You are on page 1of 23

Disproving the Disproving of the Biggest 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Jack Holmes posits that an extraordinary event requires an extraordinary explanation. This is a
subtle set up for a straw man argument and the basis for the quasi-logical argument that what we
think is so, must be so.
He points out, with hardly veiled disdain, that there are some who think that 19 men could
commandeer four commercial airlines in a coordinated attack and use them as 400-tin missiles to
destroy such buildings. We are to assume then, that the Official Conspiracy Theory somehow
passes an Occams Razor test or simpler validity than any other, so it must be true. Or the more
simple; someone in authority told us; so it must be so.
If we assume that he does not mean the extraordinary events like Fukushima requires an
extraordinary explanation (assuming an earthquake with resulting tsunami is on its face simple)
then I am going to assume that what is known as the Conspiracy Theories are extraordinary, and
by implication the official explanation is considered ordinary. We are to assume that a hitherto
agreed upon definition of ordinary is by its nature true.
I take umbrage with the idea that the more ordinary explanation is one where, in a background of
blinking red intelligence reports about increased terrorist chatter, a group of 19 hijackers in 4
coordinated strikes were, able to fly around for 1 hour and 40 minutes without being intercepted by
jets (as many national defence experts and former ministers have wondered), and these hijackers
who took some flight lessons in single engine Cesna plane (being called piss poor pilots by
experts) somehow flew jets at extreme speeds (take just United 175; before the pilot hijacker
Marwan Al-Shehhi hit the tower, the NTSB data shows that he took a hard left turn and then
climbed 3,000 feet in about a minute (very fast) then after that the plane took a nose dive of up to
10,000 feet per minute - which aircraft controllers noted as unheard of then at these speeds
suddenly pulls up and flatten the approach and visually spot the target and then somehow hit the
tower (A task that is stated as easily done, but demonstrated in flight simulations that most pilots
could not do this unnecessarily risky approach. And thats not even mentioning that Top Guns
could not pull off the manoeuvre of the plane at the Pentagon in the same way the hijacker pilot
deemed the worst somehow carried out.)
Anyway, I digress, let me just review the debunking and see how it holds up.
The theory: The fuel from the planes that hit the World Trade Center could not have caused the
buildings' structural failures, because no kerosene fire burns hot enough2,750 degrees
Fahrenheitto melt their steel frames.
The debunk: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1,500 degrees, Popular Mechanics notesnot hot enough to
melt the steel frames. But the frames did not even need to fully melt for the buildings to collapse;
they just had to weaken significantly. Steel loses about half its strength at 1,100 degrees, and
moreover, the fuel wasn't the only source of fire. The combustible material inside the buildings
(rugs, curtains, furniture, paper) brought the temperature up to 1,832 degrees in some places.
Now, let us debunk the debunk.
The Jet Fuel (Kerosene) could have hit the temperatures that Popular Mechanics noted, but as
NIST themselves (NIST NSTAR1 - Page 184) notes the initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at
most a few minutes. Before we consider the theory of the sagging trusses we should simply
consider and dismiss the claim that rugs, curtains and paper can somehow increase the
temperature of a fire to 1,832C degrees since no Steel framed building has collapsed due to such
a fire before or since!

If, by NISTs own admission the jet fuel had burnt off quickly, so all we have left is a standard office
fire - how did the buildings stand for so long after the impact? What acted upon the steel to keep
increasing the temperature? If it was the combustible materials inside, then why has no other steel
building in history collapsed due to fire? Especially when you consider those that burned hotter
and longer than those at the WTC.
The Hotel Mandarin Oriental burned for 3 hours engulfed in
flames. No large portion of steel collapsed.
I also assume that Jack skipped Page 77 of NISTs own
report that noted there was a minimal amount of combustible
interior finish.
However, if we forget that no steel framed building has ever
collapsed due to fire, and that the Twin Towers (we wont even
mention WTC7) were designed to withstand the impact of a
plane travelling at 600mph - to the point where the designers
noted that one complete side of the outer columns could
have been cut, along with sections on two other sides and
the building could have still withstood 100mph winds.
Furthermore, Jack fails to mention that the steel columns
were coated in fire proof asbestos based retardant, and it is a
condition of the NIST report that the fireproofing would need
to be widely dislodged for the weakening theory to hold up,
and there is no evidence at all that the impact dislodged any
of this. In fact the evidence suggests that it wasnt dislodged.
James Glands from the New York times reported about an interview with a person on the 91st floor
that was writing an email when the plane hit, the power remained on and the pictures on his desk
didnt even fall over. Suggesting the impact could not have dislodged the sprayed on fireproofing.
In addition, while Jack has made claims about extremely high temperatures there is no proof to
support any fires burning more than 250C. The temperature of 1,832C he quoted is based on a
computer simulation carried out by NIST themselves, without ever publishing the data used in their
model and refusing requests to allow other bodies to see their simulation.
Again, NIST themselves point out on page 90 of their report that of 170 areas examined perimeter
columns they noted only 3 that had evidence of reaching a temperature more than 250C. So, how
did we get a symmetrical collapse at free fall speed? Continuing to note (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p,
235) that no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough
to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel
So, Jack is basing his assertion of high temperatures on some NIST simulation that they wont
release the data on, whilst in a dissonant way disregarding the very same NISTs observations that
they found little evidence of these high fires.
As New Pearl Harbour notes, steel melts at 1,530C, softening at 600C, and they only found 3 sites
that were up near the 450 range!
Some may claim that the steel was weakened at the initial impact and the high temperatures were
present then. But we know this not to be so as we have people that used the staircases in those
regions to escape. If the temperatures had been at steel melting or softening temperatures, no
one would have made it through those stairwell alive.

The Windsor building in Madrid burned for 2 days, at

one point in flames from top to bottom. The steel did
not melt.

We also have heat reading cameras thermographic images, and a mere 28 minutes after the
impact on the north tower the highest temperatures noted were 100C, this is the same as in the
south tower after 15 minutes.
I also believe that if the
temperatures were as high
as is both claimed and
needed for the Official
Conspiracy to be true, then
people would not have been
able to stand in such areas.
We know that 16 people
came from above the
impact zone through it and
out, noting that by floor 74
the power was on and
conditions were
normal(fresh air, air con
etc.) Also, they had to cross
from the centre to the outer
part of the building on the
82nd floor. No person could
have made it across this
area or be in the centre
stairwells if the
temperatures were near
600C to weaken steel.

Lastly on this point, Id ask Jack to look at the image below and let me know how the weakening of
steel as the catalyst to collapse, softened up the beams to the point of collapse at which point the
only other given force that can then act upon the building is gravity (and its counterpart resistance)
can he be the person to finally tell me what is the force hurtling huge steel sections outwards over
500 feet? Also, if this softening of beams theory is true, can you also advise why after the overly
tilted top section of the tower in image 2 starts to collapse then as it presses into the part below it
too is destroyed, as such what mass or force or weight was present to continue the destruction and
complete pulverisations of the building?

The theory: An addendum to the previous theory, many theorists believe that controlled
explosions, not the planes, brought down the towers. Among the evidence cited: Puffs of dust shot
out horizontally as the buildings fell, and the initial damage was too widespread (particularly to
lower floors) to have been caused by the jets.
The debunk: A spring 2005 report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology found
that plane debris "sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core," Popular Mechanics
reports, "creating a conduit for burning jet fueland fiery destruction throughout the building." The
blaze exploded down the elevator shafts, disabling them and causing damage (and killing people)
all the way to the lobby below, long before the towers collapsed. The puffs of dust were the result
of each floor bearing down on the one below "with pulverizing force" as the buildings fell, in what is
known as "pancaking." That force caused the air between floors to shoot out with formidable speed
and power, creating the bursting clouds of dust.
The debunking of debunk: As this is an addendum to the above (i.e. since steel could not have
been melted by the fire, experts looked for other causes that could explain what we saw and found
both during and afterwards) again consider the fact that 16 people made it through the impact zone
- crossing from the core to the outside on the 82nd floor - with one individual actually turning back
around and going back up to the 90th odd floor before returning again and making it all the way
out. From what these witnesses have described, and the very fact they got through disprove the
Popular Mechanics theory.
However, an easy way to show both their lazy journalism and to reiterate the fact that the majority
of reasonable sounding statements with the word debunk in front of them are somehow more
valid or some true because theyve been stated, is to have a look at an elevator schematic of the

As you may be able to note, only the one lift shaft (a maintenance non-public one) actually runs
from the impact area to the lobby. I do not think I need to state any more in respect of the clam
that somehow this fiery ball came all the way down to the lobby. If you think it might have, like
Jack, please let me know why.

Above is an image of a pancake collapse, when a floor falls on to the next.

Below is, well you can use your eyes, but it doesnt look like a pancake collapse.

Before we view some other images, let

me just reiterate a section of the
debunk above The puffs of dust were
the result of each floor bearing down on
the one below "with pulverizing force"
as the buildings fell, in what is known
as "pancaking." That force caused the
air between floors to shoot out with
formidable speed and power, creating
the bursting clouds of dust.
If that is so, then riddle me this

Then what force is acting upon these areas

that are clearly below the line of the

In addition, noting that as the top part of the building is itself destroyed as it crashes into the
section below, what force acted upon the areas lower than when the top section would have
destroyed itself against the areas below?
If we assume the top section somehow crashed through the entire building (noting the lower part of
the building is stronger than the top) and it somehow destroyed it all, then where did it go?
Also, what does this look like?

Jack, help me here, I want to believe - but how can this pulverising force push air out of the
building before the collapse has reached it?
Why do those explosions look like squibs used to collapse buildings?
Also on this topic we should remember that this is the only day in history that the laws of physics
have been suspended. Normally during a pancake collapse, as the name suggests, one floor hits
another which falls onto the one below and so on. As the collapse is now under the auspices of
Newtown we can calculate certain things about its fall. Knowing the most basic premise that
objects fall into the path of least resistance, it is strange that the top didnt continue to topple as
shown on Esquires picture.

Furthermore, we know that resistance against against gravity, in this case the bottom of the
building acting against the mass of the top with gravity as an aid (remember the converse is true,
and as noted above the top section should have cancelled itself out and limited the collapse due to
these universal physical laws) yet the 3 towers fell at or close to free fall speeds, as if they met no
resistance at all. This is completely inconsistent with a pancake collapse. It is completely
consistent with a controlled demolition.
Let me end and sum up this section by using a simple, but demonstrative meme. This is the
question you must answer, noting your initial debunk is a nonsense and you can consider it
debunked. Please also note, I have only debunked the debunk, I could go on to site additional
material in support of controlled demolition, but this is not the time for that.

The theory: In the days leading up to September 11, a large volume of American and United
Airlines stock was tradedand in many cases shorted, or bet againstby people who had prior
knowledge of the attacks.
The debunk: Bloomberg Trade Book data did show much higher than normal put option volume
(people betting against the stock of American and United) in the weeks and days leading up to the
attacks, Snopes reports, including a volume 100 times above average on the Thursday before.
However, the 9/11 Commission found no evidence those trades were the result of prior knowledge.
For example, "a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda
purchased 95 percent" of the put options on United's parent company on September 6, according
to the report, while "much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [stock] on September 10
was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday,
September 9."
As that's a government report, the conspiracists will likely remain unconvinced.
Debunking the Debunk; First off, this Snopes report (
was from 2008 - and secondly, what authority do they have?
Whilst the 9/11 Commission may have found no evidence of insider trading, we should first
remember that the chair person of the 9/11 commission, former Republican governor of New
Jersey Thomas Kean himself noted the commission was set up to fail (
Besides that, let us look at what the 568 page report has to say on the issue.
There also have been claims that al Qaeda financed itself through manipulation of the stock
market based on its advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Exhaustive investigations by
the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no
evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities
To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used
for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had
many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have
easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an
operation that cost $400,000$500,000 over nearly two years.

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on

reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the
attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an
innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options investments that pay off
only when a stock drops in pricesurged in the parent companies of United Airlines on
September 6 and American Airlines on September 10highly suspicious trading on its
face.Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A
single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95
percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included
buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly
suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based
options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which
recommended these trades.These examples typify the evidence examined by the
investigation.The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry,
devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation
of many foreign governments.These investigators have found that the apparently

suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept.16, 2003; May 7,
2004; May 1011, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement
to SEC Chair and Commissioners, Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review, May 15,
2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004)
Two paragraphs in the main book, and one note in respect of it.
Let us also take a new paragraph to consider the line ultimately the question is of little practical
significance. Do you, as the reader and a person of reason, think knowing how the 9/11 attacks
were funded is of little practical significance then so be it. I think tracing the money trail could lead
to clues at worst, and the culprits at best. At the very minimum Id say that it has at least some
practical significance.
You might also have asked yourself who was this single investor with no conceivable ties to al
Qaeda that luckily put on 95% of the options on UAL and American? And, why do they think that
only the US Stock Exchange had suspicious activity? And, what did other countries and financial
experts believe?
No mention is made of the CBS 60 minute report from 17/09/2002 noting that associates of W, for
no apparent reason(i.e. no market signs of instability etc), all suddenly sold their airline stocks a
mere few days before the event.
The Single Investor whether he had ties or not, should surely still have been investigated on the
apparent foreknowledge?
We can answer who some of the traders were now, as following the declassification of a 2003 FBI
memo in 2009 (redacted of course, but poorly) it was discovered that 2 of the trades that the SEC
had asked the FBI to criminally investigate as they appeared to be informed trades were for a
company called Stratesec.
It wasnt just the 2 airline companies that had irregular trades, over 30 more companies in the US
were actually referred by the SEC or looked at by the FBI, amongst others.
It happened to be the director and his wife who bought the shares. There names are Wirt Walker
III and Sally Walker.
Whilst the SEC then recommended that Stratesec be investigated for insider trading, the FBI opted
not to interview anyone and cleared them both as they didnt have ties to terrorism.
Stratesec also happened to have Marvin Bush on its board for 7 years, just up until 2000. Up until
1998 they supplied security equipment to the WTC. They also happened to also do the securities
at the airports the 4 planes flew from.
Wirt is also related to the Bush family. Thats why Walker sounded so familiar to you.
However, that wasnt a big trade, not the 95% of the airlines.
To fully debunk the insider trading here and now would take some time, but I think that you can
take what you want from the fact that they didnt find it important, and the very chairman notes it
was set up to fail, and you can then ponder whether my idea that another investigation, with
subpoena power is set up, that is transparent and fully investigates all these transactions. It should
be noted that in normal police investigations of far smaller crimes, they always follow the money


The theory: The Air Forcespecifically, the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD)
was ordered to stand down even after the planes were confirmed as hijacked. As a result, no
fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 military bases in range of the four seized planes.
The debunk: In reality, according to Popular Mechanics, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the
lower 48 states that day, and there was no computer network or alarm system designed to alert
NORAD of missing or hijacked planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control] had to pick up the phone
and literally dial us" when a problem arose, Major Douglas Martin told PopMech, which they did
three times on 9/11. NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector scrambled two F-15s and three F-16s
when the first call came in at 8:37 a.m., but none came close to the hijacked planes. They couldn't
find them: The hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, making them nearly impossible for Air
Traffic Control to locate, and NORAD's radar at the time only looked outward for threatsthere
was no coverage inland.
Debunking the debunk: This also doesnt even touch the tip of the iceberg on this issue. First off,
let us note that these planes were in the air for an hour and a forty five minutes.
We must break down this debunk into its components; what did the jets do, why where only 14
on?, what is the system to identify hijacked planes, what did the FAA do, why didnt the scrambled
jets come close to the planes, what happens when a plane turns off its transponder, could the air
traffic controllers track the plane, and what of NORADs radar status and why is that even
Again, it is easy to make the assertion that Jack quotes, and it all sounds sorta reasonable if you
arent thinking too much about the words. America doesnt have a system to alert people of
hijacked planes? That doesnt sound overly plausible.
The incompetence theory as it is known i.e. the planes flew around for 115 minutes and due to a
catalogue of errors and issues and bumbling people, nothing could be done.
If we take the last first, about NORAD and its radars facing out. Yes, that is reasonable and
probably correct. But, it is the FAA who monitor these things, as they are the ones monitoring the
immense amount of air traffic over the US. No one has ever claimed that NORADs radars looking
out mattered, yet Popular Mechanics mention this, without stating the fact that it is the FAAs job to
monitor hijacked planes over the US of A, as any reasonable person would note. Their strange
noting of NORADs radars does have an ill whiff to it.
Whilst there are sources that claim that in 2001 pre 9/11 that jets were scrambled over sixty times
to intercept planes that had gone off course, and some have links to sources, but Ive not been
able to verify said links personally. However, I do know that in 2013 NORAD responded to 190
Tracks of Interest, but either way it is inconceivable that the jets hadnt been scrambled a few times
that year, and that a plan for the FAA to NORAD was well in place.
So, whilst it notes no alarm to alert NORAD of hijacked planes, is in and of itself true, the fail to
mention that the reason for this is because it is the FAA who have these alarms and advise
NORAD, which they did on 9/11.
It is normal procedure that if a plane does not respond to air traffic controllers then the Pentagon is
contacted, and in no more than 10 minutes jets are scrambled.
Let us quickly turn to the assertion that The hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, making
them nearly impossible for Air Traffic Control to locate this is as blatant a lie as there is. First off,
when a transponder is turned off it doesnt disappear from the screen. It still shows as a primary
target, but the controllers do lose the altitude and flight number.

We also note from the RADES Data Records - where we actually here the recordings of some of
the tracking in real time that when the call was made to note flight AA11 was hijacked that the
controller was able to find the aircraft in a little under 15 seconds.
United 175 didnt turn off its transponder. It just changed its code. All information was still visible.
As such, it was tracked.
We also know, with evidence, that the Pentagon plane was tracked for almost 30 minutes as it
came towards the Pentagon. ie. flight AA77.
The last plane, as per the NORAD/FAA tapes, we can hear the recording and we also here when
flight UA93 turned its transponder back on for a bit, and they could see it was just over 8,000 feet
and still turning.
In truth, all four planes were tracked in real time for almost the entire period. We have the actual
recordings between NORAD and FAA and anyone can listen to these and track them.
So, Jack, for you to quote Popular Mechanics here seems like incredibly lazy journalism. If I was
your boss, Id fire your ass for not even verifying the claims made in a random magazine. Oh wait,
is there some sort of honour code between random magazines?
So, why was their only a handful of planes? That was because massive military exercises were
going on that day. Some of the exercises (between 4 and 10 at times) involved the hijacking of
commercial airliners.
So, with a load of jets up in Canada and exercises about the hijacking of commercial airliners going
on, when the actual calls came in - not only was there only a handful of planes left to scramble but when the real calls came in the system was in confusion.
The debunk does get right that the system in place of getting jets involved people on radios and
phones etc, and the process was lengthy and then communications were jammed. Some places
couldnt call out, the realised then the simulations were causing some of these issues. We have
recordings of people talking about how it was ridiculous - their screens had real planes and sim
ones, yet the exercises continued on, even as the towers were hit.
We know jets were scrambled and sent to Washington but after they launched another command
post took over and sent the two jets out over the Atlantic Ocean. This is all whilst reports of AA11
was in the air and heading to NY, after it had crashed. The command centre - GiantKiller - took
control and sent them the wrong way.
At this point, the exercises still went on. Whilst this was also happening, another phantom fake
plane was somehow noted and as such the focus moved to this and the real planes went on.
Around 11am, after all places had been hit, the military exercises were suspended.


The theory: The two holes in the Pentagon after the attack75 and 12 feet widewere too small
to have been carved by a 125-foot-wide jet. Some theories have concluded the attack was actually
carried out with a satellite-guided missile.
The debunk: "A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete
building," says Popular Mechanics, citing Mete Sozen, a structural engineering expert at Purdue
University. One wing hit the ground, while the other was torn off by the force of impact. "What was
left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to liquid than a solid mass." The 12-foot
hole was punched through by the plane's landing gear.
debunking the debunk: This could all be put to bed if the Pentagon just released the footage of
the impact, from all cameras.
Here is a picture of the Pentagon just after impact, but well before that section collapsed.

Can you please point to the area of grass or land that

was damaged by the wing as it hit the ground? Can
you also point out where the wing that was torn off
Maybe we just cant see it in these pictures?
One more try? A wing or any damage on the grass?

In the picture immediately below the Official Conspiracy advises that the impact zone is above that
white car, and then just above the cross bream that is on fire.

I am reminded again of the old adage to say what you see, or say what you dont see. I dont see
one bit of that building, and this is immediately after the impact (well clearly within the first 45
minutes as it hasnt collapsed). If you also look at the areas around the alleged impact, can you
see any area that looks wing damaged?
Remember too that the tail of the alleged plane stood almost 45 foot from the ground. In the precollapse pictures does any area look like it was hit by a tail?
And what about the huge massive engines? Those are the hardest part - way more than the tinfoil
nose - why dont we see those around?

I think it is also worthwhile to note

that somehow this plane
managed to cut through a
number of areas.

So, why have we never seen pictures of this torn off wing?
Anyway, the idea that the plane somehow existed as a state of liquid is preposterous. When has
this happened in any other plane crash? I will note some images of non liquid crashes below.
To be honest, there is more substantial ways to show that the Pentagon wasnt struck by a plane,
but if it is just about the holes at the moment, limiting that it is.

just let me see the plane!

They site a structural engineer as proof of plane, as if he may not be either a liar or part of it, yet
they mention not April Gallup who worked in the Pentagon and was there when it hit. She thought
it was a bomb (that was rigged and set by her computer). She got out with her son over a
damaged area and is on record (and TV) as saying;
I hadnt seen any evidence of metal, airplane seats, no luggage,
nothing that would give me indication that it was a plane that hit
the building. I didnt have any jet fuel over my body. Not her,
her son or anyone else had jet fuel on their body. There was
nothing in the inside that would give me any indication that there
was a plane on that particular day that hit the building.
She asked her colleagues what they had seen, and said that no
one in her area saw any body or plain parts. If they do have them,
they normally piece them back together like a puzzle, as they did for MH 17.

Whilst these images may be a more

appropriate comparison to the Shanksville
crash, I think it demonstrates that planes
dont turn to liquid when the crash.
The last image (<<< right there on the left)
is of MH17, following its crash post missile
What about someone who was actually there when it happened? A reporter, Bob Franken of CNN,
who had been talking to a witness was on live and said from my close up inspection theres no
evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon the only pieces left that you
can see or small enough that you can pick up in your hand There are no large tail sections,
wing sections, a fuselage which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of
the Pentagon.
You can with the actual broadcast here:
At the very least, surely we can cast some doubt on the debunk, and ask ourselves why wed put
any more weight on their alleged experts claims?


The theory: Because this is a list of conspiracy theories, one of the more prominent ones blames
Jewish people for the attack. The claim is that 4,000 Israelis employed by companies with offices
at the World Trade Center stayed home from work on the day of the attacks, indicating prior
knowledge. In some cases, this is considered part of a larger Israeli conspiracy to pull the United
States into the Middle East in service of Israeli interests.
The debunk: There is no evidence that 4,000 or any other number of Jewish people stayed home
from work that day, Snopes tells us. There is overwhelming evidence, however, that more than 400
Jews died in the attacks10 percent of the victims. The rumors appear to originate from Russian
site Pravda and pro-Palestinian channel Al-Manar Television.

debunking the debunk: Are there people that believe this? Sure there are. But, like most of
those who question the truth, this is not something I believe. Nor does this conspiracy ever arise
on websites like 9/11 Pilots For Truth, or Architects & Engineers for Truth. It is disinformation. It is
an attempt to make the rational arguments seem tainted by association with bigoted irrational
I do not agree to that premise and I refute this point as being even valid, or one mentioned in the
discussion by the majority of so called Truthers.


The theory: Investigators found no wreckage of Flight 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon. That
lack of debris in and around the impact site indicates something elsea missile, for instancewas
responsible for the damage.
The debunk: There was wreckage found.

"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," Allyn E. Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer to
arrive at the Pentagon after the attack, told Popular Mechanics. "I saw the marks of the plane wing
on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in
my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box I held parts of uniforms from
crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?
debunking the debunk: I think that my above argument in respect of the Pentagon also covers
this topic.
Again, we could go on to question why bits were being picked off - and that no images of the tale
section this man claims to have held - have been shown.
The wing marks he saw, you can check the video and pictures and commentaries from many
sources, who all claim to have seen nothing resembling the wreckage of a large jetliner.

Who are these men? Why are they

removing wreckage from a crime scene?
This should have been photographed in
situ and picked up by the relevant
professionals. Whilst that sounds
conspiratorial, it is standard procedure.

The question is - what is the smattering of debris on the lawn?

Despite Allyns assertions, I believe the majority of witnesses who didnt see any parts.
The image that Esquire chose that shows debris is the same single piece of debris that is in most
pictures of Pentagon debris. It still appears in good condition, given that it appears a tin opener
has attacked it.
It also strangely seems to be the only part of the plane that didnt act like liquid metal and vaporise
through the walls, it bounced back a large distance - in a way that Ive yet to see a trajectory
explanation - without being fire damaged in any way, and sits, with just enough colouring to make it
look like an American Airlines logo.


The theory: Contrary to cockpit recordings and official reports, the passengers of Flight 93 did not
band together to take on the hijackers and bring down the plane near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Instead, the plane was shot down by another jet. The purported evidence? Eyewitness accounts of
a mysterious "white jet" in the area, the fact that one of the plane's engines was found "a
considerable distance" from the crash site, and a former F-16 pilot's claim on The Alex Jones Show
that he knew the pilot in the North Dakota Air National Guard who shot down the plane.
Getty Archie Carpenter
The debunk: There was another jet in the area, but it was a corporate jet owned by a marketing
company, according to Popular Mechanics. The FAA contacted the jet's co-pilot, Yates Gladwell,
when the plane was already in a descent towards Johnstown-Cambria Airport, 20 miles north of
Shanksville, to ask them to investigate the scene belowwhich they did. Gladwell confirms this
The "engine" was a fan from one of the engines, which was found 300 yards downhill from the
crash site in the direction the plane was headed on impact. An Air National Guard spokesman said
the pilot who reportedly shot down the planeidentified as Major Rick Gibneyflew a completely
different route that day with a passenger, Ed Jacoby Jr., who vehemently denies the theory's
account, to the point of outrage.
debunking the debunk: First, let is review the crash site.

Before we talk about the

above debunking, does this
look like a plane crash to
Check the pictures again,
check them against those
above of plane crashes - the
only ones that look similar are
the MH17 image and the one
next to here.
Noting what a crash looks like
- and a shoot down crash - on
that alone, by looking - tell me
their wasnt another plane!

Secondly, let us review again the tone of the Esquire article, as this guides us into what is given
weight and credibility, and what is not.
The section that notes The purported evidence? Eyewitness accounts.. Why is this purported?
What issue is he taking of eye witness accounts? He didnt mind them when it was Allyn at the
Gladwell, you say. Well, let us see or hear his testimony! It hasnt been done, and he has never
spoken about it on record again. So, this is more purported than the eye witness accounts on
records. (I will link to some shortly).
The engine fan, they note, was found 300 yards downhill. Indeed, 90% of this plane was
recovered - we are told. It has never been seen, and Id love to see the put back together version.
Going by the pictures of the crash site it would seem to be the ultimate jigsaw.
Secondly, it should be noted that the theory above notes 2 claims, these are 2 among many.
We know of debris sites 8 miles away from the field in Shanksville, we know of witnesses who saw
the plane after it allegedly crashed.
We know that the Blackbox was allegedly found, as was the Voice Recorder, yet these have never
been released to independent or public bodies.
Personally though, I struggle to work out what CeeCee Lyles, one of the flight attendants on Flight
93 says at the end of the message she sent - allegedly whilst in flight (but that has been proven to
be impossible using the phones of that day) at 9:47am.
If you do anything, it is to listen to the link above and try and decipher what she says at the end.
The title of the video gives the 2 options away. But, if it is the first, then the ramifications echo
through all elements. The link needed to be
posted twice.
As the video says, listen to the lack of noise in the background - and just ponder about her overuse
of the pointless statement the she is on a plane, she is a flight attendant at work - her husband
knows this.

In short, is it Its a frame or is it You did great. If it is the latter, why was it whispered, and did
great at what? Why would she say this? To what possible end?
If it is the former.
Here is an enhanced version:
Personally, whilst it matters not if it was shutdown over Shanksville or elsewhere - I believe the
evidence on all other issues warrants a further investigation. If you do not, why not?
Its a frame.


The theory: Conspiracists seized on news reports in the immediate aftermath of the attacks
particularly one from the BBCthat reported various hijacker suspects identified by authorities
were actually still alive and well. This indicates that the attacks had been carried out by actors with
other means.
The debunk: The people who were found to still be alive in those reports were different people
with similar or identical names to the hijackers, as other BBC reports showed. "The confusion over
names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common
Arabic and Islamic names," a subsequent report suggests, adding that both the 9/11 Commission
and the FBI are confident they correctly identified the 19 hijackers.

debunking the debunk: I personally have never really looked into this claim, out with the general
conspiracy theory of it. Ive never tried to debunk the debunk on this one. Whilst I think it warrants
additional scrutiny, considering the impact if it was found to be true. I think this has potential to be
disinformation, and I think it also draws away from the scientific reasons - and tries to diminish
them by false association.
So, again, like the 4,000 Jews claim, it is neither here nor there to me, as the evidence does exist
to suggest more concrete matters that we do not have reasonable enough answers for. And Jack
Holmes should have done his homework. It took me two weeks to write this, having a weeks break
in the middle, and only writing a short while at stupid oclock in the morning, and it is enough to
show is weak excuse for journalism is an insult to the written, spoken and even thoughten word
(that should be a word).