- Claim: Former Italian president Francesco Cossiga said 9/11 was an inside job
In Brief: This claim is based on a story published in an Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera. But has the former Italian president really joined the truth movement? Not according to this translation:
“As I’ve been told, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow (interview appeared on 30 november 07) the most important chain of newspaper of our country should give the proof, with an exceptional scoop, that the video (which in reality is an audio tape, NdR) in which appear Osama, leader of “the great and powerful movement of islamic revenge Al Quaeda” - God bless him! - and in which are formulated threats to our ex president Berlusconi, is nothing more than a fake realized inside Mediaset studios (the huge television group owned by Berlusconi) in Milan and sent to arabic television Al Jazeera.
The trap was organized to create solidarity for Berlusconi, which is having lot of problem related for the tangle between RAI and Mediaset. From sources near to Palazzo Chigi, the nevralgic center of italian intelligence, we know that the video is fake because Osama admits that he was the mind behind the attacks against the twin towers, while all the democratic parties in Europe and USA know very well that the attack was organised by CIA and Mossad, whit the help of sionistic world, just to accuse arab countries and induce occident to intervein both in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why nobody in parlament gave solidarity to Berlusconi, which is the author of the fake video"
It seems Cossiga is only being sarcastic about the perceived tendency of the Italian left to blame everything on Berlusconi, the Americans and the Zionists.
To further confirm Cossiga is not a conspiracy theorist, see this article published in another Italian newspaper La Stampa on September 4, 2006.
In this article he says: "I refuse the conspiracy theory, which is a smart and sometimes sincere contrafaction of reality caused by the fear of that (reality)".
And also: "Rembering how "open" american society is, I think it's very unlikely, I may say impossible, that 9/11 was an inside job".
So we conclude, that while Francesco Cossiga may have a strange sense of humor, he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job.
- Claim: The firemen and other rescue workers at ground zero took orders from unnamed higher-ups. When WTC 7 was about to collapse, they just followed these anonymous orders when told to evacuate.
By no means was the evacuation order anonymous. It was given by Chief of Department FDNY (ret.) Daniel Nigro, as he clearly says in his statement. He made the decision himself without consulting the owner, the Mayor of NYC, or any other people. There were no unnamed higher-ups calling the shots or giving orders.
One cannot claim the foreknowledge of the WTC 7 collapse was an indication of an inside job without implicating the FDNY. The foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 was based on the evaluations of the FDNY. The evacuation order was given by the Chief of Department FDNY.
- Claim: More and more people are starting to question the events of 9/11. The truth movement is gaining momentum.
In Brief: First thing we can do, is check out the traffic statistics for some of the most popular 9/11 truth movement sites.
Loose Change website:
A quick look at these statistics shows no increase in popularity. Compared to the figures of 2006, the year 2007 seems almost miserable. A small peak in visitors is seen around September 11, 2007, but nothing compared to the same date a year earlier. Even the greatly hyped Loose Change Final Cut (LCFC) has had almost no effect.
But let's not settle to these statistics. Let's take a look at the poll on 9/11 Blogger website. The poll question is "When did you first get involved with 9/11 activism?"
Here are the results as of December 16, 2007:2001: 12% (112 votes)2002: 8% (75 votes)2003: 8% (77 votes)2004: 12% (112 votes)2005: 15% (144 votes)2006: 34% (321 votes)2007: 11% (100 votes)
These results seem to indicate, that only a few new 9/11 activists have joined the movement in 2007. Actually, 2007 seems to be the worst year since 2003.
In addition to these, the annual 9/11 truth rally in NYC drew a considerably smaller crowd in 2007, than it did in 2006.
Based on the above mentioned findings, we conclude that the 9/11 truth movement has not gained momentum in 2007. There are no indications of any increase. Quite the contrary, it seems the movement has lost the momentum it had in 2006.
- Claim: Hundreds of highly respectable professionals question the events of 9/11.
This claim is largely based on the listings of the website Patriotsquestion911. This site lists hundreds of both relatives and professionals from all over the world, who allegedly question the events of 9/11.
First of all, in relation to the global population of over 6 billion, hundreds really does not sound too high of a figure. We understand that all 6 billion people are not what you would call "respectable professionals", but by the standards used by this website, there would be a total of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these "professionals" worldwide.
Let's take a look at one group of actual professionals in a relevant field. On this page are listed well over 1000 certified structural engineers, certified by the Structural Engineering Certification Board (SECB) of The National Council of Structural Engineers Association. And that is just certified structural engineers in United States, Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands, certified in 2005 or later. Consider, how many thousands of more of structural engineers there are worldwide. And how many of these over 1000 certified structural engineers question the events of 9/11? You guessed it, not a single one.
And that is just structural engineers. The professionals listed as questioning the events of 9/11 include professors of theology, religion, literature, architects and so on. The number of people having these professions worldwide, who are not questioning the events of 9/11 suddenly skyrockets.
What does theology have to do with the ability to evaluate the collapse of building structures? Does an architect know how design loads or stresses are properly calculated? When these "professionals" question the events that are clearly outside the scope of their expertise, they are as much of "highly respected professionals" as you, me or the guy next door. By these standards, there really are 6 billion professionals in this world.
Taking all this into account, the figure "hundreds" doesn't sound too high anymore. If the figure was "hundreds of thousands" we should get worried, but "hundreds" and by these standards, we can move on to the next topic.
We do admit, that there are a couple of people out there, who are actual experts in relevant fields and question the events of 9/11. But these people are of a nearly non-existing minority in the general population of experts with similar experience worldwide.
- Claim: Regarding the twin towers collapse, NIST admits that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".
In Brief: This is classic quote mining. The entire quote goes like this:
"NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution. Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of "utility". NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
The collapse mechanism after the collapse initiation was so complicated with so many variables, that the computer models are unable to solve exactly how the collapse progressed beam by beam. That does not mean the collapse was not possible, or that NIST thinks they have nothing. Other studies by Bazant et.al. have proven the towers were doomed after the collapse initiation. But the exact modeling of the collapse is impossible due to the complexity of the event and amount of variables involved.