9/11 Truth Movement: Looking for Truth, or Promoting Theories by Any Means Necessary?


 

Main Page               The 9/11 Truth Movement: A Closer Look

This article takes a critical approach towards the evidence presented by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Are they really looking for truth? Or are they promoting their own theories by any means necessary. Let’s take a closer look at some of their evidence and the reality behind them.

 

This article is further divided into following sections:

 

  • Clearly False or Fake Evidence
    • WTC Roof Fire
    • Altered Audio
    • Fake Demolition Audio
  • Promoting False Claims
    • Pull It
  • Intentionally Deceptive Evidence
    • Quote Mining
    • Steven Jones Photos
    • William Rodriguez
  • Contradicting Evidence
    • Thermite vs. Explosives
    • Collapse Into Own Footprint / Large Chunks Were Ejected
    • Basement Explosions vs. Top Explosions
    • Eyewitness Testimonies
    • Flight 77 FDR
  • Unresearched Evidence
    • The Pentagon Impact Hole Size
    • Hijackers Are Alive
    • PC Simulation GameAir Traffic Control Center”
  • Avoiding Confrontation
  • Denial of Existing Evidence
  • End Notes

 

 

Clearly False or Fake Evidence:

 

Some 9/11 evidence is just plain fake. There is no question about it. This is shown by following examples.

 

 

WTC Roof Fire

This is to give an example of what is discussed here. Evidence, which is clearly fake.

 

 

Video here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTCFire.mp4

 

This is fake, because there was no fuel in that spot on the roof, much less anything that would make a 50-foot high, 75-foot wide inferno, no corroborating photos or videos, no corroborating eyewitness accounts and no investigator corroboration. There was never that kind of fire on the roofs of the WTC towers.

 

This roof fire fraud may be the work of some individual not related to 9/11 truth movement, but all the following examples are specifically used by the truth movement to further their cause.

 

 

Altered Audio

Take a look at this video: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=s6x07FKJZFw

 

The audio of the file has been altered in an effort to prove controlled demolition with explosives. Compare the altered audio to the original audio. This video has been linked to and used by numerous conspiracy theorists. If you want the real truth, why add explosive sounds where there were none?

 

 

Fake Demolition Audio

This example is used by Richard Gage of ae911truth.org in his slide presentation.

 

Start by visiting the ImplosionWorld Cinema. Choose the Philips building (top of the two rows, right-hand side) and watch the video. Pay particular attention when the timer gets past 10 seconds. You'll hear an explosion, see smoke shoot out from the centre base of the building, then hear another set of explosions, then the building falls. Repeat that a few times so you're familar with the timing.

Take a look at
the same implosion from another angle
. We don't have the same view of the base of the building this time, but you can still hear loud explosions before and after first smoke shoots out.

Now visit this page at
the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

 

And isn't that strange? Now there's no explosions at all, and what's more you can hear the building fall before it actually happens. It appears this version of the video has either had the explosions removed and seen the rest of the collapse sound moved forward to cover it (which would explain the silent second or two at the end), or perhaps has had the complete audio track added from somewhere else.

 

Thanks to Boloboffin and Mike Williams for pointing this out.

 

Why would you need to remove the explosion sounds from the soundtrack? Was it because when the WTC towers and WTC 7 collapsed, there were no such clearly audible explosions, thus confirming they were not demolished?

 

Update: Gage has finally removed the altered soundtrack from the presentation and replaced the slide with this new one. Of course, now that we DO hear explosions, it makes Gage's position even worse since no audible charges were heard on 9/11.

 

 

 

Promoting False Claims:

 

Some claims are just false. Like claiming a round table has four corners. This is perfectly demonstrated by the following example.

 

 

Pull It

This is probably the most infamous false claim used by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The claim goes like this: When Silverstein appeared in a PBS program America Rebuilds, he used the term "pull" to say that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives.

 

You can still see this claim being promoted here and here among dozens of sites of the same nature. They have not removed the claim from their webpages.

 

The entire quote goes like this: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

 

Of course, the term pull it does not refer to controlled demolition. Or would you say, that after having such a terrible loss of life, the smartest thing to do would be demolishing WTC 7? It makes no sense. "Pull" refers to the firemen, who were pulled, that is evacuated, from the vicinity of WTC 7. The person who ordered that evacuation was Chief Daniel Nigro. He comments the situation like this:

 

"I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

 

The reasons are as follows:

 

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. 

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

 

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. 

 

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit."

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

 

The claim that “pull” meant demolition is completely false.

 

 

 

Intentionally Deceptive Evidence:

 

Some evidence is presented in a way, that is deceiving in nature. This is illustrated by the following examples.

 

 

Quote Mining 

There are countless examples of quote mining among the truth movement.

 

Here are few examples:

 

1. Danielle O'Brien, an air traffic controller on duty on 9/11 is often quoted saying of flight 77:

 

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought... that it was a military plane.”

 

The actual quote is:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

 

They didn’t say it wasn’t a 757. Nor did they say it actually was a military plane. They said it’s unsafe to fly a 757 like that and it surely is. To the hijackers this was not about safety.

 

2. Another quote-mine:

“... you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was.”

Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]

 

The actual full quote:

“You just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit”

 

Seems a rather important part was left out, don’t you think?

 

3. Alan Miller of patriotsquestion911.com (PQ911) uses lot of quote-mining and half-quotes, leaving out the relevant parts. Here is one example:

 

Quote from PQ911, Philip Morelli:

"... As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. I mean the impact of the explosion, from whatever happened, it threw me to the floor. And that's when everything started happening. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was. Of course, you're assuming something fell over on the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened. And all of a sudden you just felt the floor moving. ...

I was racing -- I was going towards the bathroom. All of a sudden. I opened the door. I didn't know it was a bathroom And all of a sudden a big impact happened again. And all the ceiling tiles were falling down. The light fixtures were falling, swinging out of the ceiling. And I come running out the door and everything, the walls were down. And I now started running towards the parking lots.

As I ran to the parking lots, you know, I mean, everybody screaming ... There was a lot of smoke down there. ... You gotta go clear across the whole -- from One to Two World Trade Center. That's the way you gotta run.

And then all of a sudden it happened all over again. Building Two got hit. I don't know that. I just know something else hit us to the floor. Right in the basement you felt it. The walls were caving in. Everything that was going on. I know of people that got killed in the basement. I know of people that got broken legs in the basement. People got reconstructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face."

 

Actual full quote, the bolded parts were left out by PQ911:

.. As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. I mean the impact of the explosion, of whatever happened, it threw me to the floor. And that's when everything started happening. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was. Of course, you're assuming something fell over on the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened. And all of a sudden you, you just felt the floor moving, and you get up, and the walls, and then you know I mean now I'm hearing that the a..main freight car, the elevators, you know what I mean, fell down, so I was right near the main freight car so I assume what that was. Then you know you heard that coming toward ya.

I was racing -- I was going towards the bathroom. All of a sudden. I opened the door. I didn't know it was a bathroom And all of a sudden a big impact happened again. And all the ceiling tiles were falling down. The light fixtures were falling, swinging out of the ceiling. And I come running out the door and everything, the walls were down. And I now started running towards the parking lots...

I just thought something uh because I know the loading dock is on B1, thats 3 floors above me, I just assumed that a car or something exploded on B1, or somethin got delivered, and something big and heavy fell over, you you just knew it was something big, cause you know I just can't imagine living in San Francisco or earth quakes, but when the floor is moving underneath ya, and everything is just happening, and smoke and people screaming, it...that...then, you just...i, I never knew, I never knew, its like to this...when I got outside the building, and I was running down the west side, it was the only time I heard about planes hitting the building.


As I ran to the parking lots, you know, I mean, everybody screaming, I actually helped somebody get to a staircase, that had a broken leg, There was a lot of smoke down there, there was a lot of people screaming, people came with us, running up the ramps, we wanted to get help, for the people that couldn't move down there. And as we were running up the ramps, and you know its not like a regular mall, that your going straight up, you have to go, you gotta go clear across the whole -- from One to Two World Trade Center. That's the way you gotta run.

And then all of a sudden it happened all over again. Building Two got hit. I don't know that. I just know something else hit us to the floor. Right in the basement you felt it. The walls were caving in. Everything that was going on. I know of people that got killed in the basement. I know of people that got broken legs in the basement. People got reconstructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face..."

 

See the difference?

 

 

Also, see this video of Mike Walter setting the record straight on the Pentagon missile.

 

These are just a few of very many examples of quote mining. Why don’t they want us to know the entire quotes? Isn’t that the real truth?

 

 

Steven Jones Photos

This topic circles around the photos that have been used to promote the "molten steel" and "thermite" theories at WTC site. In the first Steven Jones paper, titled "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?", he used this photo:

And this photo:

 

 

He titled the photos as: "Workers evidently peering into the hot ‘core’ under the WTC rubble”. However, the original caption of the second photo reads: "Investigations began as wreckage was cleared" and what we see are iron workers clearing the site. Now, why would Jones alter the title so completely to give it a totally different meaning?

 

Also notice the surprisingly yellow tint of the first photo. Here is the original first photo with correct colors:

 

 

As you can see, it is not a hot core they are looking at. These are rescue workers using a bright light. This is further proven by this video clip: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8J2ALXv0c6w

 

Jones has later retracted his 'workers peering into the hot core' claim, saying he got the first photograph from a magazine article. The magazine was Geo Magazine, a European publication with no connections to conspiracy theories. The second photo was taken from BBC website. He has withdrawn the first photo, but still uses the second photo with the iron workers and writes: “The photo may show the glow of hot metal in the rubble”. Does he ever learn?

 

Now, where did Steven Jones get the idea of a hot core? Did he do no research, grabbed the photos and placed a title that perfectly suited him? Could this have something to do with the theories he is trying to promote, namely the use of very hot thermite charges able to cut through steel?

 

 

William Rodriguez

He claims to have heard an explosion in the basement when the first plane hit. He also claims to know when the first plane hit, eventhough he was in the basement.

 

However, he has not always claimed this. When first interviewed he did not speak of an explosion, but said he heard a rumble, not like an impact, a rumble like moving furniture. He also spoke of a ball of fire. He has later claimed he has been misquoted or blamed translation errors.

 

But look at the clips here: http://911myths.com/index.php/William_Rodriguez. These are interviews from 2001 and 2002. Not a single mention of explosions. Those mentions of explosions surprisingly appeared only a few years later. And there were no misquotations or translation errors. He spoke himself in those clips.

 

See here for more on him.

 

 

 

Contradicting Evidence:

 

How about using directly contradincting evidence as proof. Sound too silly? Not at all. Take a look.

 

 

Thermite vs. Explosives

Ok, was it thermite or explosives? The usual explanation is, that both were used. Thermite to weaken the columns and then explosives to blow the columns out. This theory is promoted by the likes of Steven Jones and Richard Gage.

 

But how do you make sure, that you do not weaken the columns with thermite too much, so that the building would collapse before the actual explosives were set off? Why would you need thermite in the first place, if you had already rigged the buildings with explosives? And have you ever seen or heard of thermite cutter charges mentioned outside 9/11 conspiracy theories? Do they exist? Or are the conspiracy theorists just making you believe such a thing even exists? Sounds exiting, but has nothing to do with reality.

 

In a very interesting statement (around 1:05:00 mark), Richard Gage suggests that “silent thermate (an advanced form of thermite)” was used to bring the WTC towers down. He backs this claim up by stating that 118 FDNY personnel heard explosions. How do you hear silent explosions? When did thermate start exploding? Amazing.

 

To see what the explosions described by some firemen actually were, see here and here.

 

 

Collapsed Into Own Footprint / Large Chunks Were Ejected

These claims are used simultaneously. It is said, that the towers collapsed into their own footprint, while large pieces of debris were ejected outwards. Isn’t it obvious, that if something ejects outwards, that is not called ones own footprint?

 

Apparently its not that obvious at all.

 

See how David Ray Griffin puts it: Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. … snip … The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward.

 

Ok, maybe this was some slip of tongue. After all, we all make mistakes. But no. It is part of his “Destruction of the World Trade Center” paper:

 

The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. … snip … In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that “[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.”

 

Talk about contradictions. And what is that thing with no harm to other buildings? Ask WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, WTC7, WFC3, Verizon Building, Bankers Trust, 30 West Broadway or St. Nicholas Church among others, what they think about that statement.

 

 

Basement Explosions vs. Top Explosions

Another strange claim. It is claimed, that there were explosions in the basements of the towers and they were used to weaken the core. These claims are largely based on the statements of William Rodriguez (see above) and recently the statement of Anthony Saltalamacia.

 

There are some serious problems with this theory. Why would you blow things up in the basement, when you are supposed to start the demolition from above where the planes hit? Is it worth the risk to blow some columns in the basement at the risk of making the towers fail from the bottom? Also, there are some serious time issues. The first explosions are said to have taken place 7 seconds before the first plane hit. That is over 100 minutes before the collapse of WTC 1. Why blow up columns 100 minutes before the demolition takes place, and in a basement?

 

Actual evidence points towards a jet fuel explosion down the elevator shafts. Fittingly, that is exactly what William Rodriguez’s original statements confirm.

 

 

Eyewitnesses Testimonies

Why is it, that members of the truth movement only pay attention to those testimonies, that fit their agenda. For example, the interview of John Schroeder has been greatly hyped among the conspiracy people. But Mr. Schroeder even confused which tower fell first. Conspiracy theorists seem to ignore these inconvenient details.

 

But what about the dozens of other testimonies that cannot be used to promote conspiracy theories, quotes that rather make them look false.

 

Like these quotes.

 

Have you ever heard a conspiracy theorist mention any of those quotes? No. Because they support the “official story”. These quotes are simply ignored. Would you call that an honest seek for truth?

 

 

Flight 77 FDR

One of the stranger conspiracy claims is, that the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) of flight 77 proves, that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. It is claimed that the FDR proves the plane flew over Pentagon.

 

But the FDR was found in the Pentagon rubble. Why would anyone leave fake information to be found at the Pentagon, then release it to the public? If the FDR data is real, the plane hit Pentagon. If it's faked, why would they fake it not to show a hit?

 

Talk about another contradiction. Usage of evidence found at the crash scene to prove the plane did not crash there.

 

 

 

Unresearched Evidence:

 

Some evidence used by the truth movement could be easily shown false by doing minimal research. But that seems to be asking too much from the members of the movement. Here are some examples:

 

 

The Pentagon Impact Hole Size

It is widely claimed, that the impact hole at Pentagon was only 20ft (6 meters) wide. Photos like this close the case:

 

Hijackers Are Alive

Another claim getting repeated attention among the conspiracy theorists. But research reveals, that it was only the case of mistaken identities.

 

 

PC Simulation Game “Air Traffic Control Center”

What is this, you might ask. This is evidence used by David Ray Griffin to prove, that it takes only 10 minutes for the fighter jets to reach a hijacked aircraft. Want to hear more?

 

Griffin says this here: “But an Air Traffic Control document put out in 1998 warned pilots that any airplanes persisting in unusual behavior ‘will likely find two [jet fighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes.’”

 

Sound convincing, right? Until you find out, what that Air Traffic Control document actually is. It is in reality documentation for a PC simulation game called Air Traffic Control Center. And even that documentation speaks of incoming flights from overseas.

 

Now, why would you use some documentation from a PC game as an evidence, which futhermore supports something you say isn’t true: NORAD primarly looking outwards for threats?

 

This is what no research looks like.

 

Thanks to a real researcher Mike Williams for pointing this out.

 

 

 

Avoiding Confrontation:

 

If you wanted the truth, and thought you had the truth, you would like to promote it and defend it as much as possible, right? That doesn’t seem to be the case among the truth movement.

 

When is the last time you saw David Ray Griffin debate his views? Or Kevin Ryan? Or Jim Hoffman? Or Alex Jones?

 

There are some rare occasions however, that some form of a debate has taken place. The results have been devastating for the truth movement.

 

Loose Change vs. Mark Roberts & Ronald Wieck, Part 1, Part 2

Jim Fetzer vs. Mark Roberts & Ronald Wieck, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Richard Gage vs. Ron Craig

 

 

 

Denial of Existing Evidence:

 

How many times have you heard, that the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong. Only to find out, that the person saying this has not even read the reports. How can any true researcher say something like this, let alone a researcher that claims to be looking for the truth. That means taking a look at all aspects of the story. Not selecting the evidence you want to take a look at.

 

Some people have looked at the reports, but still claim they are wrong. They go to some detail about the flaws of the reports. For example, David Ray Griffin in his book “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” attacks the NIST report. Griffin’s mistakes have been thoroughly explained in this paper by Ryan Mackey. Griffin is aware of this paper. His response? None. His only comments are after reading 10 pages, when he commented they were "not promising".

 

 

 

End Notes:

 

Is this really a movement for truth? Does the movement looking for the real truth alter quotes, misrepresent evidence, omit important evidence, alter evidence, ignore evidence and even deliberately fake evidence?

 

I hope you think about this next time, you are thinking the 9/11 truth movement is out to find the real truth.

 

 

See also these related articles:

http://www.jod911.com/evidence.pdf

http://www.jod911.com/evidence2.pdf

 

See actual research:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/links