Why the 'fake' tag? Is there an official explanation for this? What did the other 2 Migs see?

I'm a sucker for UFO crap - it's always good to be reminded that the world is a stranger place than it looks.

No one can ask more than that. Conversely, no one can ask less - I believe it's the duty of every citizen to ask tough questions of their government, if only to prevent things getting worse for future generations. The citizens of Germany in the 1930s failed in that duty. We cannot afford to - the stakes are higher now even than they were then.

If everyone was as open-minded as you, the world would be a far better place.

It's so real I could almost reach out and... OUCH! my hand is on fire!

Interesting proof of concept, but I wouldn't want one in my living room.

Got to love PinguBot.

James is right, this is one of the least messed-up parts of this film. Visually, it's gross, but psychologically it has nothing on some of the other scenes.

It's a good film, but I defy anyone to watch it and not feel queasy about what they've just seen.

Posted not so much for the 'smash the state' message, but the cheesetastic acting.

Nonetheless, the information in this video could be very useful if you're a stoner or graffiti artist...

handy trick! would be quicker to go to the shops and buy a bottle opener though...

Astroturfing. I like it! Must remember to use that word in conversation.

Unlike Krupo and dag, I'm voting because I believe that Exxon-Mobil have the world's best interests at heart, whereas Al Gore is clearly a dangerous charlatan.

tgeffeney - I'm glad you asked. As Donald Sutherland once said:

"Well that's the real question, isn't it? Why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public."

There are many possibilities (and at the moment, that's all they are - possibilities. I'm not saying I endorse any of these in particular). Oil is one obvious motive. Establishing a military presence in the Middle East to guard against the increasing might of Russia and China is another. Halliburton's no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq. The corporations that supply the military industry. Israel getting the US to do its dirty work. Distraction from politically damaging domestic issues. An excuse for bad legislation like the Patriot Act. Legitimising NSA wire-taps. These are just a few off the top of my head.

The fact is, many people have benefitted financially and politically, and while that's no evidence of a conspiracy (much of it, no doubt, is mere cynical opportunism), it is an important question to ask.

Now: who didn't benefit? Al-Qaeda didn't - they've had their arse thoroughly kicked. Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Err...

samnmax - you're right. Most laypeople aren't in a position to evaluate the science, and there isn't an overwhelming consensus either way. The only claim made by the 9/11 'truth movement' (which is a name I prefer not to use, since it suggests that all who doubt the official story agree with each other, which is patently false) is that these things need investigating.

The important thing to realise is that there is a huge disincentive for academics (despite the fact that academics are disproportionately left-wing) and media personalities to question what happened, because the world is full of people like theo47 who simply put their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la children holocaust deniers wingnuts la la' when they do. The obstacle for 'conspiracy theorists' to overcome is this: Everyone else expects them to explain everything (who, what, why, how) in one go.

But, by their nature, investigations are gradual processes. Steven Jones, the physicist who wrote a paper on the collapse of the buildings, was very clear right from the start that he wasn't interested in speculating about who did what or why - he was only interested in discussing the science. Even so, he was ridiculed and ignored by the mainstream, not because of what he SAID, but because of what his claims IMPLIED. That is short-sighted, and unfortunate.

(As an aside, I would wager that Steven Jones has a firmer grasp of the science involved than Noam Chomsky.)

dag - cheers! yup, it's a haggis, just like me.

theo47 - it's interesting that you know so much about me and my motivations, considering we've never met. The fact is that the atrocities that have been committed in the 'War on Terror' sicken me, and if there is cause for reasonable doubt about what happened (which I and huge numbers of others believe there is), there needs to be a fresh inquiry. The Kean Commission has all sorts of problems with it - we certainly don't have all the answers yet. If I were an ideologue, I would be promoting a theory about what I think happened. I'm not - my concern is with what I think didn't happen, i.e. ONYA.

So is Norman Baker a 'conspiracy nut'?

I have read the Popular Mechanics article. Here is one possible response: http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

(joshd - incidentally, 911review.com is an excellent starting point. It's thorough and well-researched, and isn't afraid to call BS when it comes across it.)

There ARE a lot of conspiracy nuts out there. But to tar everyone who questions what they read in the paper with that same brush is a little silly. Just because I have difficulty accepting the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory doesn't mean I hang out with David Icke.

[quote]
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it - that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to that screen netting.
[/quote]

That was from Frank DeMartini, the on-site construction manager of the WTC. It's all in the video. Unfortunately we'll never know whether or not he was surprised by the collapse because he was in the North Tower helping people to evacuate when it fell.

You're right to point out, of course, that a plane travelling at 500mph has much more kinetic energy than one flying at 200mph (a little over 5 times as much, in fact). It's a little disingenuous to focus on this, however - it implies that the towers could resist a hit from the slower moving plane, but not the faster moving one, as if the slower plane would be stopped dead in its tracks! You're obviously a smart guy, Krupo, so I'm not going to suggest that this is what you believe - I'm just pointing out that kinetic energy isn't as important a factor as you might think.

Chomsky's a smart guy, and this is worth listening to. His arguments are valid, but not sound - his premises are either false (about whistleblowers etc, as Snake points out), or beg the question (e.g. 'they couldn't have controlled it', which is only true IF the ONYA story is correct).

He also suggest that it's not worth investigating - 'who cares?' - which I find stupefying.

Sorry theo47, I can't let that one go. There is nothing more disrespectful to the memory of those lost than ignoring the possibility that they weren't murdered by terrorists.

Here in the UK a prominent and well-respected MP, Norman Baker, is conducting an inquiry into the death of David Kelly, a scientist employed by the government. Very few people believe that he committed suicide. And yet his colleagues and the media have chastised Baker, suggesting that he is being disrespectful to the Kelly family, and that we should all move on.

It's such a predictable response, and so utterly backwards. Firstly, seeking the truth is not disrespectful (or would you say that it is to the 9/11 bereaved who have spoken out against the Kean Commission?), and secondly, these issues concern all of us, regardless of whether or not we had personal connections to those who died. We all have to live in this world, which I'm sure we can agree is getting progressively shittier, in large part because of post-9/11 politics.

If you have something constructive to say, say it. Don't hide behind a wall of ersatz indignation. Take a leaf out of Krupo's book - he disagrees with Snake and myself, but always explains why, and never resorts to suggesting that we have grisly motives.

dag, you're right - even 'level-headed' people seem to need to exaggerate and sensationalise when it comes to 9/11, and too often it stops people having mature discussion. Not here though, I'm pleased to say (with the exception of theo47...)

There's some interesting observations in this film, besides e.g. the physics of pyroclastic flow and doubts about the pancake theory (which probably goes over most of our heads, so we end up having to choose an authority to appeal to), such as that the designers of the towers believed it could withstand multiple strikes from a 707 with ease, and that the core was explicitly designed to prevent fire spreading.