9/11 Nutjobs infest ABC site

Why Australia's ABC would feature a 9/11 Nutjob on the front page of its website is beyond me. I would have thought that it hurts their brand.



There are two things that all good conspiracies have in common:

• They require government hyper-competence. In this case, the same government whose intelligence agencies got suckered by a tin pot Middle Eastern dictator into believing he had WMD. The same government whose post-Iraq War actions were the very antithesis of competence until someone got smart and appointed General David Petraeus; and
• They are generally held against people with whom the conspiracists have a philosophical difference.

Thus, unwittingly, the ABC shows its anti-Bush, anti-conservative colours. Not that it's any big secret, of course. If there was a Democratic Party president then you can be sure that the ABC wouldn't have featured such a topic so prominently.

Hereward Fenton's post is titled Unanswered 9/11 Questions. The fact is that the questions have been answered. Comprehensively. But these Nutjobs refuse to believe what is clear for all to see.

His bio reads:

Hereward Fenton is a researcher in the 9/11 truth movement in Australia. He is a senior computer programmer and holds a BA in anthropology and religious studies. His passion for truth has led him down some deep rabbit holes, 9/11 being the deepest. He is editor and webmaster of www.911oz.com – an Australian website dedicated to the cause of truth and justice for the crimes of 9/11.

Notice how easily the term 'truth movement' has entered the vernacular? That it's got nothing to do with truth is clear. It's like using the term 'democratic' in a nation's name: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for example.

From his article:

The collapse of New York's World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.

I'll bet there are more than one thousand topics that are better documented than the collapse of the WTC. Nearly all of those documents that do relate to it relate to the controversy about why they fell and have been put forward by Nutjobs like him.

At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training's official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.

I'll bet that at least 90% of those 357 people are Democratic Party supporters - if they're real at all. I googled some names, looked in telephone directories for the areas they're supposed to be in and there were more than a few that can't be proven as real using that method.

The petition, demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation, states, in part:

"...the 9/11 investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."

At first glance you might be agreeing with the proposition that the collapse of Building 7 is worth further investigation and that the 9/11 Nutjobs have a point.

What they're actually doing is using the most difficult point to prove, as it requires the reader to have a strong understanding of architecture, explosives and demolitions, to validate the other areas of their arguments that have also been profoundly debunked. By getting people to question the Building 7 collapse Nutjobs get the audience to open up their minds to the possibility, even if it's ever so slight, that it was an inside job.

Consider this. For the Building 7 collapse to have been caused by explosive planted by a government demolition team then ALL of the following must be true:

• The government flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the WTC North Tower;
• The government flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the WTC South Tower;
• The government flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, or a missile if that's what you think it was;
• The government intended to fly United Airlines Flight 93 into the White House but were thwarted by passengers, or it was shot down by the Air Force, or it landed and its passengers were then taken away and 'disappeared' before crashing in Pennsylvania; and
• The government planted demolition charges in not only both of the WTC Towers but also Tower 7, which was never a target and whose demolition could only arouse suspicion.

Not only does it have to do all of that obvious stuff that we all saw but also:

• The government had to warn all of the Jews working in the WTC not to go to work that day and then make sure none of them talked;
• The government had to ensure that American Airlines and United Airline played along;
• The government had to ensure that security at the airports let the hijackers through; and
• The government has to 'stand down' the air force so that the planes couldn't be intercepted.

What level is there above hyper-competence? Because that's what it would take for a government to achieve all that in complete secrecy.

It goes without saying that the vast majority of the few hundred comments on the article agree with the author's thesis though there are some sensible ones in there.

As I said, why the heck that the ABC wants to hurt its brand by featuring such drivel is a mystery to me.

Perhaps there are a few more lunatics in the place than we previously understood.

(Nothing Follows)