# To the Two Loons
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [April 9, 2006, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934 "2006-04-09T07:50:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 13
### Author:  [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/241 "2006-04-12T08:02:25Z")
One quick question: These witnesses who say it looked like controlled demolition. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they’d seen controlled demolition before. Had they seen a building come down due to a plane crashing into it, so they’d know what to compare it to?
---
### Author:  [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/242 "2006-04-12T08:04:26Z")
You don’t understand the difference between objective and subjective, do you?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/243 "2006-04-12T08:05:41Z")
It needs to be mentioned too that the hijackers did not need to fight much because they all had seats in first class.
(I will always think that the wealth those guys showed opened many chances to them that were not available to other classes, it is a peeve of mine that airlines are attempting to give back to first class passengers perks like faster boarding with “elite” lines. I say “too bad!”, we should all have to pass trough the same security, otherwise we will forget an important lesson from 9/11)
---
### Author:  [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/244 "2006-04-12T08:06:31Z")
> [@Garfield226](#):
>
> You don’t understand the difference between objective and subjective, do you?
(directed to **Sent** obviously. . .)
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/245 "2006-04-12T08:10:47Z")
Speaking of seeing things with your eyes, Sent, feel free to cruise on over to [http://maps.google.com](http://maps.google.com) and enter _Arlington, VA_ in the search box. Now, do you happen to see that horking big five-sided structure? Now, cruise on over to [this site](http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/about.html) to learn just a tad about the size of the thing. Quoting from that site:
> [@](#):
>
> We hope this information will serve to eliminate some of the myths surrounding the Pentagon and give an appreciation of the size of the building.
Then click on that site’s link to Historic Facts and Figures. You’ll notice that the building itself covers **29 acres**.
Part of your “oh, nifty, the government did it and is telling us lies, lies, and more lies” malarkey is that it took some incredible amount of skill to hit the building. THE BUILDING COVERS 29 ACRES! I daresay it might’ve taken some incredible amount of skill to not hit the thing.
---
### Author:  [@Sent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sent)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/246 "2006-04-12T08:28:36Z")
> [@Monty](#):
>
> Part of your “oh, nifty, the government did it and is telling us lies, lies, and more lies” malarkey is that it took some incredible amount of skill to hit the building. THE BUILDING COVERS 29 ACRES! I daresay it might’ve taken some incredible amount of skill to not hit the thing.
I know how big the Pentagon is, I’ve been there. It was the maneuvers performed that are the problem, as well as the other “coincidences” like circling around so that a perfect approach to the only (very recently) reinforced side of the building could be made…rather tham aiming straight for Rumsfeld’s side where all the people were like any intelligent hijacker capable of pulling of these feats would have planned to do.
I’m telling you…Allah was really smiling down from heaven that day.
I haven’t seen any answers yet about the hydraulic press or the fire door.
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/247 "2006-04-12T08:35:15Z")
So, you’re aware of the size of the buildig and yet you buy into that bunk you’ve been spouting? Amazing, truly amazing.
What maneuvers were so amazing? Quite a few pilots are well-versed in how to circle.
As to “where all the people were”…good grief! If you were to divide the average IQ by the entire population of the planet, you’d still get a full 100 points higher than yours appears to be! Did you not look at the building while you were there? Did you not notice that it is made of concrete? Did you not notice that concrete has rebar? (Oh, yes, that’s right, you have already proven that you haven’t noticed that little fact.) Now, are you going to postulate some magical x-ray device that the hijackers used to see where the big wigs in the building happened to be at the very instant that they crashed into the Pentagon?
And this might be a minor thing to some, however, the way you’re using the term is really irritating. _Allah_ just means _God_. It is not the term for a particular deity different from the entity deified in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
---
### Author:  [@Sent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sent)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/248 "2006-04-12T08:47:09Z")
> [@Monty](#):
>
> Now, are you going to postulate some magical x-ray device that the hijackers used to see where the big wigs in the building happened to be at the very instant that they crashed into the Pentagon?
No x-ray device needed…this construction work was publicized in the media, and anyone who was going to case a target like the Pentagon in the months leading up to the attack would have seen for themselves the work going on. It would not have been difficult to find out where the Secretary of Defense’s office is located in the building either. It’s like hitting the White House but hitting the place where you are sure not to hurt the president. Rumsfeld also made a comment (I can find the source if you want) to a Pentagon worker after the WTC attack just before the Pentagon explosion that there was going to be another attack. How did he know that?
> [@](#):
>
> And this might be a minor thing to some, however, the way you’re using the term is really irritating. _Allah_ just means _God_. It is not the term for a particular deity different from the entity deified in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
It was sarcasm, intended to highlight the level of faith and superstition necessary to accept the official fairy tale.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/249 "2006-04-12T08:48:25Z")
> [@Sent](#):
>
> People seems to have an initial reaction…until they were told, much like with the MIB with their flashy things, a different story. No, you didn’t see what you saw, don’t believe your lying eyes.
No. People had impressions that they related according to things they had seen in the past (films of controlled demolitions). We have films of the actual collapse in which none of those “carefully controlled demolitions” appear–but the building does go “pop, pop, pop” as one floor after another is pancaked from above.
We have already addressed your claims of “flashes consistent with controlled demolition” and they are consistent only in your mind. What your linked video displayed was a number (not even a series) of flashes on the the _outside_ of the building that were scattered across multiple floors and winked on and out in random patterns. They are wholly inconsistent with a controlled implosion where the charges are set well inside the building (where flashes are almost never seen) and are all timed to go off in a specific order in a matter of just one to three seconds.
If there were actually “rings” of explosion flames “running around the building” during the collapse, why are they not visible on any of the dozens of films and videos that were taken during the collapses? Were these super magical explosions, visible only to the naked eye and completely invisible to any recording equipment? Of course, to someone below the buildings, it is entirely possible the the glass from the windows being blown out by compressed air might have appeared as flashes. But the films and videos clearly DO NOT reveal orange or green explosive flashes from each floor as the building collapses.
The “low level flashes” mentioned by Gregory and Evangelista might have had some significance if they were tied to a particular event. (Or they may not, possibly being phenomena occurring among the flaming rubble at the foot of the buildings.) However, since the comments have been stripped out of any context by the redactor, we have no idea what “low level” actually means (ground? 21st floor? 60th floor?) and we have no description of what they actually saw.
A fifty ton press “is gone.” What does that mean? Does it mean that it was obliterated by an explosion (even though the narrator makes no mention of pieces parts lying all over) or does it mean that it was knocked over and shoved into a corner where it was not easily seen in the half-light of a building suffering a power outage? Did the narrator actually take the time to walk around looking for the press or its pieces? (Not according to his story.) He came through a wrecked area and hurriedly noted where things were out of place. I’m sure this fills you with wonderment, but it sounds like every disaster I have ever read about. Your refusal to accept that a confined kerosene fireball actually IS an explosion is not my problem.
A 300 lb. fire door? That is not that impressive. It is a flat plane of between 180 and 280 square feet of metal that weighs little more than a large human like a line-backer. (As a fire door, it needs to refrain from conducting heat, it is not expected to stand up against explosions.)
---
### Author:  [@VegemiteMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VegemiteMoose)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/250 "2006-04-12T09:00:40Z")
(In reference to the eyewitness accounts of popping noises and explosions in Post #240)
**Sent** , just because people use what they’re familiar with to help describe some new thing they’ve experienced doesn’t make it THE TRUTH.
Haven’t you ever had people describe more innocous events to you and use phrases such as ‘It was like…’ or ‘You know how \_\_\_\_\_\_ is? It was kinda like that.’? To help them get across what they’re trying to say.
If I had been there (9-11 / NYC) and seen what had happened and someone asked me to describe it I would use the ‘building demolition’ comparison too, because it is the only thing I would be familiar with that was in the same frame of reference. It would not make me an expert or my comparison the truth.
Aaand on preview I see the indefatigable **tomndebb** has beat me to it.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/251 "2006-04-12T09:22:25Z")
**Sent** , what \*\*Garfield226 \*\* said.
For crying out loud, even CNN had a reporter saying an explosion had occurred on the other tower, but what the reporter missed (and TV viewers saw) was the other side of the building and the plane crashing into it. But I guess even if the reporter was shown to be mistaken during a live broadcast we should still use that mistake and continue to report an explosion with no plane involved? I don’t think so, and it shows how easy was to be mistaken in a disaster like that, there is a reason why they call it the fog of war **Sent**.
A close up of the first tower collapse shows the area were the collapse started, the thing bended just before it began to fall apart, no explosion was needed then.
[http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZR24kKaToio&search=world%20trade%20center%20collapse](http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZR24kKaToio&search=world%20trade%20center%20collapse)
And besides ignoring on purpose that the explosions reported by you are happening at different times, the idea that charges were applied to the bottom of the building would cause the building to begin the collapse at the bottom, that is not what happened:
[http://youtube.com/watch?v=AoTEEkF2GrA&search=WTC%20collapse](http://youtube.com/watch?v=AoTEEkF2GrA&search=WTC%20collapse)
And if there were charges, explain to me why all the people filming the close up footage looked UP to the collapse when the allegation has been that explosions are happening at the bottom? Any cameramen would have pointed to the explosions happening closer to them. And virtually all who managed to survive would have mentioned the charges going off at the same time at the bottom.
[http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hun-UzHNxO0&search=WTC%20collapse](http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hun-UzHNxO0&search=WTC%20collapse)
And, the documentary “9/11” has noise of the collapse getting louder while inside at the bottom of one of the towers, THIS WOULD NOT BE THE CASE IF CHARGES WERE GOING OFF AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OTHER BUILDING.
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/252 "2006-04-12T09:28:03Z")
> [@Sent](#):
>
> It was sarcasm, intended to highlight the level of faith and superstition necessary to accept the official fairy tale.
Fairy tale? The only fairy tales here are the ones you’re spouting. But, what they hey, let’s give it another go, shall we?
You have (it’s either _now_ or _again_, like it matters) asserted that the government is spinning a fairy tale about what happened on September 11, 2001. Do you care to provide some actual evidence to support that assertion?
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/253 "2006-04-12T10:49:47Z")
> [@Sent](#):
>
> Now PLEASE explain to me the physics of a fireball that not only travels a quarter-mile elevator shaft, but then proceeds to obliterate a 50-ton hydraulic press,
A fifty ton press does not weigh 50 tons. It means it can crush with 50 tons of pressure. The press itself [wouldn’t be that big.](http://www2.northerntool.com/product/475_475.htm)
---
### Author:  [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/254 "2006-04-12T15:07:08Z")
Why do I keep comming back in here??
Look **Sent** one of the key things your keep missing in all your posts isn’t just cites and proof. You seem to have alot of cites to back you up, from some smart people it would seem, and you have also presented what might be considered proof. And yet, nobody believes you…wonder why?
Because in the midst of all your cites, video, testimonies, you haven’t given one shred of an idea as to the WHY of it all! The current 9/11 “theory”, isn’t just believed because reputable authorities have said it happened that way. It is also believed because the reasons behind the whole thing FIT with what we saw, and know.
We know terrorists hate America, we know they tried to before to blow the WTC. We know they went to flight schools, but didn’t want to learn how to land. We have 911 calls from cell phones from people ON THE FLIGHT who gave us details as to who had hijacked them. And the government had pages of memos and notes telling them OBL was planning something big like this…I believe one even said “fly planes into buildings” (Jon Stewart mentions it all the time, I just dont remember the name of the memo).
So you see, if you want us to believe those puffs of smokes are bombs…stop showing us video of those puffs. It wont convince anyone. Show us something…anything…that would make us believe our own government would do this to us. And dont give me that pipeline crap…that has been debunked thourghly. And don’t tells us for money or power. If people in our government actually planed this, and pulled it off without getting caught…they have PLENTY of money and power.
Give us something, anything, that is a believable reason why our government (americans I might remind you) would do this. If you can do that, maybe people would see bomb puffs of smoke, instead of puffs of smoke from the “pancake effect”.
And let me say again…I give you a big thumbs up for fighting the good fight here, and not backing down. Just give us a reason, and maybe all your time here might not be wasted.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/255 "2006-04-12T16:45:48Z")
> [@Sent](#):
>
> Now PLEASE explain to me the physics of a fireball that not only travels a quarter-mile elevator shaft, but then proceeds to obliterate a 50-ton hydraulic press, wrinkle up a 300-pound fire door like a piece of aluminum!
I already did: [list=#]Falling elevators.[li] Low pressure built up behind said falling elevators.[_]Vacuum effect created by said low pressure built up behind said falling elevators.[_]Fireball sucked into the vacuum effect created by said low pressure built up behind said falling elevators.[/list] As for the press and the door: [/li][quote=tomndebb]
A fifty ton press “is gone.” What does that mean? Does it mean that it was obliterated by an explosion (even though the narrator makes no mention of pieces parts lying all over) or does it mean that it was knocked over and shoved into a corner where it was not easily seen in the half-light of a building suffering a power outage? Did the narrator actually take the time to walk around looking for the press or its pieces? (Not according to his story.) He came through a wrecked area and hurriedly noted where things were out of place. I’m sure this fills you with wonderment, but it sounds like every disaster I have ever read about. Your refusal to accept that a confined kerosene fireball actually IS an explosion is not my problem.
A 300 lb. fire door? That is not that impressive. It is a flat plane of between 180 and 280 square feet of metal that weighs little more than a large human like a line-backer. (As a fire door, it needs to refrain from conducting heat, it is not expected to stand up against explosions.)
[/quote]
---
### Author:  [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/256 "2006-04-12T17:01:22Z")
What Dob said. That’s why the [15 points](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7268133&postcount=186) are important. Not in themselves, but as a way of getting at the question of whether the 9/11 theory is coherent.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/257 "2006-04-12T17:26:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> You believe _that_ to be a good set of questions and theories? You have read and absorbed it and failed to notice how it stacked the deck? It has three separate theories in which the hijackers are on board the plane (with separate ways to take control), yet it loads all the objections to security issues and the means of navigation, etc. into the first scenario and (deliberately?) fails to repeat those same objections in subsequent scenarios where they continue to apply. Claiming that the official version has “the most cons” is simply a lie. Just to address a couple of the issues:
> i) is bullshit, pure and simple. The weight of the plane would have made the lightpoles an insignificant issue. The fence would also have been no problem. There was no “subtly adjusting altitude”: the guy bounced it in off the lawn, hitting whatever was in the way.
> j) is irrelevant as several of the hijackers were using stolen or forged IDs.
> k) is misleading (to the point of raw dishonesty). The passengers and crew of the plane were identified by DNA supplied by relatives. The FBI never claimed to have identified the specific bodies of each hijacker, but noted that there were five bodies whose DNA matched none of trhe DNA supplied by the families. So (k) states an obvious fact as if it were some great revelatory discrepancy.
> [@](#):
>
> a) The complex plot was never discovered.
The conspiracists’ view requires an _even more complex plot_, which has yet to be discovered. Besides, how could a plot be discovered if the only ones in this country who really knew about the plot were killed while carrying it out?
> [@](#):
>
> b) Hani Hanjour was denied the rental of a Cessna 172 after evaluation by a certified flight instructor 3 ½ weeks prior to 9/11 because of poor flying skills.
He knew enough to fly but not land. Learning to land was of no concern.
> [@](#):
>
> b) How did 19 Arab hijackers get past security on four flights at three separate international airports with knives, box cutters, mace and bombs according to the 9/11 Commission report?
Huh? Even _after_ 9/11 it’s still ridiculously easy to get stuff past security if somoene is determined enough.
> [@](#):
>
> c) How was he able to navigate from the Ohio/Kentucky border and locate the Pentagon despite never having flown a 757-200?
They allegedly took the same flights a couple of weeks prior to 9/11, made observations out the window, and took notes. The Pentagon is a huge building and is not difficult to spot from the air (unlike the White House). What does not having flown a 757-200 have to do with anything?
> [@](#):
>
> d) Why were there no interceptor aircraft dispatched as he violated the most secure airspace in the United States?
They were all grounded.
> [@](#):
>
> e) Why did he pass the unprotected White House and the front of the Pentagon which would have caused catastrophic damage and where high-level officials had their offices?
He couldn’t _find_ the White House from the air but could find the vastly much larger Pentagon.
> [@](#):
>
> f) How did he perform a 270 degree turn with a 7000 foot altitude drop with military precision and bring the aircraft under control to remain just off the lawn, yet place a 12 foot diameter fuselage between floors 1 and 2 of the Pentagon which is only 14 feet?
He didn’t. He _hit_ the lawn in the vicinity of the helipad.
> [@](#):
>
> g) Why did he target the only section of the Pentagon that had just been reinforced with blast-resistant features and was the least populated area of the Pentagon?
That’s the only side with a reasonably clear approach. NW? The hilly Fort Meyer & Arlington Cemetary. N & NE? The Potomac River and numerous highway structures. SE? The Potomac River and problems with air traffic in & out of Reagan National Airport SW? All the highrises in Crystal City and a 200-foot high highway interchange. W? Mainly low-rise buildings and Columbia Pike. All he had to do was clear the Columbia Pike & Washington Boulevard interchange.
> [@](#):
>
> h) Why did he select the only wedge of the Pentagon that had physical obstacles in the flight path and required a last second altitude change to level out in order to strike between floors? The other 4 sides of the building had no obstructions, no elevation change, were more populated and hadn’t been renovated with blast-resistant features.
Excuse me, what? NW? Elevation change. N? Several highway interchanges–Virginia Route 27, Virginia Route 110, The George Washington Parkway, and Memorial Bridge. NE? Virginia Route 110 and an elevation change. SE? The Pentagon’s commuter bus terminal and a major highway interchange. SW? The same major highway interchange.
> [@](#):
>
> m) The minimal 757 evidence at the Pentagon is problematic.
How so? What should one expect to find when a 757 hits a thick concrete wall at ~500 mph?
---
### Author:  [@Sent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sent)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/258 "2006-04-12T18:51:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> [http://www.northerntool.com/images/product/images/145550\_lg.jpg](http://www.northerntool.com/images/product/images/145550_lg.jpg)
Indeed…it is a hydraulic press, I’ve used them as well. I think the implication of the testimony was clearly that it is destroyed…he also says that the basement parking lot was “gone”…what do you take that to mean? Fireball did that too, eh? How would a fireball coming down a quarter-mile elevator shaft, even with explosive force, throw the kind of press you see in the picture so far that he could not find it unless it were situated directly in front of the elevator door? Doesn’t make sense. That is why we need to have a **real** investigation which includes all these witnesses and does not have conflicts of interest such as the 9/11 Commission did.
Also, as to the basement, I think there were explosions there well before the collapse designed to weaken the structure to aid in the collapse later. You can hear many explosions going on at various times in a video you probably haven’t seen that chronicles most of the time from after the second plane hit to the collapses. This video is taken from across the river at the docks in Jersey City, and it takes into account the time that it would have taken the sound to travel that distance. I suggest you watch it. BTW, I ignore the suggestions in the video that helicopters detonated the explosives…doesn’t seem necessary to me.
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness)
It’s much better to see and hear clearly if you have the DVD however.
[http://www.911eyewitness.com/](http://www.911eyewitness.com/)
> [@Dob](#):
>
> The current 9/11 “theory”, isn’t just believed because reputable authorities have said it happened that way.
I say that is the ONLY reason anybody has believed it for so long, because they just don’t question it enough and ignore all the large set of anomalies and bizarre coincidences that remain if you accept that theory.
> [@](#):
>
> It is also believed because the reasons behind the whole thing FIT with what we saw, and know.
Many would disagree, especially the people who were there.
> [@](#):
>
> We know terrorists hate America
A one-liner used to explain away all discrepancies in the official story.
> [@](#):
>
> we know they tried to before to blow the WTC.
With a little help from the [FBI.](http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html) .
> [@](#):
>
> We have 911 calls from cell phones from people ON THE FLIGHT who gave us details as to who had hijacked them.
Easily faked through coercion or with voice morphing technology available since 1999…not certain they were, but it is possible.
“Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham.” What son calls their mother and uses their last name? So many anomalies that day.
> [@](#):
>
> And the government had pages of memos and notes telling them OBL was planning something big like this…I believe one even said “fly planes into buildings” (Jon Stewart mentions it all the time, I just dont remember the name of the memo).
Yet although John Ashcroft cancelled his flight plans in preceding months for safety reasons they didn’t bother to \*[warn anybody else](http://www.oilempire.us/warnings.html) \*. Don’t you find that slightly odd?
> [@](#):
>
> Give us something, anything, that is a believable reason why our government (americans I might remind you) would do this.
Though there are many possible motives and many who benefited greatly from the attacks of 9/11, here is what I wrote as a possible introductory set of court-room questions:
1. Is it not a fact that in a significant 2000 document entitled entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” written by a neoconservative think tank known as the Project for a New American Century, whose signatories or contributing writers included Richard Cheney and other key figures of the Bush administration, a call was made for a transformation of America which would be a long and difficult process absent a “catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor”?
2. Is it not a fact that in a highly relevant June 1, 2001 Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction all authority to shoot down commercial aircraft at the discretion of field commanders was for the first time transferred to the Secretary of Defense, who then transferred this authority solely to one Richard Cheney on the morning of September 11, 2001?
3. Is it not a fact that by the official account of the events of the morning of September 11, 2001, the most sophisticated air defense system in the world designed to detect and defend against multiple and simultaneous attack by enemy military aircraft failed to prevent a single commercial aircraft from a direct impact with the symbol of American military might, all while under the direct control of one Richard Cheney, who during the time when this aircraft was only 10 miles away and when asked if “the orders still stand” replied with the statement, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”
4. Is it not a fact that by the official account of the events of September 11, 2001, 3 steel-frame buildings totally collapsed in a manner previously known to occur only under the conditions of controlled demolition, including a 47-story structure that was not hit by an aircraft, and that this was this first time in the 100-year history of steel-framed buildings that any tall steel-framed buildings have ever completely collapsed absent demolition charges?
5. Is it not a fact that the events of September 11, 2001 resulted in the enactment of the plans envisioned by the Project for the New American Century, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq planned previous to 2001?
So at the very least you could say that the dreams and the transformation laid out in Rebuilding America’s Defenses were nowhere near happening on Sept. 10, 2001 because these goals simply did not have the support of the American people. 9/11 was a way to manufacture this consent and give everyone who supported these general goals of imperialism most everything they wanted but couldn’t get before. Rarely has there ever been a greater, more compelling motive to either let the attacks happen or make them happen. It seems to me, as David Shayler says, that when the stakes are that high you would want to make sure you are in direct control of the operation yourself, rather than leave it up to chance or the whims of a few Arab hijackers.
---
### Author:  [@Fat\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fat_Chance)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/259 "2006-04-12T18:52:29Z")
> [@Sent](#):
>
> Here is the team of physics911 who you allege to be “crazy conspiracy theorists”.
>
> Robert Ballan
> Norwood, NY, USA
>
> MSc & JD: Clarkson College
> Chemistry & Law
Lets just start with the first person on your list, because being a Clarkson University graduate (it was last called Clarskson College in the mid 80’s I think), I just about had a heart attack when I see that one of the psycho CTers is teaching at my school.
Well, upon quick further research, he is not a member of the faculty. Its possible that he earned his MSc at Clarkson, but certainly not his Law degree as that has never been offered there. He is, in fact, a practicing lawyer in the Norwood/Postdam, NY area. How being a small town lawyer and earning an Masters in Chemistry 20 years ago makes you an expert “scholar” on anything related to 9?11 is beyong me…
I have an MBA from Clarkson, can I get on a list of “Scholars” that believe the official theory of 9/11?
---
### Author:  [@Sent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sent)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/260 "2006-04-12T19:31:33Z")
> [@Fat Chance](#):
>
> psycho CTers
This label no longer works…as all of you here are actually Conspiracy Theorists who believe in an astounding tale of conspiracy involving 19 Arabs, many of whom are [still alive!](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm)
Someone else has coined a phrase that might also be appropriate for you CTers on this forum, [“Coincidence Theorists”.](http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/coincidence_theorist.htm)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934.md?page=12)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934.md?page=14)