Monday, March 5, 2007

9/11 Conspiracy Theories -Was President Bush the real mastermind?

I've never really gotten into the whole 9-11 conspiracy thing. It's not that I'd put it past the Bush Administration to orchestrate something like that, and it was certainly the best thing that could have happened to his presidency (I think his pre-9/11 approval ratings were in the mid 40's).

But I know for a fact that Bush himself couldn't have been in on the particulars. It's the subtle points that clue me in here.

Sure he had a suspiciously perfect alibi, "Where was I? I was in a room full of school children! Where the hell were you?"

But, okay, I know Bush has seen enough movies to know how a president is supposed to act when he learns his people are in imminent danger. I mean, if you're expecting something like this, and you have time to plan your reaction, and you're planning on using this tragedy as a rallying cry for war, wouldn't you plan a more heroic (or at least competent) response?

"Okay, you come in while I'm with the school children and whisper it in my ear, then I'll sit there and look stupid for about seven minutes. When I tug nervously on my tie, that's your cue to come back in and get me. Make sure we get all this on tape, boys."

There is some footage on Wonkette that shows the BBC reporting the collapse of building 7 before it actually collapses. I don't know what that proves, but it's odd.

This administration has certainly used the events of September 11th to their full advantage, but executing a massive conspiracy with surgical precision just isn't their style.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre --that's the style of this administration-- with enough lawyers and political connections to carry out blatant crimes in broad daylight.


Anonymous said...

I respect your claim on the 9/11 theories and appreciate your opinion. However, the theory of the Bush administration having something to do with 9/11 should not be put out of the question. The fact that his response was "incompetent" should raise this question even more. The president if having some involvement, should not be cool and collective, that would give him away. He had to play it off as if he had no idea about the attacks before hand. But I agree that pulling something like this with "surgical precision" as you stated, is not capable of this adminstration. It is also fair to say however that this was not in fact executed like that. Data concerning this matter proves this. For instance, the hole left in the Pentagon is too small for a Boeing 757. There was also no visible evidence of passengers being aboard or of any plane wreckage. Building 7 as well in New York fell the exact same way as the Twin towers but no plane hit that building. If this was like you said, pulled off with "surgical precision" there would be no questions on what happened that day.
I really do respect your opinion, I also wanted to add that this was purely an assignment for class and that I had no intention of attacking you.

Heather Annastasia said...

What a polite disagreement.

I don't think a 9/11 conspiracy is out of the question at all.

Actually, I think my reluctance to entertain the theories have more to do with the futility of the matter.

First because there will always be conspiracy theories, founded and unfounded (there are still people who think we never went to the moon).

But mostly because, the things these people get away with in broad daylight are mind-boggling enough, why bother with the behind-the-scenes stuff hat will never be conclusively proven, let alone prosecuted in a court of law.

But I wouldn't discourage anyone from looking into these matters, I just have too many exercises in futility on my hands already.

Heather Annastasia said...

Wait a minute, are you saying that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon??

Weren't there witnesses?

Anonymous said...

People who say "Bush did 9/11" are idiots. But people who think the 9/11 Commission Report is accurate are bigger idiots. Whatever happened that day, Bush was kept out of the loop. But something has been covered up. Building 7 is a key to unraveling the mystery, considering the building wasn't hit, was across the street, had another building between it and the Towers, and suddenly collapsed around 5 pm into its own footprint, identical to a controlled demolition, except it just had a few fires on a couple floors? No way. No way. Absolutely impossible. What does the Commission Report say about this? NOTHING. NADA. Absolutely nothing. Amazing. Who told BBC to report it had collapsed a half hour before it had? Who seemed to be in charge of its collapse and why were they also directing news information? The CIA, FBI, Guiliani's Office of Emergency Operations, and Secret Service were among the tenants of this building. And you are telling me this was still Bin Laden coordinating from a cave? I don't think so. That defies logic and reason. People always say: "They never could have pulled off a conspiracy this big". Then they go and believe that 19 Arabs and a man in a cave theory. That's the most absurd conspriacy theory to date.

Starscream said...

I fully agree with you. You should never throw the conspiracy theory away because the idea sounds much too farfetched. I would like to know what exactly are you claiming. It seems to me, and this is what I think, that you believe that 9/11 was not deliberately pulled off by our government or the Bush Administration. In fact, it was pulled off by the terrorists and our government was to arrogant to see the warning signs before the attack. Is that the claim you are declaring.

alyne said...

I respect what you said about "9/11 being the best thing to happen to Bush's presidency," but I think that he could have planed out all of 9/11. The conspiracy theories as well as what the government reports on 9/11, both should be consider by each person using their own beliefs and knowledge to determine what actually happened. I think that if Bush did plan the attacks then being at the school talking to the students would have been just a cover up and would not seem that he was responsible for the attacks.
This is only for a school assignment other wise I would not have even question your opion.

Anonymous said...

yes i think these attacks are the best things that happened for Bush's Presidenticy, b/c it got all of the support of the American ppl to go to war....and i do belive he was behind hind it, if you connect the dots, the bush's and bin Ladens are 2 rich families based off oil and marvin bush, george bush's brother, was head of security for the WTC, the same secrity who claimed to be pulled periodically throught the weeks leading up to the attacks...what could they have been pulled for?? maybe to set up explosives....

Heather Annastasia said...

What's with the school assignments?

Don't apologize for questioning people's positions. People who can't defend their positions should reconsider them (or they shouldn't spread them around, anyway).

The building 7 thing is really interesting.


I'm not really making a claim on this one, it just seemed like an issue that would generate debate.

Also, I'm a writer, so sometimes I like to focus on something just because I find an interesting angle from which to discuss it.

The whole "Bush the 9/11 matermind" juxtaposed against the "Bush sitting there looking stupid for 7 minutes" struck me as a humorous way to look at the subject of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I'm not pushing an opinion with this particular post, I just want to discuss the issue.

Anonymous said...

Building 7 a mystery to everyone, including 9/11 Commission Report, which opted to not mention it at all.

Very strange. I believe possibility of insurance fraud on part of Larry Silverstein. He paid off someone.

Also, I believe that 9/11 was an inside coup of Neocons led by Cheney and contacts in Defense and Intelligence who wanted to take over the Middle East for Israeli security and oil control. I personally believe the plan was not fully executed and in fact Bush was supposed to be shot dead in front of the cameras at the school. It was all an elaborately staged pysch-op to pretext 20 years of taking over the world and its natural resources. Only part of the plot, in my opinion, actually was enacted.

ProfBenny said...

HA, Anon, Starscream, and Alyne (who shouldn't be discussing something if she has no frigging genuine interest in it!): First, HA, I can't believe you refer to your reluctance to get informed about 9/11 and the tremendous amount of distortion surrounding the entire event, which is the most traumatic event to ever affect the U.S, as being the result of "the futility of the matter?????" Yes, I understand that you are claiming the administration are a bunch of Leatherfaced bruts, yet you are reluctant to admit Leatherface likes to kill to get what he wants, right? I think Anon is right on, and wide awake. Alyne, you get an "F." And Starscream, quit poking this chick. Her claim is that all 9/11 conspiracy theories are bunk. Her data is that George Bush is an idiot, and all conspiracy theories lack credit. She has no backing. Her entire case rests on her assumption that her government would never ever ever do that to her. This blog makes a bah bah sound.

Anonymous said...

I attack the physics of the "official" 9/11 report

Physics Item #1

> A kitchen gadget ... aprox 10" long flexable plastic handle with a little stainless steel weight at one end. Its used for breaking up ice cubes, to use it you hold an ice cube in the palm of your hand and with the other hand swing the "hammer" to hit the ice cube, and the ice cube breaks without hurting your hand, if you made the same motion without an icecube in your hand, you could bruse your hand. OUCH!
This proves that breaking something uses up energy.

Physics item #2

> Find a location with either a concrete or stone deck, and place a glass bottle on the deck and then drop a brick on it, the bottle breaks obviously. Now get a bucket of sand the same weight as the brick and dump the sand on a bottle of the same kind. What is the result?

Physics Item #3

> use an expendable stainless steel fork for this demonstration. Hold it by the handle and expose the tines to fire, note that it takes time for the fork to heat up to the point of feeling it in the handle. Point, it takes time to heat an object throughout.

Note about Steel Framed buildings -
Picture the hypothetical 110 story office tower and if one could teleport to the roof of the building tens of thosands of tons of rocks, the structure would be loaded down and this load would be distributed throughout the building such that if there where a weak link at say the south east corner of the 37th floor, the breakage would start at the weak link.

I bring up these little "Mr Wizard" demonstrations to make a point.

The point of Physics item #1 is that if upon starting the collapse of the WTC, the falling mass of the upper floorsis aledged to have caused the huge ammount of breakage of material, (Note cloud of pulverized concrete) how could there be enough energy remaining to break the structure of the floors below?

Look at the Video of the WTC towers collapsing, note that the very first thing happening is a huge cloud of pulverized concrete around the upper floors of the WTC. The breakage of of the floors is seen to be complete on a floor by floor basis, all the way down. If the very top of the building has had most of its mass in concrete pulverized, would it not then act more like the sand dumped on the glass bottle in example #2? That is be much less prone to produce breakage of the floor below(?)

The fires that aledgedly contributed to the collapse of the WTC where NOT all over the building, they indeed where localized and heat would have to travel along the length of steel beams to heat the entire structure, (given time to acomplish this...) Please note also that paper burns at 451 deg F and part of the blame for the collapse is given to the burning office materials (paper being the most common amoung these.) Note also that various items of office furnature have fire safety ratings because there has been a consciousness to safety in the workplace these days. I am VERY skeptical of the claim that buring office furnature/paper/or? added significant fuel to an inferno that caused
the collapse of the WTC. The question remains as to just what exactly did cause the collapse(?)

The idea that tousands of welds and joints would have to fail right on "Q" to acheve the mode of collapse demonstrated on 9/11/2001 ... well, I'm not buyin' it at all!

There is something else at work here, not one or even two, but THREE buildings collapsed straight down at near free fall speed, thats un-natural!

Also note that the "logic" of the official explanation of what happened at the PENTAGON shakes out as follows.

A Boeing 757 would have to hit the Pentagon, punch a hole in the wall and at the same time shatter the aircraft into bits small enough to enter the hole, and then the vast majority of the aircraft bits would have to not only continue on well enough to enter the building, but to penetrate two more rings of the building! Not only that,
but to achive the goal of having the vast majority of the aircraft enter the building, the jet fuel explosion would have to delay untill the aircraft was ( at least for the most part...) inside the building. If say the jet fuel explosion had gone off while the tail section of the 757 was still outside the Pentagon, there would be
substantial pieces of the aircraft on the Pentagon lawn.

Lets contrast the appearance of the WTC (second crash) with the PENTAGON scene.
In the case of the WTC, FLT 175 is seen to strike the building and then enter as a hot knife through butter,however in the case of the PENTAGON crash, the aircraft is said to have experenced near total destruction upon impact. The scenario as given in the "official" report includes having the wings of the Boeing 757 fold neatly back to allow the entire aircraft to enter the PENTAGON. So, in one case, an aircraft slices through the steel and concrete of the WTC very neatly and smoothly, and on the other hand unpon striking the PENTAGON an aircraft satters into bits.

Whats real here?

jollyboy said...

Heather, I totally appreciate the fact that you are one of many analytical citizens who continue to make an effort to question and advocate truth to the events that occurred on 9/11, specifically the president’s role and responses to the incident. However, I must say that I disagree with your remark that declared: “But I know for a fact that Bush himself couldn't have been in on the particulars.” For you or anyone else to declare the aforementioned remark, you must assume that a.) President Bush, as well as his administration, was negligent in observing several warnings, and b.) Al Qaeda terrorists were the sole masterminds of the life-altering attacks. If Bush was not an advocate in the attacks, why is it that he and many of the members of his administration found guilty of lying to citizens about several questions concerning the 9/11 attacks? Not only that, the administration was also condemned and ridiculed for obstructing the 9/11 investigation. Now, you must ask yourself why officials would lie and hinder investigation efforts of 9/11 if they were not “in on the particulars.” The FAA, the CIA, the FBI, and Bush himself all lied to citizens at some point or another about the issues concerning 9/11. Although the president maintained composure after hearing such devastating information, it does not warrant his absence in advocating the 9/11 attacks simply because he did not respond as any other individual would have responded after hearing news of that degree, he is the president; when he is calm, everyone else is calm and when he goes bonkers everyone else may go bonkers or conclude that he is an irrational president. To end, I must say that I concur with your opinion in regards to the administration using the events of September 11, 2001 to their full advantage, which I believe was to achieve pre-planned war efforts, but that is another story.

Heather Annastasia said...


I'm very sorry, I've been neglecting this blog for the past day-and-a-half (computer problems). I'll have it resolved in a few hours, and I'll be back on track.

profbenny , I'm afraid you've missed the point here entirely. I wouldn't make a post on something in which I had no genuine interest. This is just something on which I have no firm opinion. I'm enjoying the discussion very much.

anon #11 , woa! I'm going to need a moment to take all that in. (still dealing with my computer crap at the moment). I loved physics, but I couldn't do the math, so I failed. :(

jollyboy , you’re right; I shouldn't say I know anything for fact. That's not my style.

I do wonder about the lying, and why Bush and Cheney requested (and were allowed) to be interviewed by the 9/11 Commission together (and not under oath), but this could simply have been to cover up their own incompetence in preventing 9/11, or their lying to get us into war with Iraq.

Here's the bottom line, and this goes back to my original futility remark: at the very, very least this administration is guilty of inexcusable incompetence, lying their way into a war with Iraq, and helping their corporate buddies make insane money off this war at the expense of our taxes and our young soldiers.

These are the crimes the majority of the country agrees this administration is guilty of. This is why the Democrats were swept into Congress IN SPITE OF wide spread voting irregularities.

And what is happening??

Scooter was indicted.

That's it.

Can you understand my cynicism here?

eliz07 said...

I respect your claim regarding the fact that the president is not on the "inside" of the 911 tragedies. In your blog you are assuming that the president was not on the "inside"--just because. Obviously I do not know everything about the conspiracies or the 911 events. But I do think that you can not just rule out all conspiracies just because of how the President reacted when he heard the news in that classroom in Florida.

cac35 said...

When reading your blog I was under the thought that you believe that the Bush Adminastration had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. But after reading your comments it seems you now believe the Bush Adminstration did pull it off. Yes i do belive that President Bush and his administration had nothing to do with the Attacks on September 11th. And you did make a good point saying, If the Bush Adminastration did plan the attacks why would they be in a classroom full of young children? If they did plan the attacks dont you think they would be in a top secret place where they could conduct the attack?

Anonymous said...

Note for Heather...
RE: physics, I specificly left out any reference to math in my post because I wanted people to get a feel for the dynamics involved without having to do cumbersome calculation to make a point.
If you can clear your mind of any preconceved notion of airplanes and Arab hyjackers and just look at the collapse of the WTC, you will see CONTROLED DEMOLITION.

Real structural failure would be chaotic and would be very obvious but also a danger to the buildings nearby and if the collapse of the WTC caused significant damage to nearby buildings there would most certanly be an investigation, so the goal had to be minimize the damage to the rest of Manhattan.
They did a good job, I have no idea exactly how much of what sort of expolsives where used, but it was CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Wake up AMERICA - we been had!

Heather Annastasia said...

If it was a controlled demolition, then my next question would be how?

I've watch controlled demolitions on TV, so I know that for buildings much smaller than the WTC towers, it takes a whole crew of people several days to plant all the explosives and hok up all the wiring, and that's when they're doing it in an evacuated builing.

What size crew would it take to do a job like this? How would they plant all the explosives without anyone seeing them?

The Pentagon claims are completely new to me. Are you saying the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane? How could they fake something like that? Didn't people see the plane?

I also read somewhere that someone said that the plane that went down en route to D.C. was shot down, not hijacked. But people were on their cell phones with their family members, so there are witnesses to that hijacking as well.

Like I said, I don't firmly believe or disbelieve much; anything's possible. Still, lean toward believing that, at most, the Bush administration maybe knew it was coming and didn't stop it because they knew they could use such an attack to their own advantage.

And they certainly have.

Jason said...

Why haven't we captured anyone responsible? We're very good at catching people. No nation does it better.

Building 7 was pulled. They released the com audio of the whole event. The authorities considered 7 to be hazard since there was burning debris close to it. My opinion at least for building 7 is insurance fraud. That building was perfectly okay. St. Pauls Chapel, the 250 year old historical register episcopal church across the street was left unscathed by the whole event.

Jason said...

Oh yeah, in case anyone missed Bush Sr. Speech 10 years to the day earlier.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jason, You wanna know why they havent caught anyone responsible... well maybe because they were on the planes and i believe everyone died on impact from the plane crash.

Heather Annastasia said...

Thanks for the YouTube clip!

That's just scary!

Ugh... Don't you just hate that creepy, soothing Mr. Rogers tone in his voice when he says, "When we are successful... and we will be "

Gives me the willies!!

Jason said...

Anonymous (at least make up a name)

We could start with Bin Laden. The people on the plane were the muscle, I want the administration. We can say the people wielding box cutters in the name of Allah were at the very least brainwashed pawns.

Heather Annastasia said...


Bush said he's not worried about Bin Laden.

Jason said...

Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?