9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions: Part 1

9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions is a 9/11 conspiracy theory book written in 2005 by theologian David Ray Griffin.  Even though the book is now a decade old, and most, if not all, of the claims made in this book have been debunked/rationally explained, truthers still like to tout this book as concrete facts.  I will try and go through each chapter and point out the several fallacies made.  Since there are so many to address, this will be going in multiple parts.

CHAPTER I: THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

SIX HIJACKERS STILL KICKING IT?

This chapter, though brief, brings out a lot of information for the reader.  The first claim made is that six of the hijackers are actually still alive.  Griffin claims that one of the hijackers on AA11, Waleed al-Sheri, was interviewed after 9/11 vy a London based newspaper, and the AP reported that he has said he lives in Casablanca working as, get this, a pilot, for Royal Air Maroc.  Sounds pretty intriguing, yes?  Not when you look at the actual facts.  First of all, here is American Airlines Flight 11 manifest, which shows Waleed al-Shehri's name:

He is the second passenger named on the manifest.  So who is this other dude?  Let's quite literally spell it out for you.

The man Griffin is referring to is Waleed Ahmed al-Shehri.  The person the FBI have named as a hijacker was Waleed Mohammad al-Shehri.  Here is his visa application.  

Note how laxed the government was pre-9/11 on issuing visas.  Not so much anymore.

Also of note, his father thinks he and his brother are both dead, and he hadn't seen them in months.  https://web.archive.org/web/20020929001039/www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=9424&ArY=2001&ArM=9&ArD=17

Also sounds like Shehri is a fairly common name in Saudi Arabia.  One Saudi diplomat, when asked if they were his sons, replied "How do I know? We have a half million Shehris in Saudi Arabia."

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0915/Hijackers_may_have_taken_Saudi_identities+.shtml

The next names mentioned are Ahmed al-Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi, both hijackers from United Airlines Flight 93.  He references this Telegraph article: http://web.archive.org/web/20011222042847/http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

Let's start with al-Ghamdi.  The article states before his quotes that their names and photographs were shown around the world.  But, when al-Ghamdi talks, he said he first heard about being on the list from a colleague of his. If only he had seen the picture used by the FBI, he would understand it was a different person.  Here is the alive al-Ghamdi, and the hijacker al-Ghamdi side by side for comparison.  Notice the brow is different, as is the nose.

Yet another case of mistaken identity with the same/similar names.  Now for al-Nami.  He states in the article that he fears that his identity was stolen by one of the hijackers.  Never mind that the article states the alive al-Nami is 33 years old at the time the article was published, and the hijacker al-Nami was 24.  Yet again, more mistaken identity.

Griffin then states that the Saudi embassy in Washington DC reported that six alleged hijackers were still alive, which is where this claim comes from.  His source for this is a book called 9/11: The Big Lie.  Another conspiracy theory book.  However, in 2002, the Saudi Arabian government acknowledged that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

This article was published in 2002, a full three years before Griffin published this book.  So either he is blatantly lying about this claim, or is showing a willful ignorance to the real facts.  He closes this section by stating that the 9/11 Commission simply ignored these media reports and agreed with the FBI hijacker lists, again, ignoring the fact that Saudi Arabia acknowledged that 15 of the hijackers, all of which he claims are still alive, were indeed the terrorists that crashed the planes.

ATTA THE PARTY ANIMAL

He then goes into a new topic: Mohammed Atta and his fetish for booze, drugs, and prostitutes.  First, let's start with his claim that Atta lived with a prostitute in Florida.  The claims are believed to come from Amanda Keller, who she claims lived with Atta for a few months in 2001.  Some problems with this?  Her landlords don't recall anyone looking like Atta living with her at that time.  Her parents don't recall anyone looking like Atta.  And oh yeah, she denies it in a September 23, 2001 edition of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.  She then denies it again in 2006:  http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/NEWS/609100466/1007/BUSINESS

What Griffin cites is a time when she decided to lie about it, apparently.  Why?  Who knows.  Attention?  Some gross feeling of fame?  She says this, showing clear remorse: "It was my bad for lying.  I really didn't think about it until after I did it."

Yeah, I'm sure the families of the victims on board AA11 and the North Tower appreciate this.  She apparently gets hounded by conspiracy theorists, because why else would she move from Florida to Ohio and change her name?

So there goes one notion of Griffin's narrative.  As for the alcohol, drugs, etc., just because your a religious fanatic doesn't mean you do not have vices.  Look at the numerous GOP politicians that thump their Bibles and admonish homosexuality, only to be found getting their dicks waxed in some seedy bathroom stall at some restaurant or gas station.

For Muslim examples, General Reza Zarei, who was Tehran's chief of police, was arrested after being caught with six prostitutes in a brothel.  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-police-chief-incarcerated-prostitute-scandal-rattles-tehran-government-a-550156.html

The Madrid train bombers fancied themselves smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and also talks about another sect of Islam called Takfir, which loosens up on Islamic law and, shocker, attracts drug addicts and criminals.  http://www.cannabis.net/articles/assass.html

American born cleric Anwar Awlaki was arrested TWICE in San Diego for soliciting prostitutes.  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/anwar-awlaki-the-american-born-cleric-and-jihadist-killed-by-a-us-backed-drone-strike-in-yemen-spent-several-years-in-san.html

Even Osama bin Laden himself, who I already talked about previously with the whole gold rings stuff, was found to have a vast pornography collection when his compound was raided by Navy SEALs, which ultimately led to his death.  http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/porn-found-osama-bin-laden-evidence-trove/story?id=13599025

File this all under: Fanatics do not always practice what they preach, or find some other sect to wiggle around religious laws.  In other news, the sky is blue.  More at 11.

HANNI HANJOUR THE AMAZING, THE FANTASTIC, THE MOST INTERESTING PILOT IN THE WORLD!

I believe I have already addressed Hani Hanjour and his, as truthers hilariously put it, impossible maneuver.  To view the video of an amateur pilot duplication this maneuver multiple times and hitting the Petagon, please view my Flight 77 page.

Anyways, Griffin find it troubling that the Commission did not find fault that AA77 doing a 330 degree turn to hit the Pentagon was out of the ordinary.  He doesn't seem to understand that the Commission's job is to take all of the data, testimonies, etc, and fairly robotically produce a narrative of the day, and then make recommendations on helping to prevent a repeat.  He believes this maneuver to finish by hitting the Pentagon would have taken a highly skilled pilot.  He references a Washington Post article stating that many believe that a trained pilot must have been at the helm.

Well, Hanjour was trained, after all.  He had a federal pilots license and a log book with over 600 hours of flight time.  In fact, the Report does mention Hanjour's troubles in flight training, but also mentions that he perseveres and obtains all of his licenses and certificates.  From page 242 of the Report:

Jarrah and Hanjour also received additional training and practice flights in the early summer.  A few days before departing on his cross-country test flight, Jarrah flew from Fort Lauderdale to Philadelphia, where he trained at Hortman Aviation and asked to fly the Hudson Corridor, a low-altitude "hallways" along the Hudson Rover that passes New York landmarks like the World Trade Center.  Heavy traffic in the area can make the corridor a dangerous route for an inexperienced pilot.  Because Hortman deemed Jarrah unfit to fly solo, he could fly his route with an instructor.  Hanjour, too, requested to fly the Hudson Corridor about this same time, at Air Fleet Training Systems in Teterboro, New Jersey, where he started receiving ground instruction soon after settling in the area with Hazmi.  Hanjour flew the Hudson Corridor, but his instructor declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills.  Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented a small aircraft on several occasions during June and July.  In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour-likely accompanied by Hazmi-rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington D.C.

Page 225:

In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training after being rejected by a Saudi flight school.  He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia.  In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began flight training there in earnest.  After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license.  Several moremonths of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999.

Page 227:

Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school, Arizona Aviation.  He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.  The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training.  In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.  An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.  Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.

Marcel Bernard, one of Hanjour's flight instructors, and also interviewed on the Loose Change video, believes he hit the Pentagon.  He however quips with "He may have been aiming for the White House when he hit the Pentagon." http://www.dcdave.com/article5/150406.htm

Also, the FDR lines up with the official flight path that American Airlines Flight 77 did indeed make that maneuver, and hit the Pentagon.

Also, several pilots have come forward to state that this maneuver really isn't that hard to pull off, especially when you have no remorse for the well being of the plane or the passengers.

Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot: It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible.  If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil."

George Williams of Waxhaw, NC, who has piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, 747s for Northwest Airlines: I don't see any merit to these arguments [that the maneuver was impossible] what so ever.  The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."

http://web.archive.org/web/20050422030553/http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

And another pilot, this one with Italian Air Frce pilot experience as well:  http://www.911myths.com/images/7/73/Another_Expert.pdf

DID ANY OF THE HIJACKERS REALLY EXIST?!

Griffin closes this chapter by asking this question: Do we have any publicly available proof that any of the 19 men named by the FBI and 9/11 Commission were on any of the four planes?  

His answer: No. We have been told that their names were on the flight manifests.  But the flight manifests have been released and have no Arab names on them.

Hoooooooooo boy.  He gives a citation of a CNN link.  Let's have a looksy shall we?  Here is the link for yourselves: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

Now, before even clicking the link, what stands out to you about this citation that Griffin claims is AA11's flight manifest?  The link no longer works, oddly enough, but the main page for all of it does here: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html

At the top of the page in big bold lettering states: LIST OF VICTIMS.

The URL states victims in them multiple times.  David Ray Griffin uses webpages that lists the victims of each flight and states it is the manifests.  How unbelievably stupid and/or manipulative can you be?  This pisses me off to the point that I will, again, post the manifests of every flight.

American Airlines Flight 11

United Airlines Flight 175

American Airlines Flight 77

United Airlines Flight 93

Every single hijacker is listed.  Every.  Single.  One.  The fact that he knowingly uses a link that clearly states it is listing the victims is both irresponsible as a researcher and, to put it bluntly, absolutely disgusting.

He finishes this chapter by stating that the "Commission's treatment of the alleged hijackers-a central feature of the official conspiracy theory presupposed by the Commission-does not bode well for the rest of the report."

Oh contraire my manipulative asshole of a (not really)friend!  I have shown that you are defending known terrorists and have willingly used manipulative "evidence" to back up your already established conclusion.  This, is the opposite of conducting research.  This does not bode well for the rest of your book, nor my liver while I keep reading it.

Osama bin Laden: Terrorist Mastermind or CIA Asset? (SPOILER ALERT TERRORIST MASTERMIND)

Ah, so we've come to Osama bin Laden.  OBL as he will normally be referred to as on here, is widely known as the leader of the terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda, who, as you may very well know, is accused (and mostly convicted of) planning and executing the September 11th Terrorist Attacks.  However, truthers believe there is something else at the core of OBL.  That he isn't actually a terrorist mastermind, but actually an asset of the Central Intelligence Agency.

HEY SOVIETS, WE KINDA DON'T WANT YOU HERE

The story of Osama bin Laden as we know him starts with the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.  The general narrative is that the Aghan mujaheddin fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and helped bleed them of resources and money and helped contribute to it's collapse during the Reagan years.

But truthers think that ol' Ronnie funneled money to Osama bin Laden himself to help repell the Soviet invasion.  They think his name isn't Osama bin Laden at all, but some shit like Tim Osmond.  So is he one of these people?

Me thinks not even this group would be diabolical enough to do 9/11.

Anyways, truthers think that the Reagan administration funneled money and weapons to Osama bin Laden and his group of merry men to help battle the Soviets.  But is this true?  Eh, not exactly.

You see, the funding to help Afghanistan against the Soviets went through one country: Pakistan.  And they had no dealings with the Arab mujaheddin (AKA outsiders of Afghanistan).  The only people they gave funding to were the Afghans.

First of all, why would the United States feel compelled to give resources to outsiders?  There were ample Afghans willing to fight against the Soviet invasion.  About 250,000 is the common number referenced.

Another reason why the United States would have nothing to do with funding or training OBL and his group of Arabs: remember Israel?  You know, that country that's essentially the only ally America has in the Middle East?  They're kind've enemies with the Arab world.  The United States wouldn't put Israel's livelihood in danger for the sake of putting out of its misery an already crumbling Soviet Union.

Peter Bergen of CNN had this to say on the OBL/USA connection:

"The story about bin Laden and the CIA--that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden--is simply a folk myth.  There's no evidence of this.  In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on.  They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s.  And they wouldn't have needed to.  Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.  The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."

Emphasis mine.  Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

Bergen is known as doing the first interview with OBL in 1997, and this is also where OBL publically declared jihad (holy war) on the United States.

You can also read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright, which documents OBL from the 1980s through 9/11, with full citations and sources.  Truthers won't like the contents of the book, but it is what it is.

THAT WAS HIM, BUT IT REALLY WASN'T HIM

The bluntly titled "confession tape" of OBL shows what appears to be him admitting to responsibility of the 9/11 attacks.  Here is the video:

Truthers make the claim that this is, in fact, not OBL at all, but a poor excuse of a stunt double/actor.

First of all, they think that OBL is a CIA asset.  So why, exactly, wouldn't they just use him in the actual tape?  if they are all buddy buddy working toward the same goal, it would seem to me that the real OBL would be on the tape regardless.  

Anyways, truthers often cite this still as proof it isn't OBL:

Never mind the fact that the video quality here is utter shit.  They cite that he looks too chubby.  His beard doesn't match, etc.

Here is another still from the same video:

All of a sudden he isn't looking so chubby and more Osama bin Laden like, yes?

Here is another:

Again, looks pretty similar to OBl, right?  All from the same video that the still truthers use came from.  Imagine that.

BUT WAIT! OBL IS WEARING A RING IN THIS VIDEO!  MUSLIMS DON'T WEAR SUCH THINGS!

Well, muh clearer footage of bin Laden also show him wearing rings.  Proof? Alright:

Other prominent Muslims wearing rings:

If you don't know who the above people are, then you really shouldn't be commenting on Muslim topics anyways.

So, it is shown that truthers are either really gullible to take one still from a video that they probably never actually watched before as fact, or they are willingly lying to people's faces about the contents of the video.  Neither would surprise me.

And it's not like this is the only time that OBL has confessed to the 9/11 attacks, either.  Here he is in October 2001 to al-Jazeera:

Here is who is believed to be Osama bin Laden (ccertainly sounds like him) praising and naming the 9/11 hijackers, which also helps debunk the whole "hijackers are still alive" theory and the "no Arab names were on any of the flight manifests" theory:

Certainly looks like Osama bin Laden hates America, right?  Absolutely doesn't sound like someone that is on the CIA's payroll.  He approves of the attacks, confesses to responsibility to the attacks, names the hijackers, etc.

"Lucky" Larry Silverstein

This is Larry Silverstein.  In 2001 he won the lease for the World Trade Center Complex.  Note: He has not, nor ever OWNED the complex.  The New York Port Authority does.  Conspiracy theorists often target him as someone who profited greatly from the terrorist attacks.  Personally, I think many truthers think that because he is of Jewish decent.

Now, I already addressed "pull it" in the World Trade Center 7 post, so I will not be addressing it here.

LUCKY LARRY MADE BANK WHEN THOSE BUILDINGS FELL

Outside of "pull it", the most popular/common conspiracy theory against Silverstein is that he took out a terrorism insurance policy on the Twin Towers, and went to court to get double that, as his argument was that each plane crash was a separate terrorist attack.  His initial policy was for 3.5 billion dollars, and he tried to get 7.1 billion.  According to truthers, he won his court case.

Again, as Lee Corso would say "NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND!"

First, let's look at the insurance itself.  Being that it was the WTC, and in 1993 the towers were bombed, of course he would take out a policy on terrorism.  But wait, he didn't willingly just do it, terrorism insurance is included in his regular insurance package for the complex.  He did, however, choose a cheaper plan. In court papers from the case of him trying to get more money from the companies, he initially tried to get a 1.5 billion dollar policy.  His lenders refused, and he ultimately went with a 3.5 billion dollar policy.

According to an article from 2008, where he was trying to sue United and American Airlines for over 12 billion dollars in damages (he lost that case), he was awarded 4.6 billion dollars from the insurance companies, or 1.1 billion more than the initial policy.  I wouldn't exactly call it winning when he got 2.5 billion dollars less than what he wanted.  So let's do some simple arithmetic on the costs of rebuilding for "lucky" Larry.

First, let's just put this out there.  In 2003 the estimates to rebuild the entire complex was at 10 billion.  Per an NYT article on the subject, that could very well rise in time too.  Already not looking good for truthers and this theory.  Then there is his lease payments.  He has to pay 120 million dollars a year to retain the rights for building improvements on the site, or if it were do happen (which unfortunately it did), a rebuild of the complex.  They still haven't finished the rebuild mind you, after 14 years.  2WTC is currently delayed.  So 120 multiplied by 14 is 1.68 billion dollars.  That leaves 2.92 billion dollars of the insurance policy he was awarded.

World Trade Center Seven cost 700 million to rebuild.  Leaving 2.22 billion dollars left. World Trade Center Four also cost 700 million dollars. That insurance payout is now down to 1.52 billion dollars.  World Trade Center Three is going to cost 2.75 billion dollars (still currently under construction).  And :POOF: all of that insurance money is gone, Larry is in the red out of his own pocket by 1.23 billion dollars.

And we didn't even get to the main event: World Trade Center One, commonly referred to as the Freedom Tower. Per the Wall Street Journal in January 2012, the cost of building 1WTC is 3.9 billion dollars.  This would make the lucky one's out of pocket cost increase to 5.13 billion dollars.

Sure, he's filfthy rich.  However, his net worth is only 3.5 billion dollars.  So what happens from here?

Here's what: Silverstein lost the rights to 1WTC, the choice of tenants that would rent space there, and any money that would be made from it.  The rights to it have gone back to the New York Port Authority.

So not only did rebuilding cost more than what Larry got from his court battles (and we don't even know how much he paid in legal fees for his attorneys, this battle lasted years), he lost the rights to the focal point of the new Manhattan skyline.  AND he still is trying to get 2WTC rebuilt (he still has the rights to that, and it will cost similar to 1WTC), which is currently on hold.  Why?  Probably because he cannot produce the funding to get it done right now.

So not only did Larry Silverstein not have enough money to cover all the costs of rebuilding the site, he lost the rights to the now most iconic building in lower Manhattan.  What a lucky guy he is.

SAUCES? SAUCES:

Larry's net worth: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest-billionaires/larry-silverstein-net-worth/

1WTC cost: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203920204577191371172049652

Larry losing case against airliners and NYPA developing 1WTC: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323993804578614292502152144

Estimated cost to rebuild the entire WTC complex: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/nyregion/official-puts-cost-rebuilding-world-trade-center-site-10-billion-but-that-could.html

Larry trying to cheap out on his insurance policy: http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, BUT THAT DAY HE WASN'T

Truthers also go after Larry Silverstein for not being at the Twin Towers the morning of the attacks.  They state he usually has breakfast with tenants at the Windows on the World, which was on the 107th floor of the North Tower (1WTC).  Where oh where could he possibly be on that day of all days?!

According to the man himself, he was at a dermatologists appointment with his wife.  He was 70 at the time of the attacks, so it is pretty plausible that this was in fact the case.  But of course, truthers say he was lying with that and he had some sort of advanced knowledge it was going to happen.  But hey, these are the same people that think he admitted to blowing a building up on national television, soooo....

And another knock on the foreknowledge theory, is that you would think the head of the New York Port Authority would have the same advanced knowledge.  So either the whole theory is a crock, or Neil D. Levin missed the memo, because he died in the North Tower.  Where was he?  Windows on the World.

BONUS: Israeli company ZIM Shipping moved out of the WTC complex abruptly, breaking their lease, just two weeks before the attacks.

Ah, another "The j00s did it" theory.  First of all, they didn't break their lease.  It expired on September 1.  But the fact still remains, they left 10 days prior.

Not all of them, apparently.  About 10 employees of ZIM were in the North Tower finishing up their move out when AA11 hit the North Tower.  Not exactly what you would expect from an Israeli company that's supposedly knowing what is going to happen and keep their employees in there.

And what floor were they on? Oh.  The 29th floor.  They were easily able to get out regardless.  And yes, their property was destroyed in the collapse of the North Tower.  It actually still had their shipping tracking equpiment/computers in there, and when that was lost, they were shut down for a short period of time, which, like Larry, means they lost money in the attacks.

And according to then Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, ZIM made the announcement they were leaving the WTC for Virginia back in April.  So it isn't like they just "up and left suddenly".  Also of note, they were apparently one of the last steamship companies with their headquarters still in Manhattan.  They ultimately left the WTC to save on costs, and moved to Virginia, which is where most of their ships stop at Virginia since 1985, so the most makes logical and financial sense for them.

Sources:

List of tenants of the North Tower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center

Information on the Zim move:  http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/journalofcommerce101801.html

United Airlines Flight 93

This one shouldn't be near as long as the others, as there is no building to talk about in this.  United Airlines Flight 93 was the fourth hijacked planed during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  It is of note that it is the only one that did not hit its target.

Again, just to show you that everyone, hijackers and the people that tried taking back the plane were on board, here is the flight manifest:

Got it?  Good.

Here is a bonus for you with hijacker pilot Ziad Jarrah on tape in the cockpit:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Ziad1.ogg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Ziad2.ogg

Notice he says the same thing essentially as Atta.  They have a bomb on board and they're going back to the airport.  However, being that UA93 took off later than it's originally scheduled take off time, the passengers received word from family/friends on the ground that other hijacked planes that day were ran into buildings.  But did these phone calls actually take place?  Truthers beg to differ.

THEM PHONE CALLS HAPPEN, OR NO

One such phone call came from passenger CeeCee Lyles (and again, look her up on the flight manifest.  She's there):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Lyles.ogg

Phone operator Lisa Jefferson seems to think those phone calls were real.  She talked to passenger Todd Beamer:

Passenger Mark Bingham's mom seems to think she talked with her son:

Seems to me that all the ones that received phone calls from this flight feel they were indeed from their loved ones in the air.  So why do truthers think these are faked?

Their theory is that cellular telephones back then could not get a signal that high in the air.  Though this is a valid point, there is one major flaw to this argument: almost every single telephone call was made with the air phones that are on the backs of the airplane seats.  Only two or three calls were made with cell phones, and those were disconnected almost immediately.

In total, 37 phone calls were made from United Airlines Flight 93.  Of those 37 calls, 9 lasted 0 seconds, as in they either didn't connect at all, or disconnected immediately.  Another 10 lasted less than 10 seconds. So over half of the phone calls were 10 seconds or less.  And 2 of the calls that were longer than that were made by a flight attendant to United Airlines.  And all but two of these calls were made with an air phone.

There is nothing of note here that is suspicious or out of the ordinary.

YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PLANE AND A HOLE IN THE GROUND

Truthers often make the claim that this hole in the ground:

Couldn't POSSIBLY have that of a commercial jet liner in it.  And sure, it didn't.  Debris is found in the woods not too far from the impact crater, like this bit of fuselage:

And this bit of fuselage:

Not a whole lot, yeah?  Just remember it was traveling at a high rate of speed straight into the ground.  Here is a Navy jet that suffered the same fate.  Does the impact and general area look familiar to you:

Now the dig into the ground begins.  Not too long into the dig, an engine is found:

The other engine is said to have been found in the woods past the fuselage pieces.

This shows how obliterated the plane got on impact, with how little pieces are visible on the ground:

More debris in the woods:

Both the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder were recovered.  In regards to the cockpit voice recorder, it was played during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, and for the families of the victims.  I will post a transcript of what was on there, but unfortunately, the recording itself is still under seal for an unknown amount of time.

WAS IT SHOT DOWN OR DID IT CRASH

One of the more interesting contradictions by truthers is that they will say in the same breathe that Flight 93 either landed in Cleveland (something that the Cleveland news said was a false report), never existed, or was shot down.

Per the transcript of the cockpit after the hijackers took over would certainly make it seem like it was put into the ground by Jarrah to avoid the passengers taking back the plane.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200056T.pdf

Was there a shoot down order in place by that point?  Yes, there was.  But fighters at that time were flying over Washington D.C. and Manhattan after the attacks there.

Also, if it was indeed shot down, there would be much larger pieces of debris thrown over a much larger distance than what was already found there.  it also wouldn't make an impact crater that looks like it took a steep dive and practically went vertically into the ground.

United Airlines Flight 175 and the South Tower (2WTC)

So, the plane flown by hijacker Mohammed Atta has crashed into the North Tower.  At this time, most people think this was just some sort of aviation accident, and nothing more.  There are some that think it was done on purpose because it was clear skies that morning.  Unfortunately, however, the thoughts of an accident will be put to bed about 17 minutes after the crash of Flight 11.

And just to get it out of the way immediately, here is the flight manifest that shows all of the hijackers were indeed on board UA175:

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS PLANE WAS REALLY A PLANE, MAN

The same skepticism for AA11 arose for UA175.  However, unlike AA11, UA175 was captured on cameras, camcorders, and TV cameras for the entire world to see.

Here is a still from one of those videos, less than a second before impacting the South Tower:

Now, here is United Airlines commercial airliner take note of the paint scheme:

As a bonus for you, here is the very same UA175 pictured in 1999:

Again the paint matches the object that is a split second from crashing into the South Tower.

The colors on the wings, engines, the split on the fuselage, and the tail markings are all consistent with a united Airlines commercial jet.  Now, let's take a look at the bottom of the plane.  This picture spawned conspiracy theories about a pod being attached to the bottom of the plane, and then shot a missile into the tower a split second before impact:

Truthers jump to the conclusion that this clearly shows something on the bottom of the aircraft, as noted with the break in the white stripe going down the middle of it.  Now, here is the bottom of another United Airlines jet:

Looks fairly identical, yes?  That's because this "pod" is nothing of the sort.  What they believe to be a pod is actually a housing compartment for the middle/rear landing gears for the plane.

For the TV fakery crowd, there are simply too many videos of the plane hitting the building, at too many angles, for it to be faked.

This one caught the longest showing of UA175, from a a news camera on top of one of the buildings:

Here are more angles, some from the news, others from random people on the ground:

Notice again that the paint scheme matches United Airlines.

This is a video from pretty far away, they were just filming driving down the street at the North Tower being on fire and catch the plane on tape hitting the South Tower.  Notice the delay in the camera picking up the plane engine sounds.  This is due to the delay of sound travel to that distance, and makes it even more believable that it is authentic.

I could go on with this, possibly with hundreds of different videos showing the same thing: United Airlines Flight 175 hitting the South Tower.

DAMAGE AND DEBRIS

Like with AA11, UA175 had ample debris survive the crash.  Here is a rather large chunk of the fuselage, found on the rooftop of WTC5:

One of UA175's engines found at the intersection of Church and Murray Street.  

Landing gear that apparently the evil government forgot to pick up years after the attacks, wedged between two buildings:

Other engine parts:

For the damage done, it is very similar to the North Tower, since they are both plane crashes with a full tank of jet fuel and traveling an an extremely fast speed.  The primary difference here is where it was hit.  This will explain why the South Tower was the second building hit but the first to collapse.

AA11 hit the North Tower pretty much right in the middle fairly symmetrical, between the 93rd and 98th floors.  UA175 hit the South Tower between the 77th and 85 floors.  It also hit towards the right corner of the building, causing more awkward stress on the building to redistribute the weight to non severed perimeter and core columns.  There is also more weight bearing down on the impact zone, having 25 floors above it, where as the North Tower impact area had 11 floors.

Again, it is a plane shaped hole, and goes inward.  I don't think it is necessary to go through this song and dance again from the North Tower.  

THERMITE THEORY

There is, however, one this I want to davel on from pictures of the South Tower burning: the thermite theory.  Truthers link to the video this still was taken from to make the conclusion that it was melted steel, and that the only way this could've occured is with thermite.

The thermite theory was created and pushed by BYU physics professor Stephen Jones.  His paper on the subject was never peer reviewed by any respected science journal, and when the BYU science department put him on paid leave so his peers could review his paper, he abruptly quit his tenured post at the university and took his paper with him. He then submitted his paper to the now infamous Bentham Science, who pretty much accepts any papers, n matter how full of jibberish and nonsense it has. There is probably good reason for this, since he most likely wasn't going to get the good marks he wanted from the process.  Probably to be expected from the man whose big claim to fame before thermite was writing a paper on how Jesus Christ visited the Americas.

Anyways, his paper's thesis is that the dust samples he collected from various points of origins(last time I read it he never established a solid chain of custody, a big nono) that are claimed to be from the WTC site from the 9/11 attacks contained traces of thermate, which is thermite with sulfur deposits and barium nitrate.  Some problems with this analysis occur.  First, with the sulfur, the WTC towers used sulfur drywall.  So of course sulfur is going to be found in any dust of the WTC.

Chemist Frank Greening argues that with the drywall and all the fires, then after the collapses and water/other chemicals brewing under the rubble, that sulfur would be abundant there.

Jones also claims to cite an EPA report by Erik Swartz that states there was a presence of 1, 3 diphenylpropane, would suggest the presence of thermite.  What Jones fails to mention, though, is that Swartz says that the reasoning for the presence of these ingredients is from the burning plastic of all the computers in the buildings.

He also cites a post-9/11 government report on dust samples in lower Manhattan, and feels it also concludes to his findings of thermite.  What he fails to mention is that the report states that the presence of manganese, aluminum, and barium are consistent with their presence in building materials.

So far his claims aren't holding much water if the levels of said items are normal for the area and what was in the buildings.  If thermite was used those levels would be much higher.  But let's put thermite to the test.  Let's look at a video or two of thermite on a steel beam, shall we?

The following two videos are by Van Romero, an explosives expert at new Mexico Tech.  In the first video is just regular thermite placed on a steel beam.  The second one is with thermite painted onto a steel beam:

Both look pretty violent, right?  But did it burn hot enough, and even more importantly, long enough, to do any real damage to the beam?  Van Romero gives his conclusion:

Short and sweet?  "Nope."

Now, maybe that just wasn't enough thermite to be able to do anything to the steel beam.

James Millette, then executive director of MVA Scientific Consultants, with a bachelors in physics and a master's and PhD in environmental science, elected to either refute or confirm Jones' findings.  The problem?  Jones and his associates refused to hand over their dust samples.  So like a boss, Millette went to NYC and got his own.

His findings are not quite as fanatical as Jones.  The red/gray chips that Jones touted as proof of thermite, Millette claims, is this: the grey side is consistent with carbon steel.  The red side contained elements for essentially primer paint.  His conclusion:

"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefor the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."

Link to the paper here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

So no evidence of bombs, no evidence of thermite, damage consistent with that of a plane crash and footage/photos/stills that show a consistency with a United Airlines jet.  SOunds like the official story is winning again.

AND I'M FREE, FREE FALLING (AGAIN)

Just to be absolutely sure about the lack of a controlled demolition, let's look at the time it took for the South Tower collapse.  Again, for it to be free fall, the entire building would have to collapse in less than ten seconds.

From ABC News:

Collapse starts at about 1:59.  You can see the collapse still going after 2:09 has elapsed.  The building as a whole doesn't even get all the way behind WTC7 until 2:16.  So it's at least 17 seconds.

Here's another view:

Collapse starts at :04.  By 0:14, there is still a good amount of the core and perimeter columns still collapsing.  I guestimate here that it stops at 0:26, or 22 seconds.

One more, this one has the collapse starting right at the start:

As you can see, by 11 seconds, the camera turns back and you can still see at least forty stories of the building still in tact.

So again, this building didn't fall at free fall speeds, either.  Sorry truthers.

American Airlines Flight 11 and the North Tower (1WTC)

September 11, 2001 was just like any other fall day in New York City.  People were driving into the city or riding the subway in for work, chatting with co-workers and friends, and just carrying on.  Then, at 8:46am, hijacker pilot Muhammed Atta would change that, along with history on board American Airlines flight 11.  Or did he?

Truther would like to convince you of otherwise.  Many of whom believe that AA11 did not hit the towers at all.  They believe this footage from the Naudet brothers documentary simply called "9/11" was fake:

Yes, there are several within the 9/11 Truth Movement that believe that no planes hit the World Trade Center towers that day, and that it was all an elaborate hoax and TV fakery.  I for one, think they give the government WAY too much credit here.  They may have an argument with AA11, if it was the only crash that day, as this and maybe one or two other videos caught the crash happen.  However, several TV cameras and personal hand helds caught United Airlines Flight 175 crash into the South Tower, in what is possibly the most recorded single event in history.  We'll talk about UA175 and the South Tower in another post.

PLANE WRECKAGE AND DAMAGE TO THE NORTH TOWER

Truthers will often make the false claim that there was no plane wreckage recovered at the World Trade Center site.  Though it is true that much of the remains of the planes perished in the ensuing fires, since the majority of them were made of aluminum, there were still pieces of fuselage, engine parts and passenger items recovered.

One such item was a passport from the hijackers.  Truthers find this to be ridiculous, and feel that the government is treating us like idiots to think a paper passport would survive a plane crash, fires, collapse (if it even stayed in the towers immediately following the crash, that is).

However, that isn;t the only artifact that survived the crash of Flight 11.  Here is passenger Waleed Iskandar's bank card:

This was returned to Waleed's parents a year after the attacks. 

Noted truther, that for some reason people take the word of, because he is a theologian by trade, David Ray Griffin makes another false claim about the hijacker passport, stating that it was found in the rubble in cleanup, so it must've survived the crash and fires, and since he deems that impossible, that it must've been planted.  It was actually found before the tower collapsed, recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin.  

Here is a picture of the passport, from AA11 hijacker Satam Al-Suqami:

No worst for the wear, right?  Well, being as the explosion from the crash could've pushed it out, just as it did with a whole lot of other paper materials from inside the towers, sure.  Passports also have a thin plastic film on the one page that matters, which is the one with the picture and personal information on it.

The cover of the passport looks a little bit more beat up, but still solid condition:

Here is a picture that shows more paper that escaped the tower from the crash, seemingly untouched.  Also, some people are examining an airplane seat that also escaped the tower after the crash:

But how can this be?  It should be impossible for something like an aircraft see and paper to escape the towers after the crash and ensuing explosion/fires!

Here is a piece of AA11's fuselage:

Part of a landing gear and wheel:

An inflatable life vest that survived the crash and explosion to be found outside of the tower on the rooftop of another building:

So there is ample evidence of a plane in fact, hitting WTC1.  But were the men who did it really there?

THEM HIJACKERS ARE ALL IN YOUR HEAD, MAN

Another common claim, which originated again from David Ray Griffin, is that there were no Arab names on any of the flight manifests of the allegedly hijacked flights.  He makes the conclusion that either this was a set up to blame al-Qaeda automatically, or those flights never existed.

This claim often irks me the most.  If these flights never existed, then where did the passengers go?  I mean, the most prominent passenger on board Flight 11 was David Angell, creator of the TV shows Frasier, Cheers and Wings.  Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, was supposed to be on that flight but missed it per a scheduling error by his assistant. Mark Wahlberg was also supposed to be on that flight but elected to go with friends to Toronto instead for a film festival.  What, did they all just buy imaginary plane tickets?

Anyways, here is a copy of the flight manifest that shows hijackers Muhammed Atta, Satam Al Saquami, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, and Abdulaziz al-Omari, along with David Agnell and his wife Lynn:

So his claim is debunked already.  And just for reference, here are the manifests for Flights 77, 175, and 93:

All of the hijackers are on those manifests.  All of them.

And if you want more proof that specifically, Atta was at the controls of Flight 11, here he is caught on tape:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Mohamed_Atta_to_ATC-1.ogg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Mohamed_Atta_to_ATC-2.ogg

And here he is making his way through airport security:

NORTH TOWER DAMAGE

Now for the meat and potatoes of this thing.  The no-planers claim that no planes actually hit anywhere on 9/11.  As you will see here, and as you saw in the Pentagon post, the impacts all made holes that were very much plane shaped.  And in regards to the towers, you can see that the holes are plane shaped and also bending inwards on the edges of the holes, meaning something from the outside of the tower forced its way in and made the hole while coming to rest (mostly) inside the building:

Here you can better so how the hole goes inward, and can even see that the win tips were not strong enough to sever the columns, but managed to make an indentation:

So that rules out the theory of using explosives to form the hole, as it would then be an outward shape on the edges, and not inward.  Then, there are the special kind of crazies that think it was laser beams from outer space.

No, I'm not kidding.  They believe that the Reagan Star Wars program was seen to fruition (it wasn't) and ultimately used on thee twin towers to cause collapse.  Mmhmm.  Their so called proof that this occurred?  They believe that the lasers caused all the steel to turn to dust upon collapse.

Just look at all this dustified steel:

Those little black specs in the middleish bottom of the picture?  Those are people.  First responders to help clean up the chaos after the buildings collapsed, and to hopefully find survivors.

Speaking of survivors, they were found in the rubble.  Which also contradicts the death laser theory, as well as another just as crazy one that a mini-nuke was used at the towers.

Here's some more of that dustified steel:

JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAAAAAAMMMZZZ

Another common truther fallacy turned internet meme.  Not because that statement is false, it is true that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.  The part they get wrong is thinking the official account, and debunkers, say that steel melted on September 11th.  It did not.

While a temperature of 1,370 degrees Celsius is needed to melt steel, only a temperature of 538 degrees Celsius is needed to make the steel begin to soften.  So less than half the heat needed to melt it will cause it to start losing its strength.  To be specific, according to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, structural steel loses half of its strength at 593 degrees Celsius.

NIST notes that parts of the first in the towers hit as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius which would cause the steel in that are to lose more than 90% of its strength.  You can clearly see in photographs of the buildings an inward bowing on the outer structure, which means the steel trusses that helped keep the structural integrity of the buildings by connecting itself to both the perimeter columns and the steel inner core beams.

You can see here in the gif showing perfectly this bowing which ultimately led to complete structural failure:

It appears at this very moment that the sagging trusses became too great to bear on both the perimeter columns and the core, and thus the collapse begins.

Here is another photo clearly showing the inward bowing:

Steel didn't need to melt to cause the collapse of the towers.  

AND I'M FREE, FREE FALLING

Lastly I wanted to address the claim that both towers fell at free fall speeds, clearly showing it had to be a controlled demolition.  I will address the North Tower here, and the South Tower in another post.

Here is a video of the collapse of the North Tower:

The collapse begins at around 0:29 in the video.  The collapse, some would say, ends at around 0:45 making the collapse last 16 seconds.  That alone dispells the theory of free fall collapse because for that to be true it'd have to all come down in less than 10 seconds.  But in my humble opinion, it doesn't end at 0:45.  See that bit of structure still standing after the rest of the building fell?  That is either part of the outer perimeter steel columns or part of the inner steel core.  If this were a controlled demolition, those portions would have gone down with the rest of the building.  So in my opinion, the collapse ends at around 1:02, which would time it at 33 seconds.

Still need more proof it didn't fall that fast? Alright.

Look at this:

Notice how debris that is falling independently from the building is at least 20-30 stories ahead of the collapse itself.  Those portions are falling with zero resistance.  The North Tower, however, is showing plenty of resistance to the collapse.  You can also see at the top right portions of the structure just now starting to fall, so now I'd put that estimation of how far the independently falling debris is at over 40 stories.  This building came down at a much slower rate than free fall speeds.