Former Libertarian VP Candidate Art Olivier Calls for New Approach to 9/11

This letter was sent to me by Art Olivier for the purpose of posting it here on IPR.

Discussing foreign policy at Case Western University during the 2000 presidential campaign, I said, “It is not a question of if America would suffer a major terrorist attack because of our intervention in foreign affairs, but when we would be hit.” So when I first heard the slogan after 9/11 “they hate us for our freedom” it sounded absurd. To many Libertarians, Harry Browne and myself included, “they” hated us for our aggressive interventionist foreign policy.

But if “they” did hate us for our freedom, it seems that “they” have been successful in taking it away. Every time we go through a TSA checkpoint, we are reminded that this country is less free today than it was ten years ago. Government can now conduct secret searches and wiretaps in our homes without showing “probable cause,” and we can be jailed indefinitely without a formal charge and without the right to confront the witnesses or evidence against us. And it seems that “they” have gotten us into endless wars.

How were “they” able to take away our freedoms? Before that question is answered, we need to know who “they” are. Since explosions were going off in World Trade Center Building 7 before the Twin Towers came down, “they” had to have had access to the building which housed the IRS, the Secret Service, the CIA, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Office of Emergency Management to place the explosives.

Surely Muslim terrorists did not have access to place the explosives in such a sensitive building, nor are they enforcing the USA Patriot Act. “They” had to have had permission to enter the building from the government agencies that are supposed to protect us.

It has been a decade since the 9/11 attacks; it is time to overcome the conflicting emotions that were stirred up on that tragic day and realize that it was not some guy in a far-away cave that crashed those airplanes and blew up those buildings.

The evidence that people in high levels of the Federal government planned, executed and are continuing to cover-up the 9/11 attacks is overwhelming. There are eyewitnesses, whistleblowers, pictures, videos and scientific evidence. The only thing missing, and this is what many people have had a hard time accepting, is media coverage of the evidence. For me, it was not that difficult to understand how the corrupt the media can be as I witnessed it first hand when I was the mayor. The local papers would routinely put out misleading hit-pieces on me to benefit my corrupt political opponents and would not report on their crooked deals.

This is not the first time in American history that the American people were tricked in to going to war. Emotions were stirred before WWI when the Germans sunk a passenger ocean liner and again before WWII by a sneak attack by the Japanese.

It took generations for the proof to be uncovered. In 2008, divers found out that the Lusitania’s hull was packed full of ammunition in route to England. In 1995, the Eight Action Memo to get the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor was discovered. Fortunately, we do not have to wait generations to find out the truth about 9/11.

Some people that have watched the destruction of the 47-story Building 7 surmise that they do not have the technical knowledge to determine whether or not a modern skyscraper can collapse into its own footprint at freefall speed because of an office fire. For them, I suggest that they look at the crash site of Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA.

Local reporters walked the crash site on 9/11 and reported, “there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.” The official story is that the 150’ 757 buried most of itself under the ground, not even disturbing some on the weeds above it, while other parts bounced up and landed miles away, leaving no debris on the surface of the crash site.

Don’t take my word for it, or anyone’s word; there is so much misinformation regarding 9/11, look at the evidence yourself. If you see a 47-story building destroyed by fire and you see a 757 in that field in Shanksville, clearly I am mistaken. But if you see a controlled demolition and an empty field, it is incumbent of you and every Libertarian to research the facts and to tell the truth to others of what you know about what did and did not happen on September 11, 2001.

There are some members of the party that argue that we will be subject to ridicule from those that are committed to the government’s story about 9/11. Our founding fathers pledged their lives to give us this republic; we should be able to withstand some name-calling to keep it. The LP cannot effectively oppose the wars and our loss of liberty and at the same time ignore the catalyst for those actions.

There are millions of Americans that know 9/11 was an inside job. They clearly understand that big government does not benefit the governed. Many of these people are politically active and would naturally be attracted to the Libertarian Party if we spoke the truth about 9/11.

Libertarians should never shy away from the truth. A political party without principal is just another tool of the Establishment.

Art Olivier
’98-’99 Mayor of Bellflower, CA
2000 Libertarian VP Candidate
2006 Libertarian Candidate for CA Governor

112 thoughts on “Former Libertarian VP Candidate Art Olivier Calls for New Approach to 9/11

  1. Pingback: Art Olivier Calls for New Approach to 9/11 | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  2. Robert Capozzi

    ao: There are millions of Americans that know 9/11 was an inside job. … Libertarians should never shy away from the truth.

    me: Shying away from the truth seems like a bad idea, I agree. It’s simply not the case that “millions” “know” 9/11 was an inside job. They may “believe” that. They may have “suspicions.”

    Check your premises.

  3. RedPhillips

    I’m not a 9/11 truther, but I’m also not a conspiracy phobic. Conspiracy theorists are always going to be part of any far-left or far-right outside the mainstream coalition so we should just recognize that. But I have to admit that I get a kick out of high profile libertarians openly espousing 9/11 truthism because I know it makes proper Blue America libertarians like Phillies squirm.

  4. paulie

    it makes proper Blue America libertarians like Phillies squirm.

    Also, some Red (State Fasc..) America “Libertarian Republicans”… 🙂

  5. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    rc @ 2: I will agree with Art that “millions” is a proper term. Most of us who have done research “know” without a doubt that we’ve been lied to–big time. Beyond that, it’s hard to be certain of anything–hence the need for a new, genuine investigation.

  6. FAN of Dr. STAN

    “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” – Ron Paul

    Vietnam – Gulf of Tonkin LIE ! Could be added.

    Art speaks of Building 7 not the Twin Towers. You MUSHROOM “kooks” explain the (un-hit) #7 collapse to the rest of the masses !!

    Bravo Art ! Can we take this as a semi-endorsement of DUENSING 2012 ?

    Question authority EVERYDAY !!!

    >

    Bringing you the Story behind the Story, the News behind the News. Hoping to convince you that reality is usually scoffed at and illusion is usually king, but in the battle for the survival of Western civilization it will be reality and not illusion or delusion that will determine what the future will bring.

    Listen on the web at:
    Radio Liberty
    it is hosted by Dr. Stanley Monteith.
    http://www.radioliberty.com/

    Radio Liberty Archives- http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/radioLiberty/archives.php

    The T-REX of political talk
    LISTEN 24/7 ANYTIME-
    http://www.infowars.com/listen.html

    The Alex Jones Show Archives: http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/alexJones/archives.php

    STOP eating the horse%#)T the corporate controlled media daily feeds you !!! THINK for yourself …

  7. Robert Capozzi

    7 jp, aside from hermits, pretty everyone is lied to every day, and we all know that, at least on some level. Hermits probably lie to themselves!

    AO seems to want the LP to become the Truther party. There, I disagree. I certainly lose interest.

  8. FAN of Dr. STAN

    The Lt. even has DOUBTS !

    Dennis Morrisseau: The Towers- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3FiXMt2V3w&feature=related

    >

    “America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.” – Ron Paul

  9. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    rc @ 9: “AO seems to want the LP to become the Truther party”.

    Aren’t you exaggerating a bit? Art is simply asking those in the party to take a look into the matter.

    Considering how much that day has altered our lives here as Americans (the atrocious Patriot Act, TSA’s radiation machines, for example), and the lives of many of those in Iraq and Afghanistan (injuries, death, destruction of homes), knowing what happened seems imperative. I don’t get why Libertarians, who often don’t believe anything the government says, choose to believe the ridiculous fairy tale put out by Bush and company.

    C’mon, 19 boxcutters? Just how wimpy were all those men in those 4 planes?

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill @11,

    You write:

    “Art is simply asking those in the party to take a look into the matter. ”

    That doesn’t seem to be his angle.

    He asserts an objective “truth” for which not so much as an iota of evidence has emerged in the nearly 10 years since the incident in question, and seems to be urging the LP to seek the votes of the “millions” who “know” this as yet unproven — or even supported with any evidence at all — “truth.”

  11. paulie

    That doesn’t seem to be his angle.

    He asserts an objective “truth”

    I agree that he goes beyond merely asking questions.

    He asserts an objective “truth” for which not so much as an iota of evidence has emerged in the nearly 10 years since the incident in question, and seems to be urging the LP to seek the votes of the “millions” who “know” this as yet unproven — or even supported with any evidence at all — “truth.”

    For an article of this length, he does present several arguments based on evidence. You can argue that he does not make a good case, or that his assertions are false, or that some other explanation exists for the things he mentions (for example, the physical evidence from Flight 93, among other things).

    Personally, I’m more inclined to ask questions than to provide answers on this, so I’m not interested in playing the role of prosecutor, but it seems pretty clear to me that his argument is based on a variety of different types of evidence – motive, opportunity, etc. Obviously, none are laid out in great detail, as it is a short column, not a book or journal article. But saying no evidence is offered seems inaccurate,

  12. Robert Capozzi

    11 jp, I second TK. AO sez: “The LP cannot effectively oppose the wars and our loss of liberty and at the same time ignore the catalyst for those actions.”

    If he said “The LP should not….” he’d be advocating. Instead, he is dictating.

    I don’t appreciate being told what to think. You?

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @14,

    You write:

    “For an article of this length, he does present several arguments based on evidence.”

    Such as?

    He implies evidence with regard to WTC-7 (“whether or not a modern skyscraper can collapse into its own footprint at freefall speed because of an office fire”), but the only real question is whether he’s being knowingly false in those implications, or just monumentally ignorant of the facts and incredibly bad at math, since:

    1) The collapse of WTC-7 visibly occurred over a period of more than three hours, which is nowhere near “freefall speed;” and

    2) In addition to the “office fire,” there’s the small matter of 25% of the building’s volume over a height of eight floors having been visibly gouged out.

    So his “evidence” is either “shit I made up because it sounds good,” or “shit that I believe because I can’t be bothered to look at the video documentation or pick up a fucking calculator.”

  14. paulie

    AO sez: “The LP cannot effectively oppose the wars and our loss of liberty and at the same time ignore the catalyst for those actions.”

    If he said “The LP should not….” he’d be advocating. Instead, he is dictating.

    I don’t appreciate being told what to think. You?

    I take the word effectively to be the key there.

    His argument as I understand it is that our opposition to current US land wars in Asia and loss of civil liberties in the war on terror is ineffective if we don’t address the main event that provided a catalyst for them.

    Personally, I’m more inclined to believe that regardless of who carried out the attacks, or knew or didn’t know about them ahead of time, the resulting wars, erosions of personal liberty and mounting national debt are in no way justified, and that our focus should be on opposing these policies.

    However, I do think that the question is an interesting one that deserves further exploration, and that there should be a new independent investigation with access to records and subpoena power. I don’t think that it would hurt the LP if Libertarian candidates or party chapters go on record calling for one. If anything, I believe it would help.

  15. paulie

    Such as?

    Start with his points about Flight 93, then proceed through other things he says in the article. WTC-7 is clearly not his sole focus.

    Hopefully he will come on here to provide more details about that and the other things he alludes to.

    As I said, I’m not interested in the prosecutor’s role myself.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    17 p, thanks. “Effectively” is the issue. Ill put on my part.

    It’s AO’s opinion that the LP or anyone will not be effective unless “the catalyst” (the 9/11 truth) is not ignored. I don’t agree with his opinion. I do agree with him that IF 9/11 truth could be proven somehow, that might wake a lot of people up. I don’t think, however, that a 9/11 truth smoking gun is necessary to wake people up. And I still don’t appreciate being dictated to. 😉

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 18,

    You write:

    “Start with his points about Flight 93”

    His only “point” about Flight 93 is that local reporters apparently didn’t know what the debris field of a crashed airliner looks like. That’s not evidence of anything except the possibility that local Pennsylvania reporters didn’t know what the debris field of a crashed airliner looked like.

    Oh, wait — local reporters didn’t know what the debris field of a crashed airliner looked like because THE BUSHCHENEYILLUMINATI KIDNAPPED THEM, PUT THEM IN A TIME MACHINE, AND ERASED THEIR MEMORIES OF WHAT DEBRIS FIELDS LOOK LIKE! ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER! OMIGODOMIGOD IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN AN INSIDE JOB OMIGOD!!!!!!!!!!!

    Evidence is, um, evidence, not just any paranoid bullshit that you happen to make up or believe because someone else made it up.

  18. George Phillies

    The World Trade Towers did fall at about one gee. That’s because there is this local field called “gravity” that causes them to do so.

    The important truth about 9/11 related to this is that the internet allows vast numbers of paranoids, psychotics, monors, and yahoos to flibber flabber, based on their mistaken belief that because they have freedom of speech their opinions are with as much as the large number of structural and firesafety engineers who did a careful refereed investigation of the matter, finding that the collapse of the building was well understood in terms of detailed engineering calculations.

    A successful National Libertarian Party would carefully disassociate itself from the conspiracy crackpots.

  19. Art Olivier

    Those who are emotionally attached to the government’s story feel a need to use profanity to make their point. Even Mr. Phillies, whom I have met on a few occasions and have always been cordial to, resorts to sophomoric name-calling. Although I know that these people will always seek information to reinforce their beliefs and any subsequent information is just “flibber flabber,” I will address some of the misinformation that has been posted.

    Someone said that Building 7 did not collapse at freefall. Even the government admits that for 2.25 seconds, the building fell at freefall acceleration. I suppose if you started the calculations when the explosions began before the Twin Towers collapsed, it does not come close to freefall. But when the main part of the building (not including the penthouse) began to collapse, it took about 6 seconds; about the same time it would take for a bowling ball to drop from the top of a 47-story building. If one believes that the building was structurally compromised by being “gouged out” on one side, then the building would have fell to that side, not into its own footprint.

    The argument for why local reporters and photographers could not find any debris in the empty field that was the official crash site is because “local Pennsylvania reporters didn’t know what the debris field of a crashed airliner looked like” is astonishing to say the least. They would have taken a picture of any part of the plane if there had been a plane that had crashed there.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    George @ 21,

    You write:

    “The World Trade Towers did fall at about one gee. That’s because there is this local field called ‘gravity’ that causes them to do so.”

    True enough.

    However, WTC7 didn’t fall at about one gee, because it there were significant factors or resistance to gravity involved.

    With 25% of ten floors on one face gouged out by degree from the towers, several support trusses failed completely, shifting massive amounts of weight to the remaining trusses.

    A bulge near the top of one corner of the building signaled the beginning of the collapse at about 2pm.

    The collapse completed about 5:20pm.

    I’m not a physicist, but even I know that an average speed of 17 millimeters per second isn’t anything close to terminal velocity.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Art @ 23,

    You write:

    “The argument for why local reporters and photographers could not find any debris in the empty field that was the official crash site is because ‘local Pennsylvania reporters didn’t know what the debris field of a crashed airliner looked like’ is astonishing to say the least. They would have taken a picture of any part of the plane if there had been a plane that had crashed there.”

    You mean like this picture? Or perhaps this one?

    “If one believes that the building was structurally compromised by being ‘gouged out’ on one side, then the building would have fell to that side, not into its own footprint.”

    In the fantasies of someone who knows nothing whatsoever about weight-shifting trusses, perhaps. In the real world, WTC-7 collapsed “into its own footprint,” but it did not do so symmetrically. It did so in a semi-spiral as building supports collapsed and weight was shifted to other supports which then collapsed, etc.

    “Those who are emotionally attached to the government’s story”

    I’m not attached to the government’s story, emotionally or otherwise. That doesn’t mean that I will blindly accept alternative stories for which even less evidence exists.

  22. Curious

    Who is Art Olivier?

    Why doesn’t the emotionally overwrought Thomas L. Knapp know what the debris field of a crashed airliner looks like?

  23. AllYourStoneSoupAreBelongToUs

    “The LP cannot effectively oppose the wars and our loss of liberty and at the same time ignore the catalyst for those actions.”

    But it can effectively oppose those who try to remove a sociopathic, multiple-conviction child molester from the organization.

  24. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m much busier than usual at work today, so I haven’t had-still don’t have time to follow this thread. I must say, though, that those two photos Thomas Knapp found on that completely reliable source, Wikipedia, are laughable. The first photo, to me, looks like it has been weathered, and that there’s growth around it. Thirty seconds of googling, and I found this site: http://stj911.org/evidence/flight93.html

    Thoses photos look more authentic to me, and they do NOT look like a plane crashed there.

  25. Jill Pyeatt

    Dr. Phillies @ 21: I’m also surprised by your
    name-calling. I would have thought you would be above that type of childish, non-productive behavior.

  26. Art Olivier

    “You mean like this picture? Or perhaps this one?”
    Those are pictures taken miles from the field. There was a large debris field consistent of a plane that was destroyed in the air. None of that debris fell in the official crash site.
    This is the official government aerial view photo. Notice the lack of lush green foliage at the crash site. Here is a close-up of the hole. Notice that some of the weeds are still standing where the 757 supposedly went through the ground.
    “In the fantasies of someone who knows nothing whatsoever about weight-shifting trusses, perhaps. In the real world, WTC-7 collapsed “into its own footprint,” but it did not do so symmetrically. It did so in a semi-spiral as building supports collapsed and weight was shifted to other supports which then collapsed, etc.”
    I understand that the spiral effect is the official story but it does not coincide with the video evidence.

  27. Darryl W. Perry

    My ex-wife told me in shortly after Sept 11, 2001 that her uncle (ret. Air Force & civilian worker at Ft. Dix, NJ) told her that Flight 93 had been shot down – he died of a sudden heart attack in December 2001.

    It should be noted that Flight 93 flew over my house in PA just minutes before crashing (or being shot down, depending on which story you believe).

  28. RedPhillips

    “Dr. Phillies @ 21: I’m also surprised by your
    name-calling.”

    Phillies wants us all to look at the evidence with regard to anthropogenic global warming, but he gets to resort to dismissive snark when anyone brings up birtherism or trutherism lest his Blue America version of oh so reasonable libertarianism be tainted.

  29. Andy

    “r, based on their mistaken belief that because they have freedom of speech their opinions are with as much as the large number of structural and firesafety engineers who did a careful refereed investigation of the matter, finding that the collapse of the building was well understood in terms of detailed engineering calculations.”

    There’s a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Here’s their website:

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    There have been lots of experts in the fields of physics, demolitions, aeronautics, as well as other relevant fields who question the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11.

    You know, it’s funny, because I tried to set up a debate to be held at the Libertarian Party’s National Convention in 2008 between Libertarians who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 and some experts who question the official 9/11 story. I personally spoke to Robert Bowman who is a former Air Force pilot who holds a PhD in engineering and who was once the Director of Advanced Space Weapons program for the Air Force. Robert Bowman is also a skeptic of the official government story about 9/11. I told him that I’m a member of the Libertarian Party and that there was some debate in the party over whether or not the government’s 9/11 story was true and that I wanted to challenge those in the party who were attacking 9/11 skeptics in the party to debate a panel of experts during a party convention and I asked him if he’d be willing to be on the panel of experts. He said that he’d do it. I was working on getting some people for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as well as physics professor Steven Jones for the debate, but if fell through. Why? BECA– USE NOBODY FROM THE OTHER SIDE WOULD AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEBATE. I call that intellectual cowardice.

    “A successful National Libertarian Party would carefully disassociate itself from the conspiracy crackpots.”

    LOL! The National Libertarian Party has distanced itself from the 9/11 Truth Movement and it has not caused the Libertarian Party to be more successful. The Libertarian Party has been going down the toilet over the last 10 years. On the flip side, the 9/11 Truth Movement is now much larger than the Libertarian Party. If anything, the Libertarian Party would be more successful if it embraced the 9/11 Truth Movement. 9/11 Truthers should be ripe picking for the Libertarian Party since they are already skeptical of government and they are already anti-war and pro-civil liberties.

    The official government story about 9/11 IS a conspiracy theory, and a bad one at that because it is full of holes.

  30. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy @ 33: “:The official government story about 9/11 IS a conspiracy theory, and a bad one at that because it is full of holes.” It’s full of holes indeed, and I often call it the “Swiss Cheese” theory.

    Something that astonishes me is that many people still believe the 911 Commission report, while the people who wrote it don’t believe it.
    Wow.

  31. Andy

    I’m really glad to see a former Libertarian Party candidate for Vice President publicly question the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11. Well done Art Olivier.

    I’d like to invite all Libertarians (both big “L” and small “l”) to join my group, Libertarians for 9/11 Truth. Here’s the link:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertariansfor911Truth/

    I know that it’s just a Yahoo Group but I’ve got plans to expand it. I’ve just been too busy doing other things and have gotten sidetracked on multiple occasions.

    Everyone should check out a group that Mike Gravel started called the 9/11 Commission Campaign. The goal of the organization is to place initiatives on the ballot in states and/or localities which have a citizens initiative process to create a new investigation into 9/11. Here’s the link to the organization:

    http://9-11cc.org/

    I did not support Mike Gravel when he tried to win the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination in 2008, but I do strongly support him on this issue and idea.

  32. LibertarianGirl

    Nevada was nearly unanimous for Gravel , sure he differs on a few issues , but he’s got big ole balls standin up to tyrannical government , that and he swore an oath to stat strict to the LP platform while campaigning

  33. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Jul 20, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    Nevada was nearly unanimous for Gravel , sure he differs on a few issues , but he’s got big ole balls standin up to tyrannical government , that and he swore an oath to stat strict to the LP platform while campaigning.”

    I like you and Jim but I can’t say I agree with your decision to support Gravel for the LP Presidential nomination in 2008, Gravel has got some issues where he’s libertarian or libertarian leaning, but I just don’t think that he was libertarian enough to be the Presidential candidate for the party.

    I didn’t think that Bob Barr was an appropriate candidate for the Libertarian Party either. I’m not saying that an LP Presidential candidate has to necessarily be an “anarchy right now” purist, but they should have to pass some kind of litmus test standard of being “Libertarian enough” to be the party’s candidate for President and nether Gravel or Barr passed that test by my standards.

    “that and he swore an oath to stat strict to the LP platform while campaigning.”

    Gravel didn’t stick to the party’s platform while he campaigned for the party’s nomination, so I have my doubts that he would have stuck to it post nomination,

    Having said this, one good thing about ballot initiatives as well as any single issue campaigns is that it allows people who may disagree on some issues to work together on an issue where they do agree. I totally agree with Mike Gravel on this issue and I’m glad that he’s started this effort.

  34. Alan Pyeatt

    TLK @ 13: I generally like your posts, but this statement: “He asserts an objective “truth” for which not so much as an iota of evidence has emerged in the nearly 10 years since the incident in question” can’t be taken seriously.

    Not an iota of evidence? A Boeing 757 does not fit into this hole: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77-10.jpg. Never mind that the supposed pilot couldn’t even rent a Cessna 172 a few weeks before he supposedly performed his alleged near-miracle in a Boeing 757.

    A lot of people seem to have forgotten Karl Hess’s reminder: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

    Yes, we need to stand on firm ground. But there are reams of evidence that shows the official story for what it is: a lie.

  35. paulie

    His only “point” about Flight 93 is that local reporters apparently didn’t know what the debris field of a crashed airliner looks like. […] Evidence is, um, evidence, not just any paranoid bullshit that you happen to make up or believe because someone else made it up.

    If your definition of evidence is evidence that you agree is accurate and correctly interpreted, I agree that he provides no evidence.

    That’s not how I normally interpret the term “evidence,” though.

    I am willing to, in any number of cases, concede that various people present evidence for arguments or theories that I don’t accept. The fact that I disagree with them does not mean they have no evidence.

  36. paulie

    mistaken belief that because they have freedom of speech their opinions are with as much as the large number of structural and firesafety engineers who did a careful refereed investigation of the matter, finding that the collapse of the building was well understood in terms of detailed engineering calculations.

    The collapse of WTC-7 is far from the only possible hole in the official version of 9/11.

    A successful National Libertarian Party would carefully disassociate itself from the conspiracy crackpots.

    Everyone I know of, including the government, believes there was a conspiracy behind the 9-11 attacks. The only question is which one.

  37. paulie

    Phillies wants us all to look at the evidence with regard to anthropogenic global warming, but he gets to resort to dismissive snark when anyone brings up birtherism or trutherism lest his Blue America version of oh so reasonable libertarianism be tainted.

    Birtherism gives a bad name to more legitimate conspiracy theories 🙂

  38. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’d like to suggest to Dr. Phillies and Mr. Knapp that perhaps you might look at some of the newer 9/11 Truth websites. There is so much new info and scientific evidence again the Official Conspiracy Theory that debunking sites don’t even try to keep up. A lot of it has been released because of the Freedom of Information Act. Someone has already recommended my favorite site, http://www.ae911truth.org, but http://www.911blogger.com is good, also. The latter tends to keep track of all the victims’ families who are demanding (and not getting) answers.
    Here is one in which military asks questions:
    http://world911truth.org/us-military-officers-for-911-truth/

  39. Alan Pyeatt

    GP @ 21: Please note that over 1,200 engineers and architects have gone on record disagreeing with the official version of the Twin Towers’ collapse: http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/386-ae911truth-delivers-the-evidence-to-the-media-press-conference-national-press-club-wash-dc.html. Calling us names does not prove your point.

    Yes, we understand that the gravitational force is approximately 1 G downward. However, that force SHOULD have been opposed by tons of steel which was specifically designed to resist the downward forces of gravity, plus the induced forces caused by wind loads. On top of that, all building structures are designed to include a safety factor: “Many systems are purposefully built much stronger than needed for normal usage to allow for emergency situations, unexpected loads, misuse, or degradation.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety) And yet, the structure didn’t even slow the collapse significantly? Not a chance.

    And that doesn’t even begin to address Building 7, where both the building design team and NYC’s permit application checkers missed a key point that every civil engineer (not just structural engineers) is taught in their first semester structural design class: every building is designed for redundancy, so that its structural integrity does not depend on ANY single structural element. And yet, we are told that the fire in WTC7 moved the base of one single column, and the whole building collapsed. Where was its fire sprinkler system during the fire that supposedly caused its collapse? It didn’t even cool the steel enough to prevent total failure?

    In the entire history of high-rise steel-framed buildings, only three have ever collapsed due to fire. And they all happened on the same day, on the same block? That dog don’t hunt.

  40. Alan Pyeatt

    Sorry, I meant to say, “And that doesn’t even begin to address Building 7, where both the building design team and NYC’s permit application checkers WOULD HAVE TO HAVE missed a key point that every civil engineer (not just structural engineers) is taught in their first semester structural design class…” My point was that it is highly unlikely that both the building design team and the plan checkers (during the permit application process) would have missed this.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Alan @38,

    You write:

    “Not an iota of evidence? A Boeing 757 does not fit into this hole”

    And in what universe is that evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

    I have several problems with the “official story,” including the fact that the hole in the Pentagon doesn’t superficially resemble the impact one would expect from a 757 (I’ve never seen a 757 impact, though), but does very much resemble what a smart-bomb does to reinforced concrete (which I have seen, up close and personal*).

    I have signed petitions, etc., calling for a full investigation of 9/11.

    BUT!

    The “inside job” theory has even less going for it.

    It not only has yet to be proven, it has yet to be substantiated in any way, shape, manner or form.

    The evidence so far presented for it is zip, zero, zilch, nada, bupkus, not an iota, not a crumb, not an ort, not an atom.

    * I’ve also seen the debris field of more than one airplane crash, but those were combat aircraft in a desert environment, not passenger aircraft in northeast US woodlands. The fact remains that “some local reporters didn’t think it looked like an airplane had crashed” is not “evidence” of anything except local reporters not knowing what it looks like when a fucking airplane crashes.

  42. RedPhillips

    “Birtherism gives a bad name to more legitimate conspiracy theories”

    I don’t want to side track the discussion, but if birtherism doesn’t have to mean born in Kenya but can include the more generic idea that he may be hiding something in all his sealed records, then that doesn’t even amount to a good conspiracy theory. It is simply an allegation of possible deceit and the attempt to cover it up.

    What I have observed and find noteworthy is how much of all this is based on emotion and what someone wants to believe rather than evidence. Some don’t want to believe birtherism because they think it is racist, but want to believe the government is up to no good so they believe trutherism. Some don’t want to believe the government is up to (that much) no good so they reject trutherism but do want to believe Obama is illegit so they embrace birtherism. Some, like Phillies, don’t want to be tainted by yahoo conspiracy theories so they reject them all out of hand.

    What I don’t get is the heavily emotionally invested conspiracy debunker (unless like Obama supporters for example they have a stake in the debate). Why does someone get heavily emotionally invested in whether someone else believes we landed on the Moon or how many gunmen shot Kennedy or whatever. What is the stake in defending the official story? This is why I think a lot of anti-conspiracy emotion is driven by the desire to avoid taint by ideas the mainstream considers disreputable.

  43. George Phillies

    I can find 1200…

    How many of them are in the field?

    Your claim lines up with the Republican claim that there is a debate about anthropogenic climate warming within the legitimate scientific community. I have news for you. There isn’t one of them, either. The people who do research in the area, in both cases, and who have actually studied the question are in near-unanimous agreement, and theya re not on your side.

    “Buildings are braced against lateral forces”…that’s why the collapse was not instantaneous. And that’s why one can identify any number of older buildings, built when seismic reinforcement was taken less seriously for New York, would not have done as well.

    And, no, no one braces a building to survive having another building dropped on it from a height of fifteen or twenty feet.

    You can keep repeating your troother nonsense, the same nonsense, until you are blue in the face, but it is still nonsense.

  44. Andy

    Funny how all of the “Libertarians who believe the official government 9/11 conspiracy theory” all ran away when I tried to put together a public debate on the issue at an LP convention.

    Anyone on for 2012 in Las Vegas? Let’s invite some of the folks from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ( http://www.ae911truth.org/ ) and any other experts we can find and any of you LP members who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 can debate them and we can record it and put it on YouTube.

  45. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m up for it, Andy. I think if it were organized, many people would come to see it. I had a member of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth speak at a region meeting last year. I think they have quite a few speakers. I’ll be happy to help you with it.

    By the way, my husband Alan is one of the engineers who signed the petition at AE911Truth.

  46. Michael H. Wilson

    Ya know I doubt that any of this will ever be solved unless someone hold Dick Cheney down and waterboards him. Then maybe he’ll confess. too much evidence has been destroyed.

  47. Andy

    “Pyeatt // Jul 20, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    I’m up for it, Andy. I think if it were organized, many people would come to see it. I had a member of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth speak at a region meeting last year. I think they have quite a few speakers. I’ll be happy to help you with it.”

    The problem when I’ve suggested this in the past is that none of the Libertarians who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 would agree to participate in the debate. So this is why it never went any further than my public challenge/suggestion.

    Perhaps we should put out the challenge again and actually organize the event and if no Libertarians who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 agree to show up and debate we can turn the event into a symposium on 9/11,

    Jim Duensing organized an event like this at the LP National Convention in 2008 which he named Libertarians for Justice. Not suprisingly, nobody from the “Libertarians who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11” showed up at the event to debate 9/11.

    “By the way, my husband Alan is one of the engineers who signed the petition at AE911Truth.”

    Cool!

  48. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Seriously, perhaps Dr. Phillies would be interested in the debate. He seems awfullys
    sure of himself.

  49. Rational vs. Irrational Conspiracy Theories

    It’s nonsense to think the U.S. or Israeli governments caused 9/11. Those are ridiculous theories.

    Unfortunately, ridiculous theories make reasonable theories seem ridiculous, but lumping them all together as “9/11 Truther crazy stuff.”

    While the U.S. and Israel did not cause 9/11, there’s strong evidence that the Israeli Mossad had ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE of 9/11: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

  50. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Andy,

    “Not suprisingly, nobody from the ‘Libertarians who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11’ showed up at the event to debate 9/11.”

    Do you actually know of any “Libertarians who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11?”

    I’m not saying there aren’t any, but I don’t know that I’ve ever met one.

  51. Tom Blanton

    It seems nobody, including the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, believe the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

    How shocking that the government would lie about this matter.

    It seems to me that it is fair to accuse the government of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks or to accuse the government of having prior knowledge and allowing it to happen – even if there is no conclusive evidence.

    There is a reason why there is a lack of evidence. There is a reason why members of the 9/11 Commission feel they were lied to. There are many many reasons to doubt the official story.

    It would seem our leaders would prefer being accused of complicity in the 9/11 attacks rather than end the so-called conspiracy theories by shedding light on what happened on 9/11.

    Screw the bastards. They have blood on their hands. They have no problem with killing people in other nations and they have no problem abusing Americans – all quite openly. Why wouldn’t they stage an attack on Americans?

    Persons at the highest level of government once pondered exactly that with Operation Northwoods.

    Until our masters lift the veil of secrecy surrounding the events of 9/11, we should presume they were somehow involved – despite having no evidence. It isn’t as if they have offered much in the way of evidence to support their narrative of 9/11.

    Even now, Obama is working to prevent further investigation into the anthrax attack after his own DOJ refuted the FBI’s conclusions from their botched investigation.

    These issues strike at the root of this government’s legitimacy.

  52. Andy

    Tom Knapp said: Do you actually know of any “Libertarians who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11?”

    I’m not saying there aren’t any, but I don’t know that I’ve ever met one.”

    Perhaps I should have been more clear by saying, “People who call themselves ‘Libertarians’ who believe that the official government conspiracy theory about 9.11 is true” since no REAL Libertarian would be naive enough to believe that the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 is true.

  53. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Based on his phenomenally rude assessment and immediate dismissal of this topic, perhaps we should assume George Phillies believes the Official Conspiracy Theory? I would assume his good friend Wayne Allyn Root does, also, or at least he won’t admit otherwise.

  54. Thane Eichenauer

    Was 9/11 an inside job? I don’t know. Do I think one more government commission is at all likely to produce a truthful answer… No.
    I think 9/11 should be left to private investigation and free market publications.
    Each time I see Mr. Phillies use disparaging name calling it saddens me. The pursuit of truth is an admirable pursuit. Those who pursue it in good faith should be countered with facts not slurs (a favourite of the enemy of lies everywhere).

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy @ 58,

    You write:

    “no REAL Libertarian would be naive enough to believe that the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 is true.”

    A “Libertarian” is nothing more or less than a member of the Libertarian Party.

    There are Libertarians who believe all kinds of bizarre things*, so I wouldn’t be surprised to find one or more who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11. I just don’t know that I have met any who do. Most Libertarians with whom I have discussed the matter have noted that they suspect one or more elements of that theory to be untrue.

    As for myself, I’m not convinced that the government’s version of what happened with Flight 77 and the Pentagon is accurate, I consider it at least possible that Flight 93 may have been shot down, and I strongly suspect more foreknowledge on the part of the Israeli government, elements of US intelligence services, or both, than has been admitted.

    * One bizarre belief that some Libertarians admit to holding is that the same government they accuse of monumental incompetence on a daily basis is so competent that it was able to pull off 9/11 as an “inside job” AND has been able to keep that operation completely under wraps, without a crumb of credible evidence to suggest that they did so emerging, for a decade.

  56. Robert Capozzi

    tk 63, fwiw, your last ‘graf is insightful. Possibly compelling. OTOH, the feds are hopelessly incompetent. OTO, they’re really good at keeping secrets and doing covert ops.

    Actually, though, I can imagine that the government does some things really badly, but other things really well. Still, keeping THAT many people silent for a protracted amount of time seems hard to imagine. Maybe we’ll get some deathbed confessions in the coming decades. Or not.

    I definitely don’t think an electoral political party should lead with 9/11 “truth.” Saying — as a throwaway line — I support the idea of investigating some of the unresolved questions surrounding 9/11 seems politically reasonable.

    Still, W and Cheney are out of office. So even if something reasonably definitive is uncovered, what’s it have to do with the here and now? The wars are winding down. If the worst speculation of Truthers is validated, it doesn’t follow that the American people will rise up and say, US out of Germany! Or Shut Down the CIA! They might want to execute W and Cheney or whoever the mastermind is.

  57. Robert Capozzi

    59 jp: …we should assume George Phillies believes the Official Conspiracy Theory? I would assume his good friend Wayne Allyn Root does, also, or at least he won’t admit otherwise.

    me: I’ve not seen either take a view on the matter. That can be exasperating, especially from GP, who dismisses the Truther argument with some regularity. WR steers clear of the issue, to my knowledge.

    Mostly, I consider the issue a dry hole. S’pose I could pour over the arguments and reach a “strong” position, but why bother? What’s the ROI? My gut tells me we didn’t get the whole story, but until I see a smoking gun, I’ll assume the incident was AQN.

  58. paulie

    What I have observed and find noteworthy is how much of all this is based on emotion and what someone wants to believe rather than evidence. Some don’t want to believe birtherism because they think it is racist, but want to believe the government is up to no good so they believe trutherism.

    I think the official story of 9/11 is full of holes, and I support an independent investigation with access to classified information and subpoena power, If it can be privately run and financed, that would be good, but even if it does cost the taxpayers a little more money, that would still be barely a drop in the bucket of what government actions justified by 9/11 are costing. I don’t think it’s a particularly good idea to start with a conclusion (inside job, 19 Arabs, Mossad, space aliens, or whatever) and then work backwards to make the evidence fit the conclusion. I do believe that opposing the policies that grew out of 9/11 is more important than getting to the bottom of who did it or who knew what and when. However, I don’t think getting to the bottom of it is inconsequential or should be swept under the rug for fear of seeming crazy to some.

    As for birtherism, it seems to me to be absurd on its face. The idea is…that the elite could not find anyone born in the US to serve as their figurehead, and had to hide life events which hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people would know from personal experience to be false? And to what end? No policies have changed because Obama is president that could not have changed if, say, Deval Patrick were president instead. Indeed, very little policy has changed at all since the Bush years. If anything is emotion based, it is birtherism itself — Obama has a Kenyan father and an Indonesian stepfather and education, and his name “sounds foreign,” so he must not be a “real American”,

    From the cui bono angle, 9/11 inside job makes a lot more sense than Obama birth conspiracy theories.

    What I don’t get is the heavily emotionally invested conspiracy debunker (unless like Obama supporters for example they have a stake in the debate).

    I’m actually not too heavily invested in debunking birtherism, which is why I steadfastly refused to be drawn into a detailed debunking of various birther claims. It just isn’t worth hours of my time, no matter how many times one or two people laughably claim that I’m incapable of it,

    Birtherism is good for a laugh every once in a while, and a sad shake of the head the rest of the time – that’s about it for me.

    As for Obama, he is a war criminal who should be impeached, removed from office and tried for crimes against humanity, along with his immediate predecessor in office.

  59. Nicholas Sarwark

    Perhaps I should have been more clear by saying, “People who call themselves ‘Libertarians’ who believe that the official government conspiracy theory about 9.11 is true” since no REAL Libertarian would be naive enough to believe that the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 is true.

    Ah, about time someone trotted out the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. Now if we can just get a Hitler comparison…

  60. Nicholas Sarwark

    When deciding what to do with one’s limited time and resources, it’s helpful to think about likely outcomes. What happens if you’re wildly successful? Is that outcome worth it? Is that outcome likely?

    It is illustrative to see how much effort was expended by various individuals and groups in challenging Obama’s birth in Hawaii, and what benefit to themselves and their cause that came of that effort.

  61. Robert Capozzi

    68 NS, yes, ROI analysis! I suspect thoughtful Birthers — if they are at all honest with themselves — might not think they’d be “successful,” i.e., getting BHO impeached, but the ROI might be to damage his credibility and legitimacy. Of course, such an approach could, and maybe did, backfire. Some may be sympathetic to Obama as the reasonable one vs. the hater yahoos in the flyover states…

  62. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 64,

    You write:

    “The wars are winding down.”

    I guess you win the prize for coming up with a belief even more bizarre than “it was Cheney, in the cockpit of Flight 93, with the candlestick.”

    In the real world, the last two years have seen nearly twice as many US casualties in Afghanistan than in the seven years before, the covert war in Pakistan continues to escalate, there are new undeclared wars blooming (under cover of a new and even more expansive doctrine of executive war powers) in Libya and Somalia, and after two years of unsuccessfully wheedling the Iraqi government to rescind the withdrawal requirements of the Status of Forces Agreement, the Obama regime appears to be on the very of repudiating the SOFA and going back into full-blown occupation mode in Iraq.

    The next ten years seem very likely to be even more war-dominated than the last ten.

  63. Darryl W. Perry

    lol @ “it was Cheney, in the cockpit of Flight 93, with the candlestick.”

    I though everyone knew it was Col. Mustard in the Living Room with the knife…

  64. Robert Capozzi

    70 tk, I guess that depends on your def. of “bizarre.” I was referring to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which are announced as being wound down and in many ways ARE being wound down. This is not to say I’m sanguine with the rate of the wind down, nor with the possibility that BHO or his successor might reverse course. Nor does a “wind down” foreclose the possibility of perturbations along the way.

    Nor does it mean that I’m happy about Libya, Pak., or Somalia. (I am OK with having Marines at the US Embassy in London, but we’ve established that I’m an evil “statist. 😉 ) Nor does that mean that I agree or disagree with your view about the prospects for war over the next 10 years. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I’d say war is likely in some form at some level, since that seems to be the way humans roll. I wonder whether there’s ever been a year in human history when there was no war…dunno. (When I say a “year,” that could be a Gregorian calendar year or any 12 month period.)

    (Not sure if I’m being exhaustive enough in utterly clarifying my perspective, but you might consider asking rather than accusing!)

    Sorry my lack of precision led to confusion….

  65. Curious

    @9 AO seems to want the LP to become the Truther party.

    As opposed to what? The Liar party?

  66. Curious

    Thanx for changing the hed… I forgot voting for this guy… Has Jo Jorgenson said anything on this issue?

  67. Alan Pyeatt

    Thomas @ 46: “Not an iota of evidence? A Boeing 757 does not fit into this hole”

    And in what universe is that evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

    Me: In a universe in which the federal governmentconfiscated all known video of the crash, refused to release it, and claimed that a Boeing 757 hit the building. The same universe in which the only photographs released show no evidence of luggage, bodies, wings, or a tail section (which usually survives airliner crashes) on the lawn in front of the Pentagon.

    Come on, Thomas, this wasn’t some supersonic stealth fighter jet; we were told that it was a subsonic airliner. And yet, it successfully attacked the headquarters of the only remaining superpower in the world? After 2 planes were hijacked and hit the World Trade Center?

    If it weren’t an inside job, the sheer incompetence would have warranted mass firings and procedural revisions. But I don’t think our military leaders are that dumb. And again, where are the wings? Or do you believe the story in “Popular Mechanics” that the aircraft some how liquified and flowed into the hole? How is the post-attack reporting not being manipulated by someone on the inside? Which implies a high probability that someone on the inside was involved in the attack, too.

    Sounds to me like you want proof before the investigation is done. Lack of wings, tail section, bodies, and luggage on the front lawn is definitely evidence.

  68. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Curious and Michael H Wilson: Thanks for the info. I was still waving a Republican flag in 96–

  69. Alan Pyeatt

    George Phillies @ 48: The people who do research in the area, in both cases, and who have actually studied the question are in near-unanimous agreement, and theya re not on your side.

    Me: Yes, well, maybe that’s because most of the evidence was hastily removed from the crime scene before very many people could get there to examine it.

    How many of the petitioners are working in the field? I don’t know. I know that Richard Gage, who founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is.

    When you write, “And, no, no one braces a building to survive having another building dropped on it from a height of fifteen or twenty feet,” I guess you mean the upper floors of each tower, which collapsed onto the floors below. First of all, it is not correct to say that they “dropped… from a height of fifteen or twenty feet.” That implies that the structural support where the planes hit the buildings was completely destroyed, which WOULD have caused an immediate structural failure. While we can’t see what happened to the inner frames, it’s very unlikely that all of it was destroyed by either airplane. But even assuming the inner frames WERE completely destroyed by the aircraft (which, BTW, were made of much lighter materials than the building frames), we still have the outer frame, much of which DID survive the initial crash. The Twin Towers were built so that the outer frame carried part of the load. So it is not correct to say that the upper floors” dropped… fifteen or twenty feet.” The remaining frame should have provided SOME resistance to the downward forces acting on them.

    But this still doesn’t address the question of how the remaining structure these 110-story buildings didn’t slow the building collapses.

    Nor does it address any other issues that haven’t been brought up in this thread yet, such as the lack of eccentricity. As Richard Gage pointed out, the fact that these buildings collapsed in their own footprints makes no sense, because unless there were a controlled demolition, that would be the path of greatest resistance. They should have fallen eccentrically (that is, off to the side) to some extent, at least to the extent that the columns were offset as the building fell.

    And if you look at the video, the second tower hit (I believe it is the south tower) was not hit axially (that is, straight on). Instead, you can clearly see the plane enter the building on one side, and instead of the flames shooting out of the opposite side, they come out of an ADJACENT side of the building. This indicates that the structural damage was not symmetrical, but rather was centered around one corner of the building. So even if the collision and fire had weakened the frame enough to cause the building to collapse, the upper floors should have fallen toward the weakened corner of the building. It’s like kicking one leg out from under a chair. And yet, the video shows that building falling straight down into its own footprint.

    Then there are all the eyewitnesses (mostly first responders) who reported hearing explosions BEFORE the buildings began to collapse.

    Questioning the official story is not nonsense, believing it is.

  70. Thomas L. Knapp

    Alan @ 76,

    Re-examine your logic.

    Evidence that what happened at the Pentagon was not X (the government’s approved story) is not necessarily evidence that what happened at the Pentagon was Y (“an inside job”).

    “Lack of wings, tail section, bodies, and luggage on the front lawn is definitely evidence.”

    Yes, it’s evidence. Of something.

    Just not, in and of itself, evidence of an “inside job.”

    If you want an alternative theory, here’s one:

    Flight 77 was shot down over the Atlantic by US military aircraft. In order to cover up that event which, however necessary, would have spawned its own debate, a US military aircraft hit the Pentagon with e.g. an AGM 154C.

    Not saying that’s what happened, but that’s at least as plausible a theory (to put it mildly) as “the 9/11 attacks, in their entirety, were an inside job/false flag operation.”

  71. Alan Pyeatt

    Andy @ 50: I think that would be a GREAT idea! By inviting people from the “Truther” movement (and for that matter, the non-truthers), we can reach out beyond to the LP. I would even like to see that debate be opened to the public.

  72. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    TK @ 81:”the 9/11 attacks, in their entirety, were an inside job/false flag operation.”

    Who made that statement?

  73. Alan Pyeatt

    Thomas, I think you implied something @ 63 that a lot of people tend to lose sight of: Just like an “inside” bank job, an “inside job” doesn’t necessarily mean that an entire organization is in on it, it just means that some individuals or elements within the organization are in on it.

    That’s not a response to your post @ 81; I just wanted to point it out. However, in response to your post @ 81, while the chain of causation is not proven, if elements or individuals are involved in a cover-up, then they are LIKELY involved in the initial act. Not bullet-proof logic, I agree. OTOH, we’re not sentencing anybody to jail based on this evidence (or starting a war?) but I think it does justify finding out the truth, to some reasonable degree of assurance.

    Unfortunately, I agree with Thane @ 61 that another government investigation is unlikely to uncover it, even in Canada. (Canadian cooperation with the Leonard Peltier extradition and extradition of current American “refusenicks” aren’t a good sign, IMO).

  74. Alan Pyeatt

    Robert @ 64: Good points. We are talking about the same federal government that successfully invented fission and fusion weapons, and wages war on the far side of the earth, yet manages to f*** up the economy on a regular basis.

  75. Robert Capozzi

    85 ap, yes, when it comes to applying Big Science, and doing spook ops, I’d say the government does that stuff often quite effectively. Virtuously? Not so much…

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill,

    I apologize if my language was imprecise.

    To say “9/11 was an inside job” is to say “the US government or elements thereof were responsible for the 9/11 attacks proper” (as opposed to, for example, only some collateral/incidental coverup attacks).

    While I can’t disprove the proposition that the 9/11 attacks, proper, were an “inside job,” that proposition seems vanishingly unlikely if for no other reason than in the ten years since the attacks, not so much as a single piece of evidence which would tend to support the proposition has been publicly presented.

    Not a single insider confessing, either from guilt or to save his own ass.

    Not a single photograph or video showing any agent of the US government in any way engaged in carrying out or facilitating the attacks.

    Not a single piece of physical evidence that ties any agent of the US government to the attacks in any way.

    Nothing.

    I can’t disprove the claim that faeries live in an around my neighbor’s ornamental wishing well, either — but if I sat intently watching that well for ten years and never saw a faerie, never found any faerie dust, never heard the tail end of a faerie giggle, never even detected an unexplained ripple in the water, I would hesitate to pronounce the proposition true.

  77. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    TK @ 87: You are a baffling man. We’ve talked before about whether asking questions about that day necessarily mean it was an “inside job”, and we’ve both agreed that there are indeed questions to be answered which might not mean that our government planned it. Perhaps they knew about it and Let It Happen On Purpose (known in Truther circles as (LIHOP), or perhaps there were a few individuals involved who work for the government, but didn’t plan it
    as a false flag, but rather for some as-yet-unknown motive. Both Art and Alan do seem to think it was an “inside job”, but neither of them have said it was entirely. Yet you automatically went there, and start arguing that there’s no validity to any of our arguments because you can’t believe it was an “inside job”.

    I must say, though, that your insistence that there’s not “one iota” of evidence in ten years is total, absolute, thorough nonsense. We keep giving you facts and evidence, and you laugh them off. Are you really interested in some information? Alan and I could spend hours giving you evidence. I actually call it “The Science of 9/11.” Better yet, I have half a dozen DVDs that I’m sure you haven’t had access to because they’re fairly new, and are out largely because of the info released from the Freedom of Information Act. You are also the only one who believes it took hours for tower 7 to fall, but yet you went to one website, decided that’s what it looked like to you, then wrote off the rest of the website (Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth). Do you want to hear about physical, scientific evidence, or not? Would you like for me to send you some DVDs? I promise they won’t be “Loose Change” or any of Alex Jones’.

  78. Alan Pyeatt

    Thomas, give it up. These photos are evidence that a Boeing 757 did NOT crash into the Pentagon on 9/11: http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/pentagon1.html.

    Do I know who was involved in whatever did happen? No. I can’t tie it to any single individual. However, if I were an investigator, one line of investigation I would certainly follow would be to start with whoever issued the statements that an airplane hit the building, and trace this LIE to its source.

    I would really like to hear your theory that explains how (and why) the Bush administration lied about the event, but wasn’t involved in the attack itself.

    But you need to stop saying there is no evidence that this was an inside job. The photos are physical evidence that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a Boeing 757, and the cover-up indicates that it was almost certainly an inside job.

  79. Andy

    “Yet you automatically went there, and start arguing that there’s no validity to any of our arguments because you can’t believe it was an “inside job”.

    I must say, though, that your insistence that there’s not “one iota” of evidence in ten years is total, absolute, thorough nonsense. We keep giving you facts and evidence, and you laugh them off.”

    Jill, you are obviously trying to have rational discussion with a person who is irrational.

  80. Andy

    “We are talking about the same federal government that successfully invented fission and fusion weapons, and wages war on the far side of the earth, yet manages to f*** up the economy on a regular basis.”

    The government doesn’t so much “fuck up the economy” as it does steal from people and initiate force and fraud to reward themselves and their cronies and punish everyone else.

    Saying that the government “fucks up the economy” in the context of the quote seems to take the presumption that the government has any interest in having an efficient, free ,market economy, and that they just “fuck it up” because they are bumbling idiots. This is a very naive view of government. The people who run government are not stupid, they are evil.

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill @ 88,

    I don’t recall ever saying that there is “no validity to any of your arguments.”

    Nor is there any question that I “can’t believe” it was an “inside job.” I’ll believe anything that the facts and evidence support. Unfortunately for “inside job” advocates, none of the facts or evidence they’ve thus far presented support their theory.

    You write:

    “We keep giving you facts and evidence, and you laugh them off.”

    You’ve given me some facts, but not facts from which one might reasonably arrive at the conclusion that 9/11 was an “inside job” to any significant degree of certitude.

    You’ve given me some evidence that some elements of the “official version” may not be true — but it’s a huge leap from “the official version may not be true” to “9/11 was an inside job.” And no facts or evidence that I’ve seen — in ten years of trying to keep up with the literature and literally begging “inside job” advocates to come up with anything bridge that gap.

    “You are also the only one who believes it took hours for tower 7 to fall”

    Really? You’re accusing me of being not just one guy, Tom Knapp, but also FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, and the entire WTC 7 investigative staff of both FEMA and the NIST? I sure am a lot of people for just being one person.

    Alan @ 89,

    You write:

    “I would really like to hear your theory that explains how (and why) the Bush administration lied about the event, but wasn’t involved in the attack itself.”

    I’ve already given you one theory that explains it better than the “inside job” theory does.

    As a matter of fact, if Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon, that’s tantamount to evidence that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job.

    Here’s why:

    If 9/11 was an inside job, then the perpetrators inside the US government were in fact capable of causing commercial airliners to fly into buildings, as they did in plain sight in front of tens of thousands of eyewitnesses in New York.

    Given the ability to do that, why wouldn’t they do it at the Pentagon as well, rather than attacking the Pentagon in a way that raised questions as to what actually happened, potentially blowing the lid off their conspiracy?

  82. Galileo

    if you are pro-science, then you would support 9/11 truth. If you are pro-superstition, then you would back the 9/11 commission. Great work, Art!

  83. Gains

    @27:

    You’re right Stone Soup. I sure love sex with 11-year-old boy scouts, but since I can’t have those anymore I have to bring other kids I can molest into the LP and turn them into a black shirt wearing cult. Not as cute as the boy scout outfit though. I wonder if my sweet little Boom Boom likes to play dress-up.

  84. Jim Duensing

    Here we go again.

    On one side are people who continually cite to evidence and logic and reason. On the other side: knee-jerk fruit loop hysterics of the government conspiracy theory crowd.

    I was not involved in the party when Art ran for VP. But, I was around when Aaron Russo tried to be our nominee and he made a speech at the State Chairs’ Meeting in Phoenix 2005 – after premiering ‘Freedom to Fascism’ there, where he argued that Libertarians need to wake up to the New World Order because it is a real threat to our liberty. Russo was Right.

    If the LP could pick ANY THREE policies to change it would have to be

    1.) Ending the Fed
    2.) Ending the Unconstitutional Undeclared Wars
    3.) Repealing Bob Barr’s Patriot Act and reclaiming our Inalienable Rights

    EVERY truther automatically believes in these things. In a pure numbers game political sense, truthers should be a group of supporters courted by the LP for the above reasons.

    But, they are shunned and purged by the neo-libertarian fools who are the modern day equivalent of the Wooden Men of 76. The Founders who tried to remove the word tyrant from the Declaration of Independence and who did remove Jefferson’s original anti-slavery paragraph from the compromise version of the Declaration of Independence were operating under the same motives as the modern swingline neo-libertarians who try to pretend that two planes can knock down three buildings if they say it enough times on CNN and BBC.

    I have found that this argument is not about reason for those who believe the government’s conspiracy theory without question. They are rationalizing their knee-jerk fears.

    Tyrannical government is a scary thing. I think it’s easier for some Libertarians to believe it was 19 Arabs that attacked our freedoms than that it was members of the Military Industrial Complex whose actions evince a design to reduce us under a technologically advanced absolute despotism. It’s not a pleasant reality to face. I think their brains just prefer the more pleasant fairly tale.

    As I have said before, it is time for the Libertarian Party to take a Samuel Whittemore gut check and stand up for the victims of the attack – like Bob Mcilvaine whose father spoke at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention during the well moderated Presidential Debate sponsored by Libertarians for Justice.

    If we do not stand up now for the victims of these attacks, if we do not stand up now and reclaim the freedoms Barr and company surrendered to the terrorists, we will find that it is too late to ever enjoy them again.

    Freedom lost is not easily regained. Ask Solschenizyn. Our Founding Generation were not the only colonies who rebelled against Britain. Most of the world was colonized against their will by the British Empire. America was just composed of a stock of frontier hardened warriors who knew what freedom was worth and who were willing to pay the price to secure its blessings for themselves and us their posterity.

    If we fail to honor those heroic sacrifices of our founding generation. And, if we refuse to realize that Ike and JFK were right when they warned us about the Military Industrial Complex and Secret Societies, we will be unable to solve our problem.

    The first step towards solving a problem is admitting that you have one. Come on Swingline Libertarians just admit you’re too scared to admit the truth to yourself because you lack the courage of Samuel Whittemore and Samuel Adams. All these silly pseudo arguments about how black smoke can pulverize steel buildings make you sound looney.

    http://weknowthetruth.net/silly_conspiracy_theories.html

    In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,

    Jim

    http://www.building777seven.jimduensing.com/Sweet_Home_Mombassa.wav

  85. Ace Baker

    I’ve been urging libertarians to study 9/11 for 4 years, since my article “9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity”. If the facts of 9/11 won’t convince people that big government is harmful, nothing will. The silence on the part of the Lew Rockwell crowd is evidence that they too have been co-opted into the state apparatus.

    The 9/11 “truth” movement is nothing of the sort. It is a controlled opposition created by insiders intent on protecting the truth, not revealing it.

    The actual truth of what occurred on 9/11 IS knowable. The overwhelming evidence points to nuclear reactions, and to NO real plane crashes.

    9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera begins September 11, 2011.

    http://.psy-opera.com

  86. Jim Duensing

    Wow, A “Truther” on IPR I can disagree with.

    The idea that no planes hit the towers is a cognitive infiltration type psy-op.

    http://building777seven.jimduensing.com/sunstein-conspiracy-theories-doublespeak.pdf

    There are also well financed sophisticated propaganda artists who ignore and then disclaim the evidence pointing to not just thermite, but thermate in the debris of the three towers.

    And, what about Felipe David? Did he survive a nuclear explosion when his skin was removed from his arms in an explosion in the basement levels of the twin towers?

    http://www.jimduensing.com/videos/william-rodriguez-american-scholars-symposium-full-video.html

    But, even if these cognitive infiltrators were correct on these points, it would only point to a conspiracy planned by the same people who allowed Marvin Bush and crew access to the elevator shafts to perform “maintenance” shortly before the demolition was carried out.

    We see a similar pattern with the NWO’s other false flag operations in America. For instance, Halliburton performed “maintenance”on the oil rig just before an explosion coated the Gulf of Mexico with BP crude. That wasn’t a nuclear reaction too was it?

    In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,

    Jim

  87. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Are the Libertarians for Justice still around?

    I’ve actually read some of the nuclear information. It doesn’t strike me as the way things happened, although I think there are some valid questions about why cars parked around the WTC were melted, and that would help to explain why the first responders are dying at such an accelerated rate. I’ve also read some of the “no planes” stuff. I prefer to stick with the scientific evidence presented on http://www.ae911truth.org. I also think the Truth community can discuss these anomolies among ourselves, but we shouldn’t let it negate the fact that we simply don’t know many of the answers. Hence, the need for a new, non-government funded investigation.

    Thanks for weighing in, Jim.

  88. LibertarianGirl

    I think Jim still has the wesbite and group , not sure how updated it is but he is still very active locally with 9-11 events with several groups in different capacities

  89. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I am, also, and intend to get even more involved. The Liberty community in Los Angeles is really starting to bloom. A lot of the best activists I’ve met through Wearechange Los Angeles.

  90. FYI

    The 9/11 movement was cognitively infiltrated and taken over by Steven Jones, a Mormon serial killer who played a similar role in covering up cold fusion and free energy for the Poppy Bush administration.

    Jones and his cronies in Utah, Area 51 and Los Alamos enforce a plane-hugging thermite-sniffing orthodoxy among 9/11 activists by exploiting their ignorance and fear. This orthodoxy protects the perps and perpetuates global human suffering by covering up the near/zero-point-energy weapons used on 9/11 and therefore free energy itself. Duensing’s affiliation with and admiration for these 9/11 perps certainly disqualifies him as a serious Presidential candidate.

  91. Ace Baker

    @Jim Duensing –

    The evidence for nuclear reactions, summarized: molecular dissociation, Tritium 60x normal, Strontium/barium correlation, mushroom cloud, 60 foot hole in bedrock, 1500 melted motor vehicles, rare cancers.

    @ Libertarian Girl:

    I say no planes hit the towers. The airplane videos look fake because they are fake. I’ve given a scientific treatise examining the evidence for video compositing, and it is here:

    http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

    Actually, once you accept that 9/11 was an inside job, you can figure out with pure reason that they would never use real planes.

  92. Andy

    “The silence on the part of the Lew Rockwell crowd is evidence that they too have been co-opted into the state apparatus.”

    Lew Rockwell was a guest on The Alex Jones Show a few months ago and during that show he finally came out in favor a new investigation into 9/11.

  93. Andy

    “101 LibertarianGirl // Jul 23, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    andy@33 Jim Duensing did hold quite a well attended pres debate put on byLibertarians for Justice , a 9-11 group . i have the vid somewhere”

    I know. I was there. Don’t you remember me being there?:)

  94. Ace Baker

    Lew Rockwell supports a new investigation. The champion of anarcho-capitalism wants the State to investigate itself. Again. Really? How about they investigate the Kennedy assassination again too.

    Good Grief.

    You want to know who should help investigate 9/11? Thomas E. Woods. Robert Murphy. Tom DiLorenzo. Robert Higgs. Hans Hoppe. And the rest of those guys, that’s who. Rothbard wouldn’t have bought the official 9/11 nonsense, I’ll promise you that. Murray is turning in his grave at the sheer cowardice of the Mises scholars.

    Talk about a blown opportunity. It’s almost as sickening as Ron Paul.

  95. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Jul 23, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    andy@33 Jim Duensing did hold quite a well attended pres debate put on byLibertarians for Justice , a 9-11 group . i have the vid somewhere.”

    When are you going to post this video to YouTube?

  96. Andy

    Jim Duensing said: “If the LP could pick ANY THREE policies to change it would have to be

    1.) Ending the Fed
    2.) Ending the Unconstitutional Undeclared Wars
    3.) Repealing Bob Barr’s Patriot Act and reclaiming our Inalienable Rights

    EVERY truther automatically believes in these things. In a pure numbers game political sense, truthers should be a group of supporters courted by the LP for the above reasons.

    But, they are shunned and purged by the neo-libertarian fools who are the modern day equivalent of the Wooden Men of 76.”

    I totally agree. I’ve been saying for a long time now that the Libertarian Party ought to do more outreach to the 9/11 Truth movement. 9/11 Truthers are already skeptical of government and they are already anti-war and pro-civil liberties. They are a natural fit for the Libertarian Party. This is one of the main reasons that I started Libertarians for 9/11 Truth ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertariansfor911Truth/ ).

  97. LibertarianGirl

    Andy there was a ton of people there , i dont belive i knew you very well and i was operating the camera…as for the footage , just like the LSLA debate jim and i tried many a time to upload/edit whatever and the tapes have been lost either at his house or mine. im pretty sre i remember leaving tapes at his house , te mistake was using HD camera whose files are much harder to work with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *