Köszönöm, Norm.

Tökéletesen megértem.

Szia!

Thank whatever, that he holds these beliefs, I've respected him for most of my life, his pragmatism is so refreshing... yeah I know how that sounds. 9-11 conspiracy from the left is such a red herring. It seems groups are popping up everywhere disrupting hearings and the like with this topic and what does it serve? Are there unanswered questions, of course. Are there bigger fish to fry? Most definitely! I'd much rather have people question what ISN'T hidden and put our government on notice for it's foreign AND domestic policies. It reminds me of the bait and switch games of political intrigue; where you choose a topic of controversy to get people riled up which in the end has no political consequence. When all is said and done the masses have their opiate and you can continue to funnel money out of their pockets... how 'bout THAT for a conspiracy, I bet that's far more likely then Bush planning 9-11. -Chris

Get ready for a stream of nutball comments, 'cause you're probably gonna' get 'em!

yea Chomsky it DID leak.

Thousands of government officials have gone public. calling it a total inside job.

WTC7 free-fall and molten thermate residue, Chomsky.

Would you care to address that in a with your high and mighty fake academic rhetoric?

Chomsky apparently likes his nice MIT tenure more than the truth.

I agree with the idea that such an extensive plot couldn't have been kept secret, but for all his amazing ability to attend to detail, he sure avoids them here. What, for instance, happened to building seven?

I was also disturbed by his comment, "Anyway, who cares if it happened, what does it really matter?"

He says that in the midst of his general argument that attention to the possibility of a government-planned 9-11 is a diversion from more serious matters. But, surely, if the US government had planned 9-11, evidence of that would matter. Surely it would. It would be grounds for explusion from office. Just for starters.

Definetly well put: these conspiracy theories diverge us from the more important dialogue. You can change and flip flop evidence any way you like to make it look fishy. The truth of the matter is, it happened, we're stuck in a war. Let's talk about who we need to elect to make some real change.

This is more proof Chomsky is a part of the problem as explained in this article: http://100777.com/node/1425

One nutball c'mon up:) Firstly Noam's contention that this is a left wing cause is somewhat misleading. I've been listening to the Alex Jones show on and off for the last year and he is most definitely a right wing Christian. The difference is that he and most people that follow him dogmatically recognize that corporate empire has taken over BOTH parties and we've been left to fight about which gangster is better than the other. That said I'm a lefty that has real questions about 9-11 being part of a larger plan by those same interests. Do I think this admin is behind it? Maybe. I don't know... and neither do you. I'd say there is compelling evidence to investigate further. Start by reading David Ray Griffin's book: 'The New Pearl Harbor'.

I don't agree that we shouldn't care, something about human nature craves to know the truth.

Now, didn't the Bush administration get a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the united states" about a month before 9/11? I don't think there's a conspiracy, but i would think the people of the united states would be pretty fucking pissed at their leaders for not doing more to protect them.

Oh, Chris- grammar correction: ...far more likely THAN...

Did Noam Chomsky really just answer the question about whether elements of the U.S government were involved in 9/11 with "even if it were true, ...who cares, it doesn't have any significance"????

Wow.

No significance? Really??

I am speachless. Is he slipping in his old age?

It was also quite funny when his first line of defense for the Bush administration is that they would have to be "insane" to do it, I'm sure we all had a little chuckle at that one.

Anyone with half a brain can just look at the Twin Tower collapses and tell they are controlled demolitions. Noam is out of his mind. He is a linguist, not a physicist. I'm sure he has not seen the indisputable evidence, which makes me believe he has something to lose if the false flag is revealed and he does. Everything Noam has written since 9/11 assumes it was actually Arab blowback. If the truth comes out he will look like an idiot. He has an investment is keeping the truth hidden like many writers and journalists who jumped on the bandwagon prematurely. I know people are going to call me an antiSemite too but Noam is Jewish although he routinely denigrates Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians. Bill Maher is more overt in his support of Israel. Everything that Noam is saying couldn't happen in this video actualyl DID happen. He's saying it was too great of a chance. So what? So was Pearl Harbor. He says what if they missed the towers. They still would've killed thousands. The plane controls were overriden and steered remotely so they weren't going to miss anyway. The attacks themselves left all kinds of evidence. What they did do effectively, however, is get the media to start spouting the lie that the heat from the fires weakened th steel columns and frames, which it didn't because it wasn't hot enough. There is thermite in the basements. There are columns obviously cut as demolition angles and the list goes on. Come on people!!!!!!!!!! Al Qaeda couldn't have done that. They work for the CIA anyway.

Regardless of your feelings how can you even have an opinion when you haven't seen the real evidence, just the half-baked, unscientific dreck released by FEMA and NIST. NIST still hasn't even released their lies about WTC7 because they can't come up with any good ones. Bush and everyone that knew about this and participated is going to be tried and executed eventually. You cannot escape the truth. It continually haunts you. Now we know that Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, Oklahoma and many others were false flags. 9/11 will trump them all because we used it as a pretext for preemptive strikes on countries that had absolutely nothing to do with it. That's why those countries are mad at us. Our government killed our own citizens and blamed it on them. Now they are dying by the hundreds of thousands and Americans act like a few thousands soldiers is all that matters. America is doomed because we ingest any lie that the corporate controlled media feeds us.

"who cares" if it were true?

weird. He is saying even if it was our government, who cares? What difference does it make? So odd. Why would it not be important for the public to know our government killed our own people?

Im not siding with him or the Truthers. Its just odd that he seems to think it doesnt matter who did it. Wouldnt finding out 9/11 was a bunch of lies be one of the most important pieces of information of our time? It would get millions of zombie Americans to take notice in politics, it would revolutionize our society. People would call for radical reforms...

So odd to hear him say that. I would have never expected it, and I already knew Chomsky didn't agree with the 9/11 theories, i just wanted to see this video to see why he thought that.

To find out he just doesnt care... strange, just really really strange.

That was certainly one of the most convincing arguments against the "inside job" theories I've seen. When it gets addressed at all the "arguments" against are almost always of the "that's just ridiculous" flavor, dismissing the possibility out of hand. Clinton's "How dare you?" was useless, for example, because it was merely an accusation of irreverence, as though the hypothesis was invalid merely because of its lack of respect for government.

I think the biggest reason to consider the "inside job" in the first place is that it's difficult to imagine any event that benefited the Bush administration more, and therefore if, hypothetically, they could orchestrate 9/11 and get away with it, they probably would (this isn't evidence of course, but merely a motive that makes looking for evidence reasonable). Chomsky acknowledges this immediately, but then points out that it would be nearly impossible to get away with something that huge without leaks, and since the repercussions of being found out would be so huge, even relative to the potential gains, it's quite unlikely they would have risked it.

It seems to me this line of argument is more persuasive even than those that try to debunk the putative evidence directly, since, as Chomsky points out, the actual facts can be interpreted to support almost any hypothesis.

Chomsky also makes the excellent point that, regardless of what actually happened, there are plenty of much clearer reasons why the higher-ups in the Bush administration should be tried for treason and/or war crimes and/or any number of other things that, in a just world, would result in their being locked up forever.

Now if only ol' Noam would stick to politics and give up on defending his degenerating breed of linguistic theory.

George Carlin's answer to the same question is far more intellectually mature and insightful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pow5_UYKaJ8

"The consensus reality is often intentionally misleading,"

"The people who are in charge do what they want and they will always do what they want, power does what it wants to and I wouldn't trust an investigation,"

"Thousands of government officials have gone public. calling it a total inside job."

when you make a statement like this, you should provide references. otherwise you look even more paranoid than the ones referencing conspiracy books (which as we all know are rather loosely based on true facts).

Anyone with half a brain can just look at the Twin Tower collapses and tell they are controlled demolitions.<<

Sorry, but the side of brain I have has some structural, physics, and demolition knowlage, and it still tells me you people are stupid. Maybe it is that you dont really understand (or maybe it's that you dont want to understand) the work that goes into a typical "controlled demolition" that you uneducated wack-jobs keep referencing. Just stop bringing this up again and again after it has been soundly debunked by various data rich heavily researched computer recreations and input by REAL working engineers (not the flake University fringe). You wonder why we call you all wack-jobs, stupid, ect. ... dont you ever think they're are more solid accusations to throw at the Bush administration that you can stand behind?

"Thousands of government officials have gone public. calling it a total inside job."

start with http://wtc7.net and read hundreds of firefighter and police eyewitness accounts.

then try http://stj911.org and read former DOE physicist stephen jones' paper on the controlled demolitions

former bush administration economist morgan reynolds

google former head of the air force's 'star wars' strategic defense initiative, and nuclear and aeronautican engineer, colonel robert bowman.

mit engineer Jeff King

these are all government 'officials'

there are many more.

YOU do some searching. the info is readily available.

"No significance? Really??"

I think the point Noam is making is that what is important is the erosion of freedom and the wars justified erroneously. The toll post 9/11 is bigger then the toll that day. Fight the destuction of our freedom instead of developing theories that will never be proven and will just make those on the side of freedom look insane, stupid and irrelevant.

He doesn't translate his remarks into PC statements. Sometimes to his detriment.

Norm, thanks for posting this again. I have spent a bunch of time looking at CT stuff since they invaded the Bill Maher show. I came to the same conclusion Noam does. This is impossible, the motivation is never well explained and evidence is amateur conjecture fueled by all the video tape of so many people dieing.

I think the issue is poison for real dialog on the left and yet some people won't look at it from a neutral or even practical stance and let it go.

Noam captures it well.

"Anyone with half a brain can just look at the Twin Tower collapses and tell they are controlled demolitions."

Why? Because puffs of smoke come out of the windows as the floors pancake? I don't find this very convincing.

qbit: "Chomsky apparently likes his nice MIT tenure more than the truth."

George Thompson: "Anyone with half a brain can just look at the Twin Tower collapses and tell they are controlled demolitions."

I'm not in any position to rule out black ops involvement in the Trade Center attacks, but these comments are so groundless and blatantly paranoid that no rational thinker would ever want to be associated with them.

Seriously guys. If you must promote this theory, at least find a way that doesn't make us all look like nutjobs.

I find it infuriating that whenever the issue of "conspiracy theories" comes up, only the most extreme and sensational ones are discussed.

Noam rightly dismissed those theories, but what about a more legitimate one, that Bush was warned of an attack (see infamous "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US" memo) and did nothing - either willfully or through incompetence.

This is just as serious and immoral as any other conspiracy theory but rarely gets discussed, because the wackos suck up all of the oxygen.

I agree with Noam, this really doesn't matter. Far worse things have happened since 9/11 and continue happening today - the wars we wage, our polluting of the environment, the thousands of children that died from preventable diseases TODAY ALONE.

But remember, you don't care, I don't care, and together we won't do anything to stop these things from happening.

Chomsky is dead.

Science doesn't lie.

Regardless of your feelings how can you even have an opinion when you haven't seen the real evidence, just the half-baked, unscientific dreck released by FEMA and NIST.

Femanists are responsible for 9/11? This explains the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell theory.

Oh, and George, how's about you bring evidence next time.

Thanks.

hear hear

Do you have the rest of this? I'd like to see his response to the second question.

or rather the first question...

q: who killed Kennedy?

a: who cares. stop debating and deal with Vietnam.

Can we please stop talking about controlled explosions for ten seconds and think about a much simpler conspiracy.

Let's say I take the 911 commission report to heart and terrorists flew planes into the towers and the intense heat brought them down. Seems plausible. No really, I am being serious.

What is not plausible, however, is the hijackers passport being found in the rubble. I mean come on, the intense heat and all that.

So it does seem plausible that the passport was a plant. I think the conspiracy was placing the blame on the people they did and focusing America on the Muslim world. I think it was probably some piddly terrorist organization from some country we've never heard of in a part of the world without oil. An attack like that doesn't benefit anyone.

From the point of view that if the state functioned properly, an incident like this wouldn't have been possible to misuse for the purposes it has - of course there are more important issues. Basically, nothing could be more irrelevant than whether or not the Bush- administration planned it in that sense.

But on the other hand, since it's perfectly possible to make an argument detailing very well how the interest inside of the government in just turning the page and moving on was so prevalent. To the point where it became - as it has - a point to suggest all questioning of the official story is equivalent to stating it was an inside job.. that just raises questions.

So while I agree with Chomsky on that there are more likely explanations, and more important issues to spend time proving. It can't really be disregarded that there's a fairly obvious reason why the accusations against the government turns up.

And neither is it difficult to tie Chomsky's idea about how proving the "plot" is immaterial into looking at why, at this point, it's conceivable that it would be in the interest of those involved (not in the "plot", allright) with everything from air traffic control to foreign assassinations and from the military to the civil service, to keep quiet about any unfortunate questions they might have, and continue to act, basically, as political operatives.

Simply because there is no actual political alternative to it. And that's just how useless the american political system has become. No two different ways about that..

I have to agree with the people who say thsi was to big to cover up. I recently heard another good conspiracy theory about a secret city being built to manufacture some sort of secret weapon, employing thousands of people. They claim it was a secret for years. This thing about a Manhattan Project is pure conspiracy theory. A project of that size could never been done in secret.

Holy crap. I'm just blown away by the conspiracy whack-jobs.

I mean, sure it's inevitable that for any dramatic event like 9/11 (or JFK's assassination, Jesus' execution, etc.) you're gonna have some schizophrenic, paranoid freaks going on about how some unexpected secret society or group was "really" responsible.

But c'mon. This is getting a little too mainstream for my comfort zone. Anyone who's ever worked close to the top of a big corporate organization knows it's run by a bunch of human beings and human beings could never pull of a "secret project" of this magnitude, especially when they have a track record of being so totally inept in every other area. Or is their incompetence ALSO a ruse?

Yeah, and the Illuminati brought down the towers, Harry Potter teaches witchcraft, the logo for Proctor and Gamble is Satanic, and the telletubbies are all gay.

John Stossel is an ass for the record, but... "give me a break!"

"these are all government 'officials'

there are many more.

YOU do some searching. the info is readily available."

You implied that they leaked knowledge of an "inside job."

None of them do that.

Some cop says he heard an explosion and "it looked like a demolition" is not evidence of a govt conspiracy and in no way solid evidence of controlled demolition.

And to ask my favorite question of CT's

Why in gods name would they blow the world trade centers up twice?

Once with planes and then again with demolitions?

Why not blow them up once and call it a day?

Just one bomb?

They had no motivation to do it twice and there is no solid evidence that it was done. Explosions occur in burning skyscrapers. Get over yourself wingnut.

They had no motivation to do it twice and there is no solid evidence that it was done. Explosions occur in burning skyscrapers. Get over yourself wingnut.

See, that's what I'm talking about. "Buildings blow up, it happens, so there's no need to worry, everything's fine".

Really, there are so many more important things that are not explained away - by there being just about as much evidence for, as it is against an inside plot of some sort (say, by a group working relatively close to the government, who would benefit from the entirely predictable outcome) at this point.

While I respect Noam a great deal, he contradicts himself here. On the one hand he says that the consequences of it becoming public that 9/11 was an inside job would be the total destruction of the Republican party and Bush and co. lined up in front of a firing squad. Almost immediately afterward, he says it doesnt matter. Huh? Come again? If it doesn't matter then why should said negative consequences count as an argument against it being an inside job? If it matters so little, where is the deterrent he speaks of? Just a thought, but a government killing its own people in an elaborate set up as a pretext for war is a big fucking deal IMO.

Other than that, I agree that the CT crowd has a lot of work to do if they want to be taken seriously. Given what we have seen with this administration, incompetence is far more likely.

Not sure I followed on what you were saying about my comment

All right. So, there was no Bush- administration conspiracy to blow up the WTC to start a war. Now what?

Kudos to Reed77 for the precise explanation of Chomsky's point on "who cares?". Of COURSE that's what he meant. If anyone thinks otherwise they really are not on par with his level of discourse.

His argument on events or even science experiments having loads of unpredictable data is also one which is conveniently avoided by "nutters". In fact, they never EVER go near that argument - because it cannot be refuted - and it pulls the entire carpet from under the careful manufacturing process of the conspiracy ideas.

In fact, that is also the general tactics used in many other pseudo-scientific fields, new age religions and the like. Never admit how little you really know, just indicate that someone else is withholding evidence.

Noam makes little sense when he says it would matter nothing if the Bush administration were responsible for 9/11. With the amount of control they have over the military, they could easily execute another one to scare the country back into submission. We need to pluck out the roots from the "war on terror." The only way the average passive American will stand up to the atrocities on our liberties by our government is to be woken up through this rude awakening.

Noam speaks in complete generalities about the overwhelming amount of evidence. What we need is a debate between both sides on the specifics. People, search the evidence on the web, go on google video, read the books, get the real material specifics about the New Jersey and Pentagon plane crash and collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Stop the next war, maybe?

Organize - vote - protest - educate - repeat

Extraordinary claims require like evidence.

I haven't seen evidence compelling enough to buy into it, however I can say if there was a 9/11 black operation ("blackop"), aka inside job, there certainly wouldn't be documents sitting around entitled "How we did it" ala OJ.

Conspriracy; coindicence; its all human upon human violence ultimately.

Maybe Mr. Chomsky remembers that Bush benefited from 9/11, but completely glossed over the fact that any possible evidence was immediately removed by Bush's orders.

Sure. But how? Again, we come back to the reasons why the accusations turn up - the government secrecy, the lack of accountability, and their unnatural incompetence.

On the flipside, we have the overly high expectations from the public, the assertions of american invincibility, and the very common idea of using military power as a part of, or as a substitute for, a plan to spread peace.

And none of that goes away by "turning the page" on yet another national tragedy. (Even if the US certainly has a long tradition on that sort of thing.)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

It's fairly well-accepted that the time for the buildings to fall was too fast for any "pancaking" or "domino" theory to be credible. Super-high rise steel frame buildings don't collapse because of fire.

Whaddaya gonna do about it? I dunno. I just have my own personal issues, first. I like to have a world-view that is free of huge cognitive dissonance, as I'm sure Chomsky does too. So his attitude is, "yeah, well if they did it, it's hardly the worst thing they've done - so get over it and focus on the more worse things."

I dunno. Seems like it's pretty pivotal. I thought JFK was pretty pivotal too. Maybe he has his finger on the pulse of the ruling class power elite and knows that they'll never fess up to this and so chooses more winnable battles?

qbit, Reed77 already took up your points pretty well.

but in general, if YOU want US to believe something, its up to YOU to provide the evidence (not heckle people in public who are trying to have a debate or do a speech), not up to us to tackle anyones claims and get cracking on the research to find out if the person is a nutter or has a point. of course, funnily enough, youve exactly proved my point by only linking to conspiracy websites.

http://www.ae911truth.org/ As an Architect I laugh at what Noam has to say about these buildings (see the evidence at our website). As a taxpayer, I wince at the cost of the resulting war. As a person, I cringe at the loss of life and the liars and fools we have become. Look at the facts, photos, and use what little common sense you have left. Murder is murder Noam.

editor's note: another appeal to authority authorities disagree.

What about "Abel Danger"? I am surprised Chomsky has forgotten about this one. The question really should be change the system, yes we know these guys are criminals and if they were involved in 9-11 they won't mind bombing Iran with nuclear weapons.

Oh please. It is not fairly well accepted by anyone who HAS a brain that the time for the buildings to fall was too fast. Total nonsense made up from people who are completely unqualified to have a say in the matter. The didn't fall at free fall speed either. Just about anyone who watches the video of the collapse with an open mind can tell that. Notice the debris falling AHEAD of the tower coming down. Duh. And steel buildings DO collapse from fire. Steel doesn't have to melt. It only has to weaken. Those diagonal cuts in the steel (I saw the picture) were made by cutting torches AFTER the collapse morons. If they did supposedly plant thermite on enough steel beams to bring the buildings down, people who worked in the building would notice...because they would have to knock down walls to get to the steel beams. Steel beams in high rises aren't hidden in closets. They are walled over more often then not and the only way thermite would work correctly is if it was attached directly to the steel. How you conspiracy lunatics can have so much faith in some random website is beyond me. On topic-great answer by Chomsky.

wow, lot of crazy people posting on this personal opinion blog disguised as a political blog masquerading as a philosophy blog. I just come here for the videos. Please post more videos and less 'logical proof that religion isn't science' and other mindless banter

I'm curious. Can any of you 911 conspiracy nutters tell me why it would have been necessary to take down building 7 at all. Did it contain the records of the Illuminati, the Roswell alien cadavers, the JFK assassination proof? If so, why didn't they just fly a plane into that building too? And just to feed your paranoia: a certain Senator Truman was asking lots of oversight questions about the Manhattan Project spending until his curiosity was shut down by the Secretary of War Stimson.Surely you can find some comparable sub-committee question that you can use to turn a horseshoe into a Trojan horse. Last question: How many copies of Catcher in the Rye do you own?

Hey Peter G.-

I have a theory for this. The oporative word here is "theory." What if the plane in PA was supposed to hit wtc7? It was all wired to go and was part of the plan that went awry, so they said, what the hell - gullible people like Peter will buy a stupid fire theory, pull it anyway!

Why did they plan it's demise? It was a way of destroying a whole lot of evidence: Secret Service, CIA, NSA, the whole alphabet soup was in there. Apparently a lot of Enron data went down.

your neighborly nutter, g

I think a shredder would have been more economical. BTW I have been privately informed that building 7 also contained the outtakes and blooper reel for the fake moon landings. A shame since the blooper reel was supposed to have been spectacular.

Just for those who are interested:

Martin Sheen has now gone public questioning the events of 9/11

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/291007sheen.mp3

I figure since we're all going to see the establishment press attach him over the next week or so you might as well hear the interview first so you know what's coming.

I'm sure Norm will have a clip up of someone ripping Sheen apart for his questions in the next couple of days. However, I have to commend Norm...6 years later he's finally getting his feet wet with the recent 9/11 clips. Long gone are the days when one couldn't speak about the issue on their favorite political blog.

editor's note: This is apparently an appeal to authority Martin Sheen an authority?

geofh - are you an engineer, or do you just regurgitate what someone tells you? I've posted before about steel design and frame analysis, the real physical truth about how buildings are designed and how they fail. The buildings WT1, 2 and 7 collapsed because the columns failed. The columns failed because they were heated and weakened by fire. Because they were loaded columns, buckling and failure was almost instantaneous. The mass of the buildings falling into the lower floors overloaded the floor below the fire, and this continued until the buildings were in the ground. But you and the dreamers are content to be angry and ignorant about this, ad nauseum.

"fairly well-accepted"

Free fall speed? I don't accept that. The building did not fall at free fall speed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4 Count for yourself

So many assertions made without double checking for yourself.

Dear Bambino,

I sense you are psyops and I present your eyeball on a stick: ------0--

Oh, won't Poseiden have a fit!

Seriously, I am a physicist and I know whereof I speak. Regurgitation is the repetition of partially digested material. I suppose this is how you imagine the steel: partially heated and ready to spew! You may continue until you are in the ground; when Bambino meets Godzilla.

Peter G.-

Law enforcement can be dicey about shredding that kind of information. But if "terrists" demolish it, well, no fault.

Sound criticism of Chomsky from the left.

Truthmove.org

Money talks, and ethics walks.

I'm sure the govt is a bigger employer of MIT grads. Other professors who support the 9/11 truth movement have been fired. There's a good chance that MIT simply won't allow him to say what's true if he wants to keep his job.

Or else he's just an idiot.

editor's note: ad hominem

As someone who is mostly left, I'm ashamed that liberals would resort to conspiracy theories. IT HAPPENED, NO GOVERNMENT PLANNING...just move on. I really don't like this part of the left, it's as bad as people who believe in imaginary eyes up in the sky looking at you 24/7. As Noam said, people will take advantage of this tragedy...and looky it not just the neo-cons but the crazy leftist conspiracy theorists, million dollar industry in book deals I bet, and money from ads on websites too I bet.

I've entertained some of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists' arguments. My conclusion: utter nonsense based on hearsay, pseudo science, conjecture, wishful thinking, profit motive and just plain obsessiveness.

These 9/11 consipiracy theorists are pure fundamentalists. No matter how many top notch scientists debunk their ideas they remain unmoved in their beliefs. They instantly dismiss and denigrate any evidence which contradicts their faith.

Bizarre.

I witnessed the Twin Towers collapse with my naked eye from a high rise office building in Brooklyn. It happened just as reported.

Really guys -- all this 9/11 truth bullshit is getting old and tiring. Skeptic magazine published an entire issue last year to debunking these conspiracy theories, and I consider that article to be the (or one of the) definitive statements on the article. I highly suggest everyone seek it out (it's vol 4, 2006).

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol12n04.html

Seamus,

I would assume you can confirm that it was planes and not missiles?

Every time someone counters their "theories" they assume the CIA has gotten to them/

Noam Chomsky - Gotten

Popular Mechanics - Controlled

Insurance companies - complaint

Airlines -complicit

and on and on. it gets to the point where the only people not in on it are the truhers, except for the infultrators, whom propose deathrays and remote control planes and very insane ideas.

...so, congratulations to all voices of reason: fire is indeed hot, and up is not down.

Well done, geniuses. lol.

As a 9/11