The 9-11 "Cover-up" Theorists - Is That ALL It's about?

Sunday, wife Rita and I went over to Victoria, in order for her to visit an optometrist there. I always park away from the rest of the vehicles in the lot, in order to avoid the otherwise certain battering from the car doors of people who respect nothing in this world but their own interests and comfort. I’ve written before about how such matters can tell a historical investigator about a society and nation. About a culture, too. The statistics concerning matters like parking lot courtesy, apartment or condominium complex trash and dumpsters, and more, tell a tale the politically correct and religious have a great deal of difficulty in refuting rationally.

Anyway, as we returned to the car, Phillip, the exchange student from Austria staying with us, noticed that the hood on my car was open. Trust me, there’s no way that can mean anything but the fact that someone has raised and failed to close it completely. More, my car being what it is, that means someone has gone to considerable difficulty. They’ve broken into the passenger compartment of the car.

For the next twenty minutes, while my Rita and Phillip stood a distance away, I did the drill that is checking a car for sabotage, or a bomb. Doing so, I saw that the car had been searched thoroughly, everything in the trunk moved. Since I keep survival gear there, filling the trunk almost to its capacity, that is an elaborate and time consuming process. More, the motion detectors my car is equipped with confirmed that there had been at least two intruders, persons who remained silent during the entire operation. I also saw that the intruders were professionals, inasmuch as they had opened the car and trunk with lock “picking” equipment. In broad daylight, as it was, that narrowed the identity of the trespassers considerably.

Nothing had been stolen. But how about something left? Considering and deciding to take the chance – being stopped on the way home, under the circumstances, ought prove more of an opportunity than otherwise – I signaled Rita and Phillip to get in the car.

The ride home was uneventful. Yesterday, when we awoke to find the garage door open, that being a garage door that can only come to be in that state one way, however, I immediately examined my car again. Sure enough. When I had immediately continued the voluminous record of it all started the day before by mailing it both by regular mail and e-mail to a number of friends confidential and otherwise, I relaxed.

I know, you see, far more about my would-be tormentors than they realize. Oh, they’ve been instructed to remain quiet during their operations – I’ve long since had the reputation with my government for laying ineluctable and devastating traps. More, my story with all its facets is now all over the Word Wide Web, the nation, and the world. I am, in fact, all but “untouchable.”

Legally, that is. This is – obviously – no longer a nation of laws. It will be most interesting to see what comes next.

Returning to our discussion of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 where we left off with French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media, I note that in his book entitled ‘The Big Lie,’ Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile(!) — part of an elaborate “U.S. military coup.”

Note that the U.S. military coup to which Meyssan refers occurred in the late forties and early fifties. Note, too, the utter absurdity of the story. Among dozens of things, why would the government – or anyone – attack the World Trade Center with radio-controlled airliners, then the Pentagon with a guided missile – a missile apparently equipped to strew airliner parts about the area in the process of reaching its target? Obviously, Messieur Meyssan has never heard of Occam’s Razor – or keep it simple, stupid.

If, like the operation required to bring down the World Trade Center (did anyone notice I haven’t yet mentioned Building Seven in that regard) by controlled demolition, the shear impossibility of what our modern-day Hercule Poirot claims weren’t enough, we have the argument that the holes in the Pentagon were the wrong size for having been hit by a Boeing 757.

Facts (yeah, I know they irritates hell out of the conspiracy folks, but I only deal in facts)? Well, first: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a jagged, irregular hole roughly – we’re not talking cake knives and cookie cutters here - 75 ft. wide. That’s according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance investigators and their report. Note, once again, that unlike the conspiracy theorists' scores of witnesses (who have, somehow, magically disappeared [that’s names, addresses, record of existence, names and addresses of relative and associates – all that inconvenient forensic proof stuff]), the investigators, their report, and the statement so literally hundreds of witnesses are available for perusal, review, and criticism.

The Pentagon outer ring’s exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations have later confirmed the findings.

Then, there’s the matter of the second hole, a 16(?) foot one in the Pentagon's Ring C. That one, obviously, was made by Flight 77’s landing gear – the gear was found inside the building near the hole it made.

Aw shucks – Huxley’s “great tragedy of Science–the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”


Next in this smorgasbord of tormented and spastic ratiocination we have the bizarre claim that many Pentagon windows remained in one piece — even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Now, admittedly, while remembering that I DID come across the Website Pentagonstrike.co.uk and its online animation being circulated in the United States and Europe, I can’t remember what all that was supposed to prove. That I don’t remember almost certainly is due the fact that some things are just not memorable, that due their absurdity and uselessness.

I supposed the "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove an aircraft smaller than a 757 hit the Pentagon. Presumably, a missile would have carried explosives – or maybe the plotters were clever enough to remove the explosives or reduce the charge in order to make it appear that a plane smaller than a 757 hit the building. . . And if the reader is shaking his head in wonderment at the convolute reasoning or plot such information would suggest, he sees why I didn’t pay enough attention to the claim to remember it.

I happen also to know that the windows in the Pentagon are blast-resistant. If they survived the crash, they did just what they were designed to do. Looking it up, I found this from one Ken Hays, Executive Vice-President of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows: "A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously. These (windows) were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Another lovely theory slain by an ugly fact. Shazam!

Next in the smorgasbord of silly, we have the claim that there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," pentagonstrike.co.uk, says. “Which,” these latter day Sherlocks insists, “asks the question, ‘What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?’”

That, incidentally – and to demonstrate the logical merit of it all – (proves that) “a small plane, not a 757, hit the building.” We don’t know what hit the building, but that tells us what DID hit the building; we don’t know what hit the Pentagon, but that proves that a missile hit the Pentagon. And, something that left no debris of itself hit the building . . .

Geez – tell me guys: if the government could blow that hole in the Pentagon without leaving any debris at all, what was all that falderal about the WTC? Why were we damning the government for not finding debris THERE? What about all those pictures YOU posted everywhere to prove that a radio-controlled airliner struck? Why would the government use one method here another there, and. . .?

Oh, hell – never mind!

What are the facts, again – those anyone can locate, and check? Well, blast experts like Allyn E. Kilsheimer, (who happens to be CEO of KCE Structural Engineers in Washington, D.C.) myself, and others I know personally, basically say what Kilsheimer says. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash in order to help coordinate emergency responders.

"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box."

And scores – literally, again – of photos of wreckage inside and outside the building both appeared on television and remain in the record for perusal of anyone taking the time and making the effort necessary. Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up, in other words, by evidence in the form of photos and video. And the CEO adds, "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


Now, what I should do here, were I to subscribe to the my debate opponent's methods in the matter of the 9-11 - is say I KNOW Kilsheimer - just make something up that sounds really good and probative. Make something up out of whole cloth, something that supports my argument. Sure - that would to it.


Instead, I urge the reader to go to the Web, look for any thermo-copy, video, or redaction otherwise of any statement by any witness. See if you can find any photo, video, or other documentary proof of what the declaiming bloviator there insists is fact. Even one recorded and documented statement by any firemen, policemen witness – hobo; I don’t care – will be more than I have been able to come up with. I would absolutely love to get my hands on just one written (typed, recorded, or provable – name it) statement from some credible person who heard or saw explosions in the World Trade Center towers, Building Seven or the Pentagon. See if you can find anything but an attempt to prove something by doubting what is know. More, in other words, of the “I don’t know what happened, but that tells me what happened and who did it” balderdash.

Which reminds me: if the government brought down the Trade Center with controlled demolition, and were able to do all the necessary preparation secretly (those invisible men, able to substantially alter the building without making any noise or leaving any sign) there, why in hell use a missile – hell, even a plane – on the Pentagon?

That’s to ignore a dozen more operational, tactical, and evidentiary inconsistencies fatal to the theorist opportunists.

Here, I choose to digress for a time, in order to expand upon another thing about all this that troubles me. As one with more than fifty years in the hobby and business of making scientific incident and accident investigations and reconstructions, I have seen and heard some “doozy” constructions of myth and the fanciful tale. The World Trade Center affair is the “doozy” of them all. In years to come, I predict that it will become the textbook example of “don’t does” for forensicists, detectives and other kinds of fact investigators. The aftermath of “9-11” has been the Jump to Conclusion Olympics of all time.

Now, of course, the purveyors of all the hype, sales gimmicks, and the like – the opportunist hucksters, in other words – could have been expected. Anyone who lived through the assassination of John Kennedy, the circus surrounding the trial of O.J. Simpson, or the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, could not claim surprise.

That the public has become so easy to dupe is worrisome – stupefyingly so, in fact; and in that I refer more to those who eagerly spread the nonsense, thereby lending it a kind of credibility and power with the otherwise disinterested public and voter. In so doing, the gossip-monger and amateur – meaning for love alone, devoid of profit otherwise – sleuth plays directly into the hands of those he would defeat. By confusing in the interests of sale-ability due notoriety as many things as he possibly can, the huckster and his dupe actually make more certain that historians (like myself) will never know the whole truth.

But it’s not the worst thing we face. And why do I – who has suffered as I have for so many years under the totalitarian hand of government - crap like the story that leads my essay here, seem to defend the government in the matter that is my topic?

I don’t. Just as I once seemed to defend criminals – even the scum of the earth – against the law, I may now seem to defend the damnable U.S. government. But, friend, I don’t defend the government; I defend the truth. All these years ago, when the doing was to prove my downfall and let my enemy the state take everything from me, I defended not the criminal (albeit the U.S. Government), but the U.S. Constitution. You see, I know that whenever any one of us is on trial by the government, we are ALL on trial. Whenever the government violates the civil rights of any one of us - however base, however rotten, however vicious he may be – it violates the civil rights of each and every one of the rest of us.

Whenever anyone, group or individual, violates the truth and the scientific systems by which we know it, it violates the truth, period; it attacks sanity itself, and it plays by so doing into the very hands of those it would use falsehood to destroy. Remember the old saw, that goes, “The first liar never has a chance?” Think about it. When you lie, you assure not only that your lie will be used against you, you assure that lying itself will be used against you. In a nation where there is no truth, the tyrant rules easily. Look around you. We are in this pickle because the truth is not in us, for where there is no truth there cannot be justice.

And where there is no justice is where there is tyranny. Anyone who can believe the 9-11 conspiracy theorists concerning their government can believe their government - and believe that we live in a democracy. THAT's how important is knowing the truth, what it is, and how to know it.