so called no-planers
3. Some even crazier people have said that TV footage of the impacts of the towers were faked! That the planes never flew into the buildings.. all the people who say they saw it are plants...
4. Judy Wood, a PhD in engineering, thinks they were brought down by space-borne laser weapons.

Take your pick.

What's your motivation for debunking the theories?

I am a skeptic a la Carl Sagan. The motivation here is the belief that pseudoscience is dangerous and poor thinking should be combated. I started off by getting into evolution/creationism but eventually got sidetracked into 9/11.

You can learn a tremendous amount by digging into a conspiracy theory and convincing yourself it is wrong. I cannot tell you how much I've learned about physics, politics, the world, and everything else.

Have you found anything that you can't come up with an answer for yet regarding the attacks?

No, not really. I have many unsatisfying answers and places where the public record isnt' as complete as I'd like... So sometimes it comes down answers such as "I cannot disprove what you are saying, but if it was true, all of this must also be true, and that theory is more ridiculous than my theory, so mine is more likely".

What's your take on the hijacker passport that was found on sidewalk around the trade centers within an hour of the plane striking the first tower? I remember it was reported by the media that day. My Mom saw it too, and we talked about how unlikely that seemed.

I did some Googling a few weeks ago and found that its never been denied. I always wondered why it never got much attention from the truthers.

Me too, actually. As far as I know, that bit of info has not been 'debunked'. In other words, it's considered true by most debunkers.

There are two answers to this:

1) It's not unlikely that paper and even passports would survive. That is perfectly plausible. (many truthers will point at the fireball and go "how could it survive that?" but we know from other crashes and wahtnot that paper has an uncanny ability to survive these events). That is was found so quickly, on the street, is rather odd.

2) There's no reason to plant it. The evidence was ironclad without it.

If this bit of evidence was the lynchpin, I'd have more problems with it. As it stands though, I'm going with coincidence.

It really is depressing how many differently people have crazy theories about this stuff. I just spent the last 30 minutes reading most of this thread and I can't remember one person conceding they were wrong when presented with proof.

How often do people actually give ground riemannszeros? I admire your infinite patience, I would go nuts talking to a wall for hours.

Rarely, but not because I can't. The truth is I know the conspiracy myth betters than most conspiracy theorists. When they bring up their "gotcha" proof, 97% of the time, I already know more about it than they do. It's rare but sometimes people do bring up something new, and I'll end up being wrong about.

Here's an example. VERY EARLY on in the 9/11 stuff, I was a debunker who believed that molten steel COULD FORM in large quantities via friction during the collapse. Other people (mostly other debunkers, but some truthers) talked me down from that ledge and convinced that no appreciable amount of molten steel could reasonably form and so any strong evidence of molten steel would be counter-evidence for the official story.

Why, at the pentagon fiasco, were all of the cameras in the immediate area confiscated? Why go to all the trouble of getting all of that film and then only release 3 frames of fireballs? OBVIOUSLY, they could have produced better shots of the plane coming in. The Pentagon's surveillance is no doubt one of the top in the world but you are satisfied with some fire.

Look, do you people realize that lawsuits had to be filed just to see the shitty gas station cams? http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5965.shtml No, you don't. I don't know what happened, but I know one thing, if you believe the official story is true then you should be able to answer answer this; Why aren't we in Saudi Arabia considering that most of the alleged hijackers were from there? And, why is Bin Laden not wanted for the 9/11 crimes? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Why, at the pentagon fiasco, were all of the cameras in the immediate area confiscated?

That's the FBI's MO. Go in, get everything.

Why go to all the trouble of getting all of that film and then only release 3 frames of fireballs?

They've released EVERYTHING that was confiscated.

Look, do you people realize that lawsuits had to be filed just to see the shitty gas station cams?

FOIA requests are not "lawsuits". Please stop.

And, why is Bin Laden not wanted for the 9/11 crimes? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Answered elsewhere.

Why aren't we in Saudi Arabia considering that most of the alleged hijackers were from there?

The same reason we didn't bomb Lockport, NY, even though Timothy McVeigh was from there.

WTF? I posted a comment here, but it disappeared, even though it's in my comment history. When I clicked the permalink, this is what showed up.

"You broke Reddit. 911 Changed Everything."

EDIT:

The original comment was,

As a fellow 9/11 amateur debunker, I applaud you for your efforts in achieving in a field in which I, from time to time, merely dabble in.

So my question to you is, why do you debunk these theories? Is it a hobby, or do you view it as a service? And have you ever "converted" anyone?

Also, what are your favorite 9/11 debunking resources? ScrewLooseChange, Debunking911, 911Myths, etc.

Yea, something is bunked. I hope my comments are showing up because I have some in my history that aren't on this page.

The answer to your question is this:

1. You learn alot by convincing yourself a conspiracy theory is wrong.
2. I actually go out an argue with conspiracy theorists for the same reason I argue with creationists. i think psuedoscience should be combatted. I don't like living in a society with people who do not think clearly.

And have you ever "converted" anyone?

Yes. I and others have, collectively, recruited many. In fact, many of the current debunkers are former truthers.

Also, what are your favorite 9/11 debunking resources? ScrewLooseChange, Debunking911, 911Myths, etc

Those are all good but the best is the JREF forum (randi.org) on 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Why didnt the pentagon defense systems (assuming they exist) work?

Why would the government not show videos of the bad terrorists flying into the pentagon to convince everybody they did it and we must invade their (and other) countries?

Why would they only show a video showing NO airplane (unless you are Glen Beck who sees an airplane)?

Why does the government go to great lengths to NOT investogate all the questions and mysteries?

Why did the airplane hot such a convenient spot in the pentagon (where for Bush&pals inconvenient files were kept) and why did WTC7 that contained so inconvenient (stock fraud files) files conveniently evaporate? Ok i give you ... you gotta be lucky sometimes...

Why didnt the pentagon defense systems (assuming they exist) work?

Do they exist? How do they work? Do you realize how close Reagan National Airport is to the Pentagon?. It has a runway that puts planes basically over the pentagon. Do you expect them to be ready to shoot at commercial aircraft?

The pentagon can't have missiles ready to shoot at commercial airlines. There are hundreds flying around it every day.

Why would the government not show videos of the bad terrorists flying into the pentagon to convince everybody they did it and we must invade their (and other) countries?

This questions presume such a video exists. I know of no camera in existence that would show the plane hitting the pentagon whose video has not been released.

Why would they only show a video showing NO airplane (unless you are Glen Beck who sees an airplane)?

They showed all the videos.

Why does the government go to great lengths to NOT investogate all the questions and mysteries?

The government did go to great lengths but they cannot and will not ever have all the answers. If you are unsatisfied, so be it. Which mysteries bother you the most?

Why did the airplane hot such a convenient spot in the pentagon (where for Bush&pals inconvenient files were kept)

Uh. I know of no evidence or compelling reason to believe the portion of the pentagon hit was "convenient".

and why did WTC7 that contained so inconvenient (stock fraud files) files conveniently evaporate?

Again, I know of no evidence or compelling reason to believe WTC7 contained anything "inconvenient".

This type of stuff is mostly conspiracy theorists and wishful thinking. Flying a plane into a building next to the building you want to demolish is not the best way to destroy documents.

I would like to know if the World Trade Center collapse was not a controlled demolition then why was there traces of Nano-Thermite found in the debris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i2Iha76XMY

Im not a 911 truther, i'm just looking for a reasonable explanation.

I'm going to interject, OP feel free to interject as well. Here is the article that was published: http://pat-burt.com/7TOCPJ.pdf Scroll down to the Conclusions section, and peak. This is probably the most important line:

"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

Would you like to know what are thermitic materials? Metals and metal oxides. Would you like to know where these are found? Hint: everywhere.

This article was exaggerated/misinterpreted by idiots. Imo. (Again, I just may be one of those idiots, but what do I know?)

^

This is basically correct. What they found was "thermitic material".

In particular, what they found was "red" and "gray" flakes of a substance with a high content of metallic oxides. In other words, most likely, paint.

Building 7 is the biggest mystery of the whole thing. It did NOT get hit by a jet with spilled jet fuel. It did, however, fall straight to the ground in the style of a controlled demolition. I have seen many buildings after they have had catastrophic fires. I have never seen one fall straight down.
If for some reason you havent checked this out, here is one site of many regarding what is, at minimum, a very strange collapse of WTC building 7. http://wtc7.net/

Building 7 is the biggest mystery of the whole thing. It did NOT get hit by a jet with spilled jet fuel.

It did, however, get hit by a falling skyscraper, gouging a huge hole in its south face, losing at least 4 full vertical support columns.

It did, however, fall straight to the ground in the style of a controlled demolition.

It fell slightly to the south, in different stages.. so not exactly like a controlled demolition.

I have never seen one fall straight down.

How many buildings have you seen fall down after having a skyscraper fall on top of them?

If for some reason you havent checked this out, here is one site of many regarding what is, at minimum, a very strange collapse of WTC building 7. http://wtc7.net/

Since we are sharing links, why not try this one: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/

The only two things that I am not sure about when it comes to 911 is the testimony of that janitor who was the last out of the building and the testimony of Norman Manetta.

Can you put my mind at ease? It's entirely possible that Rodriguez is lying for the publicity, but Manetta's testimony that Cheney was in the bunker and the stand down order was not even included in the official report (it says that cheney showed up at 10 instead of 930 when Manetta said), but maybe that's immaterial.

About the pentagon, I have heard some people say that it would not be possible for a jet to fly so close to a roadway without sending cars flying, is this true? (I would not have thought of this had I not just watched a mythbusters where they flipped a car with a jet engine from 100 ft. away). The other thing that is a bit fishy about the pentagon are the security cameras that the CIA confiscated and never returned, what are your thoughts on that.

Do you think that the Pop. Mech. explanation of building 7 is convincing, I guess I can believe that shoddy engineering + fire = collapse, but it's still a bit troubling.

What are your thoughts on Mike Ruppert? He says that 911 is an inside job, but believes that the collapses are possible without planted explosives. Personally, I believe that ignorance on the part of the security agencies and gov. officials is much more likely, but it's not impossible...

Sorry this started out as two questions and turned into 5.

The only two things that I am not sure about when it comes to 911 is the testimony of that janitor who was the last out of the building and the testimony of Norman Manetta.

You can add Norman Minetta to the list next to Able Danger for things I wish we had better answers. The only reasonable answer is that Minetta got mixed up and misheard Cheney's shoot-DOWN order and thought it was a stand-down order.

About the pentagon, I have heard some people say that it would not be possible for a jet to fly so close to a roadway without sending cars flying, is this true? (

A flying plane does not create this effect (only a stopped and anchored one). There is an island (forget the name) where you can literally stand under the plane as it lands a few feet away. Pretty awesome. No one goes flying.

The other thing that is a bit fishy about the pentagon are the security cameras that the CIA confiscated and never returned, what are your thoughts on that.

They were all eventually released and are in the public domain (search doubletree or citgo w/ pentagon video and see).

Do you think that the Pop. Mech. explanation of building 7 is convincing, I guess I can believe that shoddy engineering + fire = collapse, but it's still a bit troubling.

NISTs is better :)

I am one of the "rational" folks who think flight 93 may have been shot down.

The flight ran 45 minutes or so behind the others because of delay.

There may have been a call made from a bathroom indicating an explosion. See this article written by a federal law clerk at the time: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1001/1001flight93.htm This story was initially reported and later disappeared.

It would have been the right thing to do, but wouldn't have gone over well. Much like flying Bush to Nebraska instead of back to DC. And when that happened, the white house initially floated a ridiculous story that plausible threats had been made against Air Force One.

Rumsfeld's strange slip of the tongue saying the terrorists "shot down" 93: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

Evidence that makes me doubt 93 was shot down:

They did finally play the black box recordings to the relatives and release the transcripts.

Pop Mechanics says that seismographs indicated the plane was in tact when it hit the ground.

In Summary, I think that it is possible if the plane was shot down and the calls were made that "THEY" ;) would have been willing to take advantage of the calls' existence to float a more palatable story.

The black box gives me pause, though it is strange it took so long to release its contents.

I don't know if the seismograph refutes a shoot down. I think a jet liner could be damaged by a fighter enough to crash without breaking up. In fact, if the call from the bathroom is real, there was definitely some time between the explosion and losing contact-- so I think it is still plausible.

In the end I think it is about 50/50. I think even a rationalist with a strong skeptical bent should give the theory at least a 5-10% chance of being true. If you give it less than that, you may be blinded by your own biases as much as the "truthers."

We know from the NORAD tapes that no jets were even in the vicinty of flight 93 but we might suspect that was "faked" by the very people who shot it down. This conspiracy would require only air-force/NORAD/etc. involved. So this is probably not the best evidence.

Let me give you something better: The flight data recorder. The data is completely inconsistent with a shoot-down. That means the data must have been faked. Faking the raw FDR data is not as easy as you'd think. There are hordes of truthers who've spent hours looking for anomalies and found none (that are mildly compelling and not their own mistakes, anyway). This was found and handled by the NTSB and the FBI. That's quite a few more people involved.

As a general rule, the bigger I can make the conspiracy, the more absurd it becomes.

Reading these comments, I am shocked at how many conspiracy defenders there seem to be here. I guess Occam's razor is not as commonly accepted as I thought.

Question: Do you ever find people who accept and defend the pseudo-science explanations for 9/11, but simultaneously criticize the same behavior on other topics (evolution, global warming)?

Oh yes, constantly. In fact, almost always. Conspiracy theorists tend be fairly secular (my guess is generally because they end up as religious fanatics, not conspiracy theories, if they are not). That means they tend to despise creationists.

That's the reason I make constant analogies to creationism/evolution. I try to help them understand the analogies between their arguments and creationist arguments.

What do you make of the fact that the strain of anthrax used in the anthrax attacks came from a government laboratory?

INSIDE JOB!

Yes, I mean it. What other explanation is there? It appears that they were about to catch the guy, and then he committed suicide, leaving us with yet another perfect situation for conspiracy to spring.

That's some mighty bad security. Perhaps we should stop weaponizing anthrax and other germs altogether. You know, just to be on the safe side.

Fine by me.

Are you a government agent?

No, but thanks for asking.

Do you believe me?

Is it true that the EPA knew that the air at ground zero was harmful but didn't tell the public so that they could get the stock market up and running quickly?

To me, all the 9/11 conspiracies started after the planes hit the buildings

This falls under the "cover-your-ass" portion of the conspiracy world and is not something I've looked into extensively. There is almost certainly "coverrups" to be found when looking for people who are trying to hide negligence.

I'll be honest and punt on this, I don't really know much about the EPA's knowledge of health hazards after the collapse.

I haven't seen this question addressed here yet...I remember when 9/11 first happened tons of "it was a conspiracy!" videos were all over the web, and one in particular showed a picture of the hole in the pentagon that was completely round...do you have an explanation/clarification for this? I'm not a hater, this is just one element I always wanted to know more about.

Yup. The hole was in an internal ring of the pentagon (C-ring, I believe... where E ring was the outer ring). That hole was the engine going through that internal wall of the pentagon. Only the engines were big and sturdy enough to make it that far -- so that's why the hole is so nice and round. It was an aircraft engine flying solo.

See here.