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.

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.

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.

World Trade Center Seven

One of the now several items that 9/11 Truthers proclaim as the "smoking gun" that solifies that September 11th was done by portions of the United States government is World Trade Center Seven (WTC7).

AND BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE

Truthers often show this specific video, created by the oft discredited group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

There is one fairly large problem with these videos:  NONE of them show the entire collapse.

You see, what truthers conveniently forget about in any collapse footage for World Trade Center Seven is many seconds before the entire building collapses, a portion of the mechanical penthouse up top collapses into the building itself.  This is the point, at the very latest, the collapse timer starts rolling.

The Penthouse collapses at about 3:41 in the video.  The rest of the building hits the floors at about 3:58.  That's about 17 seconds for the entire collapse.  Which, as you might've guessed, throws the truther theory that WTC7 fell at free fall speed, and therefor, was clearly a controlled demolition, out the window.

But they seem to refuse to believe this.  It just LOOKS like a controlled demolition.  Does it?  Look at the video.  Do you hear any loud bangs?  And bright flashes?  And cloud plumes from initial foundation explosions?  No, you don't.

"But it fell straight down in the path of least resistance into its own footprint."  Did it?  Let's look at a picture of an overhead shot of the remains of WTC7 after collapsing:

Notice how the remains of WTC7 have spilt into the bordering streets around it.  All of them, actually.  This is not consistent in any way with a controlled demolition.  The collapse of WTC7 also caused this to a neighboring building:

This would be Fiterman Hall, located north of WTC7 on the corner of Barclay and Greenwich.  If it was a controlled demolition, as truthers claim, and fell straight down, as truthers say, then how did it damage this building?

So it isn't looking good for controlled demolition theorists at all.  But wait, how DID it collapse then?  I mean, it wasn't hit by a plane like the Twin Towers were!  There is a very simple explanation for this:  the North Tower severely damaged World Trade Center Seven when it collapsed.

DAMAGE TO WTC 7

Just to give you an idea of how close these two buildings were:

Pretty close, yeah?  Here's a look at WTC7 when the North Tower collapsed:

Certainly looks like it's south side is getting hit there from the North Tower's collapse.  Damage?  You bet:

This looks like a pretty significant gouge was taken out of the SW corner of WTC7.  The damage here starts at the 18th floor of the building.  This was a 47 story building.  So 38% of the SW corner has been severely damaged already.  This is a pretty significant number.

Here you can see what looks like a vertical gash going up and down the entire building:

As you can compare from the picture of WTC7 in the background of the North Tower above, that large vertical black bar was not there before.  This is indicative of something happening to damage it from before the North Tower collapsing and after.  And obviously the North Tower collapse is the main culprit to be accused.  It makes little to no sense that this is caused by bombs for controlled demolition, as it is shown several hours before it collapsed.

Firefighters on the scene also said as much for how badly damaged it was.

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7].  A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building.  The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10545335/wtc-this-is-their-story-part-i

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

"also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.  Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.  You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.  It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 p'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden:"No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop.  It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make and attempt to fight it.  That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose.  We were concerned about the collapse of a 47 story building there.  We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of debris.  We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety." 

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567885/deputy-chief-peter-hayden

Battalion Chief Tom Vallebuona:

"We thought 7 World Trade Center was going to fall and push the side of the World Trade Center that was still standing, and then it was going to go into 90 and I thought the scaffold was going to fall and cover the block and kill another 30 people.  As silly as it sounds now, if you were there at that moment, I wasn't the only person thinking that way."

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10568000/battalion-chief-tom-vallebuona

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

"Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out?  I didn't realize how much they had because my view was obstructed.  All I could see was the upper floor.  At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone.  He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there.  I thought to myself, out of where?  Frank, what do you want, Chief?  He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there."

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567999/deputy-chief-nick-visconti

There are more similar testimonies where that came from.  These are the people that were there, that were runing fire fighting and rescue operations at the WTC site.  They all say that WTC7 was heavily damaged and very much on fire, and they all expected it to collapse.

"LUCKY" LARRY SILVERSTEIN AND PULL IT

Truthers often make the claim that Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for the World Trade Center complex, admitted on national telivision that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  Their "smoking gun" this time?  He said those two magical, whimsical words: pull it.  The transcript:

"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 a 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."

Now, judging from what we've read from those firefighter testimonies on WTC7 that day, they elected to stop fighting the fires there.  They then pulled out (see what I did there? that's important) of the immediate area and made a collapse radius and then just watched and waited.

Now, knowing all of that, do you think Larry  was talking about blowing the building up, or withdrawing from the area so no more lives were at risk for if/when the building collapsed?

As for the term pull it, here is a picture of WTC6 getting "pulled":

The term "pull it" in the demolition industry is not that of explosives and the bing bang boom bamboozle.  It is quite literally hooking up cables to a damaged building and pulling it down with a crane.  You can watch the short clip where they explain that process here:

http://www.911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi

From ImplosionWorld on the subject:

"There is no such phrase in explo-demo.  Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate.  Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse.  But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller.  This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

Another strike out for the truthers.  No evidence of controlled demolition found on site.  Fire fighters saying they believed it was going to collapse from damage and fires.  Demolition experts saying pull it isn't an explosive demolition term.

So, whenever you hear a conspiracy theorist say these words: "Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?" or "Two planes cannot collapse three buildings!" you can say "Correct! But two planes, fire, damage from said planes, more fires, and collapse of the second of the first two buildings will cause the third building to collapse."