Reprehensor from 911blogger:
"I missed Prof. Jones' 6/23 keynote address at the Vancouver 9/11 Conference, however, I caught up with him on Sunday, and he was kind enough to summarize the key points of his lecture for visitors of 911blogger.com who couldn't be in Vancouver."
Jones' lecture will be available in the coming weeks on DVD from www.911tv.org and www.snowshoefilms.com
This clip is from Fox News on September 11, 2001, and is from a Press Conference given by Mayor Giuliani. In the clip, Mayor Giuliani states that he does not believe gas is responsible for the explosions being reported, and emphasizes that the gas has been turned off.
read more | digg story
Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta confirms testimony that he gave to the 9/11 Commission, which was omitted from the report-- that Dick Cheney was in a bunker giving a stand-down order prior to the attack on the Pentagon. He also reveals that Lynn Cheney was in the PEOC bunker, and that he suspected the Shanksville plane was shot down.
Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.
Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.
CIA to reveal decades of misdeeds
The US Central Intelligence Agency is to declassify hundreds of documents detailing some of the agency's worst illegal abuses from the 1950s to 1970s.
read more | digg story
CIA to air decades of its dirty laundry
Assassination attempts, domestic spying among the abuses
The CIA will declassify hundreds of pages of long-secret records detailing some of the intelligence agency's worst illegal abuses -- the so-called "family jewels" documenting a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.
The documents, to be publicly released next week, also include accounts of break-ins and theft, the agency's opening of private mail to and from China and the Soviet Union, wiretaps and surveillance of journalists, and a series of "unwitting" tests on U.S. civilians, including the use of drugs.
"Most of it is unflattering, but it is CIA's history," Hayden said in a speech to a conference of foreign policy historians. The documents have been sought for decades by historians, journalists and conspiracy theorists and have been the subject of many fruitless Freedom of Information Act requests.
An article about the CIA's infiltration of antiwar groups, published by New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh in December 1974, was "just the tip of the iceberg," then-Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger warned Ford, according to a Jan. 3 memorandum of their conversation.
Kissinger warned that if other operations were divulged, "blood will flow." For example, Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of [Cuban President Fidel] Castro." Kennedy was the attorney general from 1961 to 1964.
Worried that the disclosures could lead to criminal prosecutions, Kissinger added that "when the FBI has a hunting license into the CIA, this could end up worse for the country than Watergate," the scandal that led to the fall of the Nixon administration the previous year.
In a meeting at which Colby detailed the worst abuses -- after telling the president "we have a 25-year old institution which has done some things it shouldn't have" -- Ford said he would appoint a presidential commission to look into the matter. "We don't want to destroy but to preserve the CIA. But we want to make sure that illegal operations and those outside the [CIA] charter don't happen," Ford said.
Treasure-trove of documentsThe reports, known collectively by historians and CIA officials as the "family jewels," were initially produced in response to a 1973 request by then-CIA Director James R. Schlesinger. Alarmed by press accounts of CIA involvement in Watergate under his predecessor, Schlesinger asked the agency's employees to inform him of all operations that were "outside" the agency's legal charter.
This process was unprecedented at the agency, where only a few officials had previously been privy to the scope of its illegal activities. Schlesinger collected the reports, some of which dated to the 1950s, in a folder that was inherited by his successor, Colby, in September of that year.Operations listed in the report began in 1953, when the CIA's counterintelligence staff started a 20-year program to screen and in some cases open mail between the United States and the Soviet Union passing through a New York airport. A similar program in San Francisco intercepted mail to and from China from 1969 to 1972. Under its charter, the CIA is prohibited from domestic operations.
Colby told Ford that the program had collected four letters to actress and antiwar activist Jane Fonda and said the entire effort was "illegal, and we stopped it in 1973."
Among several new details, the summary document reveals a 1969 program about CIA efforts against "the international activities of radicals and black militants." Undercover CIA agents were placed inside U.S. peace groups and sent abroad as credentialed members to identify any foreign contacts. This came at a time when the Soviet Union was suspected of financing and influencing U.S. domestic organizations.
The program included "information on the domestic activities" of the organizations and led to the accumulation of 10,000 American names, which Colby told Silberman were retained "as a result of the tendency of bureaucrats to retain paper whether they needed it or acted on it or not," according to the summary memo.
CIA surveillance of Michael Getler, then The Washington Post's national security reporter, was conducted between October 1971 and April 1972 under direct authorization by then-Director Richard Helms, the memo said. Getler had written a story published on Oct. 18, 1971, sparked by what Colby called "an obvious intelligence leak," headlined "Soviet Subs Are Reported Cuba-Bound."
Getler, who is now the ombudsman for the Public Broadcasting Service, said yesterday that he learned of the surveillance in 1975, when The Post published an article based on a secret report by congressional investigators. The story said that the CIA used physical surveillance against "five Americans" and listed Getler, the late columnist Jack Anderson and Victor Marchetti, then a former CIA employee who had just written a book critical of the agency.
"I never knew about it at the time, although it was a full 24 hours a day with teams of people following me, looking for my sources," Getler said. He said he went to see Colby afterward, with Washington lawyer Joseph Califano. Getler recalled, "Colby said it happened under Helms and apologized and said it wouldn't happen again."
Personal surveillance was conducted on Anderson and three of his staff members, including Britt Hume, now with Fox News, for two months in 1972 after Anderson wrote of the administration's "tilt toward Pakistan." The 1972 surveillance of Marchetti was carried out "to determine contacts with CIA employees," the summary said.
‘A very different time’
CIA monitoring and infiltration of antiwar dissident groups took place between 1967 and 1971 at a time when the public was turning against the Vietnam War. Agency officials "covertly monitored" groups in the Washington area "who were considered to pose a threat to CIA installations." Some of the information "might have been distributed to the FBI," the summary said. Other "skeletons" listed in the summary included:
The CIA documents scheduled for release next week, Hayden said yesterday, "provide a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency."
Barred by secrecy restrictions from correcting "misinformation," he said, the CIA is at the mercy of the press. "Unfortunately, there seems to be an instinct among some in the media today to take a few pieces of information, which may or may not be accurate, and run with them to the darkest corner of the room," Hayden said.
Hayden's speech and some questions that followed evoked more recent criticism of the intelligence community, which has been accused illegal wiretapping, infiltration of antiwar groups, and kidnapping and torturing terrorism suspects.
"It's surely part of [Hayden's] program now to draw a bright line with the past," said National Security Archive Director Thomas S. Blanton. "But it's uncanny how the government keeps dipping into the black bag." Newly revealed details of ancient CIA operations, Blanton said, "are pretty resonant today."
FBI Knowingly Allowed Bin Laden To Personally Charter Flight After 9/11
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The FBI were aware that Osama Bin Laden may have chartered one of the flights that took Bin Laden family members out of the U.S. in the days after the 9/11 attacks, yet allowed the planes to depart without even questioning them, new Agency documents reveal.
While all other air traffic had been grounded for days by the authorities they knowingly allowed the immediate family of their prime suspect behind the attacks to get into planes and fly out at Bin Laden's own request.
The previously confidential documents (PDF link) have been obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and ongoing litigation.
The documents state:
ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN… THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND.
Traffic control reports show that the plane made four stops to pick up passengers and was then allowed to depart the United States for Paris where all passengers disembarked on 9/20/01.
The documents reveal that the FBI did not consider a single Saudi national nor any of the Bin Laden family worthy of investigative value.
“Eight days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Osama bin Laden possibly charters a flight to whisk his family out of the country, and it’s not worth more than a luggage search and a few brief interviews?” asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Clearly these documents prove the FBI conducted a slapdash investigation of these Saudi flights. We’ll never know how many investigative leads were lost due to the FBI’s lack of diligence.”U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts ordered the FBI to resubmit “proper disclosures” to the Court and Judicial Watch, leading to these incredible findings.
It was revealed that the FBI had previously redacted Osama Bin Laden’s name from the records in order “to protect privacy interests.”
Note the previously blacked out "Osama Bin Laden" - privacy interests? get real.
The documents provide clear proof that the FBI was protecting Bin Laden while the rest of the world was being told that he had masterminded the biggest terror attack in history. The FBI then attempted to cover up this fact. [...]The protection of Bin Laden by federal authorities has been ongoing since BEFORE 9/11 when agents were told to 'back off the Bin Laden family' in order to protect business interests that the Bush family had with the Bin Ladens and other Saudi nationals.
The FBI asserts that no one on the planes that left had any terrorist links. yet documents (specifically FBI document 199I WF213589) found back in November 2001 prove this to be a falsehood. [...]
In the 1980s George W Bush made millions on the back of a company financed by Osama Bin Laden's elder brother, Salem. In addition both presidents Bush had lucrative stakes along with the Bin Ladens in The Carlyle Group which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors.
On the very morning of 9/11 George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig Bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Carlyle Group business. The Bin Ladens sold their stake in Carlyle soon after 9/11.
FBI Special agent Robert Wright broke down when testifying that he had been gagged and could not reveal the true extent of what he knew about the Bush-Bin Laden connection and 9/11. His lawyer stepped up and said live on C-Span that "The Bush Family vacations with the Bin Ladens".
The ties run deep and all lead to money, huge amounts of money. This is how the Bushes do business, this is how they have always done business, they own the best enemies money can buy and the latest revelations underscore the fact that an independent and thorough investigation into 9/11 and the Bush Administration's role in it is absolutely imperative.
Jerry Lobdill
Introduction
It has been established through a study of the photographic and video evidence that there were a number of instances of white-hot areas that produced glowing liquid flows from window openings on the 80th to 82nd floor of WTC 2 that persisted for quite a number of seconds.
According to the NIST FAQ1 these events came within the last 7 minutes before WTC 2 began its collapse. White-hot temperatures cannot be produced by ordinary fires. These observations have therefore been conclusively shown to be incendiary events. This fact is inconsistent with any theory of collapse except controlled demolition. Yet the official story remains that the buildings were brought down by fires and damage to the structural members of the buildings resulting from the impact of the planes The WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane, yet it is claimed that it was brought down by fires.
All three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were subjects of many video documents that remain today as some of the very best evidence for controlled demolition that we have. It is clear from the videos that explosives were used. The evidence for incendiary cutting of steel consists of the video evidence, the forensic evidence in the dust and rubble, and the testimony of eyewitness early responders and survivors who saw glowing molten metal flowing out of window openings. This paper deals with the incendiary events and the forensic evidence that remains to prove that the official story is wrong. Specifically, this paper discusses the chemistry of iron-aluminum-rich microspheres that are found in the dust from the rubble, the chemical content of these microspheres and the physical chemistry of the iron-sulfur-oxygen system since sulfur is one of the omnipresent elements in the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres and was also found in a metallurgical study of structural iron from the WTC 72.
Dr. Steven Jones discovered the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres and has analyzed their elemental composition using XEDS analysis.3 This discovery, of recent date, is a very important addition to the body of evidence that disproves the official story. At the present time the interpretation of these microspheres is still under discussion as is the composition of the incendiary they imply.
[…]
About Thermite
The evidence is overwhelming that thermite or a thermite-like mixture was used in the WTC 2 tower very shortly before the building fell. What was the purpose of this? Thermite has been used to weld railroad rail sections together and also to cut structural steel. It has also been used for military purposes such as destroying guns and other weapons, disabling engines, and to rapidly destroy cryptographic machines. It appears that in the WTC it was used to cut structural steel in an early phase of controlled demolition. This use implies that whatever the task, it must be completed in the last minute or so before the building begins to fall. Any chemical process that continues after the primary task is completed is simply an unavoidable sequela of the primary purpose.
An excellent article on thermite is posted in wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Types.
There are a number of possible reactions that could produce large amounts of heat that could be used to melt (cut) steel. For example,
Fe2O3 + 2Al _ Al2O3 + 2Fe
3FeO + 2Al _ Al2O3 + 3Fe
3Fe3O4 + 8Al _ 4Al2O3 + 9Fe
3CuO + 2Al _ Al2O3 + 3Cu
[…]
The observations of Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson (BB&S) (See Footnote 2) describe sulfidation of some structural steel from WTC 7. They say:
“Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000 C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.”9
And they conclude:
“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.”
We should take note of the fact that they are saying they have no idea of the rapidity of the sulfidation and oxidation process or when it began. They also seem to be aware of the fact that there were large volumes of red hot metal below the rubble piles. (This is rather interesting since NIST, their sponsor, claims they are unaware of any such thing.)11
[…]
About the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres
Dr. Jones13 found these microspheres in WTC dust that deposited in an apartment about 100 yards away from one of the towers. They contain Fe, Al, S, K, Mn and other elements in small percentages. Iron is a major component of these objects.
The spherical shape of the microspheres is caused by surface tension acting on tiny molten droplets. This is the only mechanism by which the spherical shape can be explained. Therefore, these microspheres are proof that molten iron was produced in the process that caused the demise of the WTC towers, a remarkable fact that does not fit the official story. Some of these microspheres are hollow, and Dr. Jones has determined that the inside surface of these spheres contain sulfur. This is consistent with a molten droplet containing some gaseous sulfur. The physics of this situation is the same as for bubbles. The surface tension and the internal gas pressure cause the radius of the bubble to adjust to balance these two forces.
Conclusions
This paper has discussed some physical chemistry aspects of thermite and thermate and shown how science explains the existence of iron-aluminum-rich microspheres, why some microspheres are hollow, and why the metallurgical forensic study produced the results it did. The thermodynamic analysis has provided an understanding of how much thermite is needed to cut away a given amount of steel at 100% efficiency. The complexity of the chemistry involved has been illuminated.
These analyses enhance our understanding of the evidence that proves the use of incendiary devices in demolition of the WTC buildings.
Read more at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has described and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11.
The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain anonymous until the film is released.
We can reveal that the individual concerned was asked to report to building seven with a city official after the first attack on the North tower but before the second plane hit the South Tower and before their eventual collapse, in order to provide the official with access to different floors of the building.
The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas this official now works for Guiliani partners.
The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called "bunker" that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.
When he got there he found the office evacuated and after making some calls was told to leave immediately.
It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:
"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."
The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:
"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."
He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex.
The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.
listen to the clips
Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of [WTC] 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.
This is vital information be cause it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building [7], yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level.
What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation.
The fact that the building was not even mentioned in the report in light of this information thus becomes chilling and indicates that officials have lied in stating that they have not come into contact with evidence of explosive devices within the buildings.
Avery and Burmas successfully contacted the individual after discovering a TV interview he did on 9/11 while they were trawling through news footage from the day in research for the Final Cut.
Avery says that he can and will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the individual was in building 7 on 9/11 and that what he is saying is accurate.
read more | digg story
Michael Moore went on record this week to tell infowars/WeAreChange reporters that three years after the release of his film Fahrenheit 9/11 he now has many more questions about 9/11 and does not believe the public have been told half the truth about what really happened.
read more | digg story
By Arabesque[1]
“In this day and age, we all have to become experts on disinformation.”[2]
Jim Fetzer, Disinformation: The Use of False Information
There is a serious disinformation movement afoot, one that finds the work of those they attack to be too good to ignore. Disinformation… is the major obstacle to the search for truth about the death of JFK.” [3]
Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation
How can we discover the truth about 9/11? Is it possible to be led astray by misleading and incomplete interpretations of evidence? What is disinformation and how does it affect 9/11 research? For those interested in the truth about 9/11, evaluating evidence and explanations are essential considerations.
Disinformation is commonly defined as “deliberately misleading information.”[4] According to Jim Fetzer, “disinformation... should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying. Indeed, the parallel with lying appears to be fairly precise.”[5]
A similar concept called misinformation is defined by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:
“Misinformation is information that is incorrect but not necessarily an attempt to mislead. Misinformation often arises from poor research, biases, and misinterpretations.”[6]
While disinformation requires motive and intent; misinformation does not. Jim Fetzer explains:
“While ‘misinformation’ can be simply defined as false, mistaken, or misleading information, ‘disinformation’ entails the distribution, assertion, or dissemination of false, mistaken, or misleading information in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse.”[7]
The result is the same; the truth is obstructed with “misleading” information. How can we tell if someone is intentionally trying to mislead us? Is intent relevant? Not if the truth about 9/11 can be obfuscated by any misleading arguments regardless of intent. We do not need to distinguish intent to show that misinformation and disinformation equally harm our ability to discern the truth. Therefore, we should equally understand and combat both misinformation and disinformation.
When relevant facts are ignored it often results in misleading conclusions. For this reason, 9/11 “official story” skeptics agree that official reports are misleading. David Ray Griffin has argued that the 9/11 commission report[8] was an intentional attempt to mislead the public about what really happened on 9/11 by ignoring many relevant facts.[9] Indeed, Griffin calls the 9/11 commission report a “571 page lie.”[10] Revealingly, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee asked 400 questions and got 30% of the answers.[11] Many of their questions remain unanswered to this day. Consequently, this means that many believe that the 9/11 “official story” is disinformation.
How can we be misled about the truth? The most common technique is the Straw-man fallacy:
“The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position [and the evidence supporting that position] and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.”[12]
The straw-man fallacy is an effective technique for disinformation because it is used to ignore relevant evidence and reach false conclusions. However, this fallacy can also be used unintentionally, resulting in misinformation. Revealingly, most types of disinformation and misinformation ignore relevant evidence. In contrast, the scientific method does not ignore evidence when a conclusion is reached.
Misleading conclusions are drawn from misinterpretations of evidence. Here is an example:
“The World Trade Center Towers were hit by planes. The planes damaged the buildings and created fires. The World Trade Center towers collapsed. Therefore, the towers collapsed because of the damage from planes and jet fuel fires.”
Many accept this explanation without hesitating to question it. However, this “official” version of events ignores a substantial amount of relevant evidence, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the actual events of 9/11. This explanation assumes that a plane crash could cause the almost total destruction of the Twin Towers—and that it was the actual cause of the collapse. This is a misleading conclusion for the following reasons:
The official explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers is misleading because it ignores all of these facts.
But are parts of the “official story” the only disinformation promoted about 9/11? According to 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman:
“Since the tragedy itself, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been plagued by both misinformation, and by deliberate disinformation that has been injected into the debate in order to discredit challenges to the official account… One need look no further than the attack pieces by Popular Mechanics and Scientific American to understand how flimsy, easily debunked claims are highlighted by defenders of the official account to tar the entire community of skeptics as loony conspiracy theorists whose conclusions are not supported by the facts.”[21]
Hoffman argues that one purpose of disinformation could be to “discredit” other 9/11 research through the promotion of theories that are easily debunked or disproved. This strategy is used to suggest “guilt by association”—if some theories are disproved, the incorrect conclusion could be implied that all alternative hypotheses are false.[22]
A second function of disinformation is suggested by Victoria Ashley:
“One purpose of such disinformation is the bundling of bogus and real information to weigh down any serious questioning of the official story in nonsense.”[23]
This is an effective strategy to “turn off” potential 9/11 ‘official story’ skeptics. Indeed, physicist Steven Jones earlier included himself among these casualties:
“Watching the ‘In Plane Site’ video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 ‘theories’ initially—until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.”[24]
Yet another purpose is the promotion of unsupported “conspiracy theories”[25] to distract attention away from more compelling alternative explanations and the real questions of importance:
“…positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which are unsupported by the evidence... We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists—the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc.”[26]
Aside from the plane damage and jet fuel hypothesis, there are two “competing” alternative theories that attempt to explain the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers. One of which is a “directed energy weapon” hypothesis, which happens to be one of the aforementioned theories “disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences.”
Dr Greg Jenkins wrote a paper on this hypothesis and found that:
“The energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds... is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc. This is with no loss… If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection by aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required swells to at least thousands of earths worth of power. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionization energies required would add massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies… The power output of the mammoth size MIRACL laser is 106 Watts... This means that we would need 57 million MIRACL lasers of power!”[27]
His paper suggests that the use of ‘directed energy weapons’ to destroy the twin towers on 9/11 is “overwhelmingly implausible.”[28] In a separate interview, Dr Jenkins interviewed Judy Wood; the foremost supporter of this hypothesis, and remarked after the interview:
“I’m really not playing a game. I’m just trying to figure out what you have on your website. I’m asking questions regarding it.” … [Jenkins commenting after the interview:] “I was just trying to see what kind of scientific basis this was in... and I think I found out.”[29]
There are other problems with this hypothesis, such as the misrepresentation and misuse of relevant data. James Gourley notes:
“Ignoring basic, fundamental tenets of scientific reasoning and analysis, the [Wood/Reynolds] paper [The Star Wars Beam Weapon] [30] forges ahead with a ‘scientific’ analysis that is based on admittedly corrupted and untrustworthy seismic data. The WR paper acknowledges it is using faulty (even possibly manufactured) data, yet presses ahead with the comparison to the Kingdome and asserts that space beams caused the destruction despite this fundamental flaw. All sections of the WR paper that rely in any way whatsoever on this admittedly corrupted data have no scientific value because reliable data is the foundation of any sound scientific analysis.”[31]
Any hypothesis that misuses data is an unreliable hypothesis since it is misleading to base conclusions on data that is unreliable. Tony Szamboti further comments to Jim Fetzer:
“There are many reasons why the use of a beam weapon does not provide an adequate explanation for how the Twin Towers were brought down. It seems your main reasons for considering the beam weapon are the dustification of the concrete and furnishings in the Twin Towers, the large slash through Bldg. 3, the hole in Bldg. 6, the burned out cars, and the damage or lack of it to the bathtub. In looking at the slash through Bldg. 3 it is very rough and jagged. Would a beam weapon do that? I seriously doubt it. The conjecture for the use of a beam weapon seems to be just that. Nobody has explained how it performed the damage to Bldg.'s 3 and 6 other than for Judy Wood to say they were missing the towers and getting the hang of it when they did that damage. That just isn't a very solid explanation.”[32]
This reveals another problem commonly seen in the promotion of misinformation and disinformation: a conclusion is accepted without critical examination of alternate explanations. This is special pleading as the following example shows:
· X and Y both could have happened.
· X is speculated to have occurred; therefore Y definitely did not happen
This is not a convincing argument. It must be shown with reasonable certainty that X happened and that Y did not. A common tactic in the promotion of misinformation and disinformation is the complete lack of consideration for alternate possibilities; a failure to admit that another possibility even exists that could explain relevant evidence.
In summary, the evidence used to support a directed energy hypothesis appears to be contentious at best.[33] In contrast, the theory that controlled demolition destroyed the World Trade Centers is supported by eleven observable features combined as well as corroborating physical evidence.[34],[35]
According to Jim Fetzer there are five types of disinformation. After each type is defined, accompanying examples relevant to 9/11 will be examined.
DISINFORMATION and its Five Types by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.[36]
Fifth Type of Disinformation:
[Jim Fetzer:] “The fifth level of disinformation appears to occur when a source presents information that has been deliberately selected to misrepresent, distort or abuse sources with the intention to mislead. Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING. The key aspect of fifth degree efforts is creating—usually by writing—entire new works (books and article), because of which it has the character of FABRICATING EVIDENCE.”[37]
Jim Fetzer defines this type of disinformation as the promotion of misleading interpretations of evidence/data in a deliberate attempt to mislead. “Special pleading” is used to ignore relevant evidence without justifiable reason.
Disinformation and misinformation fall into two main categories:
If a conclusion is not supported with misleading interpretations of evidence it is not disinformation:
This means that it is not enough to simply call a conclusion “disinformation”—it must first be shown that the conclusion is supported by misleading arguments. Consequently, describing a conclusion as “disinformation” without showing that it is supported by misleading arguments is in itself a kind of disinformation.
The following are examples of the “fifth type of disinformation” used as illegitimate evidence to support misleading or false conclusions.
Example #1
[Brian Vasquez:] “So, I decided to contact Steve Chastain (by phone and email), who is the author of the book ‘Build an Oil Fired Tilting Furnace’ and asked him to verify if those 2 pictures were of aluminum, as Judy [Wood] claimed. He responded and said, that the photos were NOT aluminum, but were photographs of iron”[38]
[Jim Fetzer:] “Judy, Steve [Jones] is right. This whole matter has been a fiasco. I would appreciate it if (a) you would apologize to Steve and (b) remove those posts from st911.org. Thank you. Jim”[39]
[Brian Vasquez:] “Just a few months later, in December [2006], Judy published a new paper named ‘The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis’[40] and decided to use the SAME 2 EXACT pictures. Here is how she described them this time around…”[41]
[Judy Wood:] “The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace. We cannot tell what kinds of metals these are without additional information.”[42]
[Brian Vasquez:] “This is very misleading! I have to consider it deliberate disinformation. Especially when I know that she is fully aware, that those 2 pictures are of iron! Despite knowing this information, Jim Fetzer recently re-posted the Judy Wood papers on his new website http://www.911scholars.org/ . If you were the webmaster of one of the most popular 9/11 sites in the WORLD, would you post papers that contained false/misleading information? Is Judy Wood spreading disinformation with the help of other scholars?”[43]
Example #2
This example can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to mislead:
[Popular Mechanics:] “In fact, Underwriter Laboratories does not certify structural steel.”[44]
[NIST:] “UL did not certify any steel as suggested.”[45]
As David Ray Griffin has shown, this is stunningly misleading.[46] In his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, he quotes Kevin Ryan:
“Chaplin… Made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they ‘produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly rating for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions… [Chaplin] went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is like saying ‘we don’t crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car.’”[47]
The fact that UL tests assemblies which have steel in them shows that UL does indeed test steel for fire resistance. Popular Mechanics and NIST commit special pleading by ignoring relevant evidence that UL tests steel in assemblies.
Example #3
In this example, NIST misleadingly claims that the laws of physics are breakable in support of their hypothesis. They argue that fire and structural damage are enough to account for the “free fall” rate of ‘collapse’ seen in the destruction of the World Trade Center twin towers:
“In other words, the momentum… of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to… slow the falling mass.”[48]
This is very misleading as physicist Steven Jones indicates:
“Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum—one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors—and intact steel support columns—the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.”[49]
As Jones suggests, NIST ignores one of the fundamental laws of physics and simply claims that the impossible is possible. Everyone intuitively understands that if an object strikes another object, it will slow down—at least partially. Jones gives this example:
“From experience you know that if you hit something stationary (like another car) while driving it will slow you down, right? This slowing from collisions is due to conservation of momentum and energy.”[50]
NIST is being deceptive when they claim that it is possible for the twin towers to ‘collapse’ at approximately free fall speed due to fire and structural damage alone. Their hypothesis could not explain free fall speed since the remaining structure would have offered strong resistance to the upper portion of the towers. In fact, some calculations have shown that the remaining structure would have been enough to stop full collapse of the towers.[51]
Example #4
[Dr Greg Jenkins:] “Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. Judy Wood continue to promote the magical 'dustification' of large amounts of steel in the towers even though no significant amount of steel dust was found in dust samples).[52] They both promote a video clip from '911 eyewitness' which, they say, proves that the steel core spires from the North Tower turn to dust. However, multiple camera angles clearly show the spires merely falling. Either Dr. Fetzer's analytical abilities are inept or his motives are unprincipled since he was aware of the other video perspectives in early December, 2006.”[53]
One of the more common features of disinformation is the reliance on out of context photos, poor quality images, and video to illegitimately support theories.
Example #5
[Judy Wood/Morgan Reynolds:] “He fails to account for what molten aluminum looks like if heated to the same temperatures as molten iron (1538 °C).”[54]
This claim is very misleading, as I have explained in a letter in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[55] Wood and Reynolds neglect to mention that the necessary temperatures needed are impossible to reach with jet fuel fires as seen in the World Trade Center.[56] The maximum temperature of a jet fuel fire is 1000 °C, far below the temperature that Wood and Reynolds say is required to get aluminum to turn orange. In fact, jet fuel fires are not even capable of melting steel.[57] It is therefore very misleading to say that Steven Jones had not considered these temperatures (1538°C)—why would he when they are impossible to reach with temperatures from a jet fuel fire? As well, the NIST report indicates that the jet fuel fire temperatures were significantly lower than 1000 °C.[58] Wood and Reynolds also neglect to mention that a thermite reaction could reach the temperatures necessary to create the observed molten iron that Jones argues is falling outside of the South Tower, just before its collapse.[59]
Fourth Type of Disinformation:
[Jim Fetzer:] “The fourth level of disinformation appears to occur, not when a work (a book or an article) is being written from scratch, but in creating a highly biased impression of a study by simply IGNORING its most significant, important, or relevant features to mislead others about the contents of the work, which is another form of SPECIAL PLEADING.”[60]
This definition is similar to the concept of the straw-man fallacy discussed earlier.
Example #6
In this example, Wood and Reynolds claim that Jones argues thermite is the only explanation for the destruction of the twin towers:
[Wood/Reynolds:] “Why does Dr. Jones continue to boast that he uses ‘the scientific method’ after it has been pointed out repeatedly that his thermite hypothesis does not account for the data? Does not science throw a failed hypothesis overboard after the evidence repeatedly contradicts it?”[61]
[Frank Legge:] “Jones has never claimed that thermite or its variants account alone for all the observations. There is obvious evidence that incendiary thermite was used and there is evidence that the towers exploded which may have been caused by nanothermite or may have been caused by something else, such as conventional demolition explosives.”[62]
Indeed, this would be a clear case of special pleading since Dr. Jones clearly indicates in his paper and elsewhere that:
“I maintain that these observations [of molten steel] are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”[63]
From an interview by Jim Fetzer (January 17, 2007):
Jim Fetzer: Q: “are you suggesting both [thermate/superthermite] were used in the Twin Towers?”
Steven Jones: A: “I’m suggesting that’s possible along with other explosives”[64]
Steven Jones’ hypothesis about the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7 involves thermite and/or its variants possibly used in combination with other explosives. It is therefore a misrepresentation of his position to argue that he believes only variants of thermite were used. Indeed, it is common for controlled demolitions to use explosives in combination.[65] This is an example of the “fourth type of disinformation” because Wood and Reynolds completely ignore the most important and relevant feature of Jones’ theory—that other explosives could have been used in combination with thermite variants. As well, it is not necessary to know which type of explosives were used to observe the eleven features of controlled demolition; all of which this objection completely ignores.
Third Type of Disinformation:
[Jim Fetzer:] “The third level of disinformation occurs by abusing the man (AD HOMINEM) in attacking the author or the editor of a work on irrelevant or misleading grounds that have little or nothing to do with the position the author or editor represents.”[66]
As Jim Hoffman indicates, “One of the telltale signs of disinformation is that the people promoting it engage in personal attacks. Such attacks have been effectively used to intimidate logical critiques of nonsensical theories.”[67]
Victoria Ashley further comments that “another important aspect of how disinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement functions is through the use of attack and vitriol. While all types of people—professionals, academics and average people—can resort to nasty or inappropriate personal attacks when defending or promoting theories which conflict, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been packed with such attacks. Not surprisingly, however, most of the individuals who are most vitriolic are attempting to advance the more bizarre ideas…”[68]
The truth is arrived at by examining ideas—not the individuals promoting them. Ad-hominem fallacies[69] could be used to in an attempt to bait a response from the intended target. Effectively, this creates a divisive environment in which scientific debates are ignored and instead replaced with irrelevant personal insults and commentary. This could be an effective strategy to avoid discussing the relevant scientific issues about 9/11. An ad-hominem is not necessarily an insult—it could simply be irrelevant commentary about an individual that distracts attention away from his/her theory.
Examples #7-13
Aside from being inappropriate and uncivil, Frank Legge comments that:
“one of the serious chips is the risk of being attacked by supposed fellow workers using untruths, unfounded assertions, illogical arguments and character assassination rather than scientific debate. Even if true, this failing does not warrant the scale of this attack. No failing of any kind could warrant the scurrilous nature of the attack... How the authors could possibly think they were advancing the 9/11 cause by publishing this offensive material is a mystery to me. As a scientist I look at physical evidence and do not attempt to penetrate the workings of the mind, preferring to leave that very important area to others.”[77]
Example #14
This example is an entire passage that could be considered an ad hominem. I have left my commentary in bold:
[Jim Fetzer:] “And why does he have to persist in misrepresenting the positions of others?[Straw-man arguments offered as evidence] He commits straw man fallacies I spent 35 years teaching freshmen to avoid. [Straw-man arguments offered as evidence, appeal to authority]
THIS is the sign of a scholar? [Ad-hominem] No, this is the sign of a FRAUD. [Ad-hominem, straw-man offered as evidence] Neither Judy nor I is "promoting" an energy-beam-from-space theory, other than to advance it as an HYPOTHESIS. [Illogical: “advancing” a hypothesis is “promoting” it] I offered the CONJECTURE that WTC-7 may have been the source of the energy required. [See previous] I was not endorsing a CONCLUSION [Illogical: advancing a hypothesis implies advancing a conclusion] but a theory about the case. Without conjectures and theories, inquiry is impossible. [Straw-man: his position is not that inquiry is wrong; it is that theories that rely on faulty data are wrong,[78] and that non-falsifiable theories are unscientific and can not be tested and/or proved with available evidence[79]] Doesn't he know? [Don’t you know you are committing a straw-man?] This fraud [Ad-hominem] talks the talk about science [As the examples in this paper clearly demonstrate, Fetzer uses a method that ignores or misrepresents data by accident or design (i.e. misinformation/disinformation)], but his understanding of and commitment to genuine science is superficial and incomplete.” [Misleading conclusion: ad-hominem based on a straw-man argument][80]
Although this passage contains straw-men and other logical fallacies, it uses misleading arguments to attack the personal credibility of the subject. Consequently, this entire example functions as an ad-hominem.
This “third type of disinformation” requires intent. After all, “character assassination rather than scientific debate” is rarely committed by accident.
A similar type of ad-hominem fallacy is known as poisoning the well:
“The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make.”[81]
Examples #15-21
15. “__________ was involved in controversial research.”
16. “__________ wrote a religious paper involving controversial ideas.”
17. “__________ is a member of a secret organization.”
18. “__________ works for the CIA.”
19. “__________ wears Star Wars pajamas with the death star on them.”
20. “__________ is a democrat.”
21. “__________ voted for George Bush—twice.”
Conclusion [for each example]:
Therefore, everything this person says about _______ is false.”
These examples are illogical arguments. Theories are proved or disproved on their own merit—they are not “debunked” in reference to other unrelated theories or ideas. They are also not disproved based on which organizations someone may belong in or any unrelated circumstances. Poisoning the well is one of the most popular disinformation tactics. After all, disseminators of disinformation are not interested in an actual debate of the issues at hand; they are interested in destroying the credibility of the person promoting those ideas. As well, these accusations don’t even have to be true to be effective. This results in poisoning the well ‘disinformation’. This tactic is hardly surprising considering the fact that disinformation itself “should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying.”[82]
Yet another similar type of disinformation is an appeal to authority.[83] It could be considered to be the opposite of an ad-hominem. An appeal to authority suggests that a theory is held to be true because it is believed by an authority.
However, theories are not proved or disproved based on who is promoting them. To believe otherwise would mean that authorities would never lie and that they would never be wrong—ever. In reality, anyone could be coerced, threatened, paid to lie, be forced to make false statements, or even promote misleading arguments (i.e. disinformation) if there was strong enough motive or self interest to do so. Or an authority could simply be wrong. This is why all theories must be examined on their own merit. If authorities were never wrong we would still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as the “authorities” believed during the time of Galileo.[84]
Second Type of Disinformation:
[Jim Fetzer:] “The second level of disinformation occurs when relevant available evidence that ought to make a difference to a conclusion, hypothesis or conjecture under examination is simply dismissed or ignored. EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT when its presence or absence (physical evidence) or its truth or falsity (testimonial) makes a difference to the truth or falsity of the point at issue.”[85]
Example #22
[Wood/Reynolds:] “Steven Jones claimed that nano-enhanced thermite or thermate could account for pulverization of the Twin Towers. One difficulty with his hypothesis is that nano-enhanced thermite apparently did not exist in 2001 and only recently has the Department of Defense awarded contracts to prove and develop such a product.”[86]
[Frank Legge:] “This is incorrect. The history of nanothermite appears to go back far enough to be considered as a possible explosive in 2001.”[87]
Example #23
[Wood/Reynolds:] “Thermite does not explode and pulverize. It cannot explain the data.”[88]
[Frank Legge:] “Note the words here: ‘thermite does not explode’. Jones has never said that it did. It is therefore not logical to ask this question.”[89]
Example #24
[Jim Fetzer:] “The initial point of impact (prior to the collapse of the floors above) was only about 10' high and 16-17' wide, about the size of the double-doors on a mansion.”[90]
[Jim Hoffman:] “In fact, photographs clearly show that the region of punctures to the facade extended to a width of at least 96 feet on the first floor and 18 feet on the second floor. Thus, the hole was approximately six times as large as Fetzer admits. Fetzer continues to promote the ‘small hole’ fantasy despite the efforts of several people, including Fetzer's colleague Steven Jones, to point out his error.”[91]
First Type of Disinformation:
[Jim Fetzer:] “The first level of disinformation might equally well be characterized as apparent incompetence by someone who assumes the task of offering criticism but for which he is not well-positioned to provide. This may be due to any number of factors, including lack of mental acumen, specific misunderstandings, or lack of familiarity with relevant evidence (simple ignorance).”[92]
Is it possible to tell whether someone is unfamiliar with relevant evidence? This is difficult to determine and this definition implies unintentional ignorance. However, this “first type” of disinformation could be interpreted as the overlooking of obvious explanations—intentional or otherwise.
Example #25:
[James Gourley:] “Judy Wood stated that she believes… [that] space beams [reflected] off the buildings and somehow end up burning the cars on a bridge seven blocks away from the WTC complex…[93] there is a perfectly reasonable alternative hypothesis…they were towed away from Ground Zero and deposited there as a part of the clean-up and rescue effort… perhaps carried by the huge dust clouds seen in the videos of the collapse; the thermite [could have fallen] on the cars and burned them exactly as seen in [this] video.”[94]
Example #26:
[Jim Fetzer:] “…the story is inconsistent with the evidence we had. It’s not even physically possible, given the laws of aerodynamics, that a Boeing 757 could have taken the trajectory attributed to it, which I assume he confirmed, which was this plane barely skimmed the ground en route to it’s target. That’s not even physically possible.”[95]
Amazingly, Jim Fetzer somehow maintains that it is “impossible” to fly a plane into the lower floors of a building at the same time he argues that is “possible” to destroy two 110 floor office buildings with a “space beam.”[96]
[Jim Hoffman:] “Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the… [claim that]‘the final approach was impossible due to ground effect’… [This claim] fails to acknowledge that the increased lift due to ground effect can be negated by lowering the angle of attack.”[97]
Example #27
From an Interview:
[Greg Jenkins:] “Figure 2 is taken directly from Dr. Wood’s website. It is her data that she ‘uses to emphasize’ that the south tower debris [i.e. “dust”] ‘went up into the upper atmosphere’.[99] She points at the smoke to accentuate her point to the viewers. However, from figure 1, we can see clearly that smoke [i.e. not dust] from the north tower is blowing over the south tower towards the south, so that the smoke in figure 2 only appears to be going straight up, at least to some people.”[100]
Pictures can be taken out of context and lead to misleading interpretations; this could be done unintentionally. In this example, Judy Wood is claiming that “dust” from the South Tower is going into the upper atmosphere as it is destroyed. An examination of photographs and videos from alternate angles reveals that this “dust” (allegedly from the South Tower) is merely smoke from the North Tower.
Example #28
[Wood/Reynolds:] “Where is the proof that thermite has EVER been used to completely pulverize buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)?”[101]
The first part of the question was answered previously by Frank Legge.[102] The second part about the possibility of thermite to clean up debris appears to be one of great concern to Wood and Reynolds. They ask this question at least six times in the referenced paper as well as elsewhere. Perhaps they are unaware that Steven Jones has answered this question repeatedly in his presentations:
“Researcher Michael Berger checked with a number of steel-cutters and workers at Ground Zero. They reported that oxy-acetylene torches were used to cut the steel members—not thermite. Also, reacting thermite ejects globs of molten white/orange-hot iron – would cause VERY dangerous burns! Therefore, thermite was [evidently] not used in clean-up.”[103]
There are no confirmed reports of thermite being used in cleanup. Indeed, the widespread use of thermite could have endangered any attempts to save lives at ground zero as well as compromise the personal safety of first-responders. Furthermore, Jones has found traces of thermite in samples of dust taken from an apartment building about a football field away from ground zero.[104] This would strongly indicate that thermite was used during the destruction of the twin towers since the material was flown a far distance away from the towers to fall into the fourth floor of an apartment. There was no “clean-up” seen here aside from putting this dust in a plastic bag as a memento from the World Trade Center attacks.[105]
Example #29
[Morgan Reynolds:] “The Pentagon aircraft supposedly put on a stunt show… [The plane downed] a few lamp posts on the highway… [this is] physically impossible.”[106]
As Russell Pickering has shown, “5 aluminum lamp poles were knocked down preceding the Pentagon wall. Through contact with the VDOT, the distributors and manufacturers of the poles used in the area I have been able to determine the following basic information…The poles were breakaway style on an 18 inch transformer style base. This means that at 23 inches off the ground the pole would be broken by a Volkswagen Rabbit traveling 20 mph.”[107]
Furthermore, the FAA requires “any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot.”[108]
It is noteworthy that the Pentagon is located near an airport, and that the Pentagon itself has a heliport right next to the area where it was attacked. In light of this evidence, it is misleading to claim that it is “impossible” for a plane to knock over these light poles.
Jim Fetzer defined 5 levels of disinformation. I propose a sixth type:
Sixth Type of Disinformation:
The sixth level of disinformation is the promotion of theories that are unable to be tested or proven with available evidence. Such theories are called non-falsifiable:
“There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ‘falsifiable’. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.”[109]
If a theory can not be tested or corroborated with any available evidence, it can not be proved or disproved. Therefore, non-falsifiable theories can only function to create a never-ending debate. 9/11 researchers are only able to prove what happened on 9/11 with the available evidence. Although speculation is essential in any line of inquiry, speculation alone is never enough to prove a theory—credible evidence and/or experiments are also needed.
It is therefore misleading to promote non-falsifiable hypotheses as if they could explain the events of 9/11 for the simple reason that they can not be proven. If something can not be proved, it will not convince a skeptic. Therefore, non-falsifiable theories will never be compelling enough to help force another 9/11 investigation. Steven Jones asks:
“Is the directed-beams hypothesis a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis? Let the proponents delineate crucial experiments which will permit testing the hypothesis, and which have the potential of proving the hypothesis wrong. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable by experiments, it is not scientific.”[110]
Examples #30-33:
Non-falsifiable theories include:
30. Directed energy weapons were used to destroy or partially destroy the World Trade Center Buildings.
31. Aliens destroyed the Twin Towers with their directed energy weapons.
32. Holograms were used on 9/11.
33. God destroyed the World Trade Center Towers with his foot.[111]
Those who promote non-falsifiable theories should support the most credible evidence to get another 9/11 investigation.[112] This is the only conceivable way to get definitive answers to unanswerable questions. It is possible to imagine a scenario in which all of the documents in the world involving directed energy weapons were turned over and the theorists could still say: “you haven’t found them yet—they are still hiding the real ones somewhere!” After all, these top secret documents could be hiding right beside the “missing” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
This hypothetical example clearly shows that non-falsifiable theories will never lead us to the truth about 9/11. This means that they should be rejected until they are shown to be falsifiable with experiments or can be validated in some other way. Indeed, most non-falsifiable speculation will never be answered until another 9/11 investigation takes place or new evidence becomes available. It is simply not enough to expect new evidence to become available since this in itself is non-falsifiable speculation.
A non-falsifiable theory can be “supported” with misinformation and disinformation. In place of real evidence, non-falsifiable theories are given false credibility with misinformation and disinformation. Of course, if a theory is supported with false evidence (i.e. misinformation or disinformation) it does not count as legitimate evidence. However, it is usually tenable to prove that any disinformation illegitimately supporting a non-falsifiable theory is false (i.e. it is falsifiable)—but the theory itself preserves its non-falsifiable status if it is unsubstantiated with experiments or validation. As soon as a theory can be validated to explain legitimate evidence it becomes falsifiable.
This sixth type of disinformation is one of the strongest kinds. Defenders of non-falsifiable theories will believe what they want to believe, and they will never be proved wrong to their satisfaction. This is worsened when their beliefs are supported by disinformation and misinformation.
Conclusions
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”[113] Thomas Pynchon, Jr.
Those who care about the truth about 9/11 should also care about disinformation and misinformation. All 9/11 “official story” skeptics agree that the 9/11 commission report consists of substantial disinformation.
9/11 disinformation and misinformation have been used to support the ‘official story’, create misleading accounts for what happened, ‘discredit’ alternative accounts, ‘turn-off’ potential ‘official story’ skeptics through “guilt by association”, create never ending debates, discredit honest and credible researchers, and as Thomas Phychon suggests; to leave us asking the wrong questions in an attempt to distract attention away from getting the important answers.
The truth about 9/11 is of primary importance. If we accept this to be true, then it is also true that all misleading arguments are harmful to this cause. Therefore, the intent involved in promoting misleading arguments is irrelevant. Arguments based on disinformation and misinformation will almost always result in false, incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading conclusions. As Jim Fetzer suggests in relation to JFK, disinformation is the “major obstacle” in discovering and disseminating the truth about 9/11—the key to unraveling the ‘myth of the 21st century.’[114]
[1] Arabesque, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Member and 9/11 researcher: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/.
[2] Jim Fetzer, Disinformation, the Use of False Information, Minds and Machines, 14: 231–240, 2004.
[3] Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation. http://www.assassinationscience.com/
[4] “Disinformation” definition taken from http://www.dictionary.com/
[5] Fetzer, Disinformation, the Use of False Information.
[6] Definition of “Misinformation” taken from Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice website. http://stj911.org/.
[7] Jim Fetzer, (2003), Information: Does It Have To Be True? Minds and Machines, 14, pp. 223–229.
[8] 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
[9] For discussion of the facts omitted and distorted by the 9/11 commission see David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Here is a list of the omissions and distortions by the 9/11 commission: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404.
[10] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie, May 22, 2005, http://www.911truth.org/
“In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.”
[11] Read some of the unanswered questions from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee here: http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html
From http://www.911truth.org/: “911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11 Commission which they fought to create.”
Monisha Bansal, 9/11 Families Want New Probe, Questions Answered, http://www.cnsnews.com/, September 12, 2006. “According to the group, 70 percent of their questions were either not adequately addressed by the commission or not addressed at all.”
[12] Definition of Straw-man Fallacy taken from http://www.nizkor.org/:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
“This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.”
[13] ‘Arabesque’, The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/.
[14] James Glanz, and Eric Lipton, Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says, Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.
“Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”
Norman Glover, Fire Engineering, Fire Engineering journal, October 2002. “Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…”
[15] “The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” Taken from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?” Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).
[16] FEMA Report: Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. See also:
‘George Washington,’ Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? December 06, 2005. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/. See also other sources mentioned below.
[17] Steven Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001—Applying the Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com/
[18] NIST calls molten steel “irrelevant” to their investigation. See here:
Jim Hoffman, NIST's World Trade Center FAQ A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's ‘Answers to Frequently Asked Questions’. August 30, 2006.
[19] John Gross of NIST confronted over 9/11 WTC demolitions, Youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/
[20] David Ray Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True. Authorized Version (with references & notes). See also:
Steven Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, Word Document, http://www.journalof911studies.com/.
[21] Jim Hoffman, ScholarsFor911Truth.org: Muddling the Evidence, February 19, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html.
[22] Popular Mechanics published an article that discusses 9/11 “conspiracy theories”. See a response to it here:
Jim Hoffman, Popular Mechanics Attacks Its ‘9/11 LIES’ Straw Man, February 9, 2005. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, An Answer to Popular Mechanics and other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
[23] Victoria Ashley, Steven E. Jones, A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction, January 14, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/.
[24] Jim Hoffman, Hoax Promoting Videos, http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html
[25] Conspiracy: Definition from http://www.dictionary.com/
The act of conspiring.
An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
A combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
Law: an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
Theory: Definition from http://www.dictionary.com/.
[26] Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley, and other scholars joint statement.
[27] Gregory S. Jenkins, The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center, February 2007. http://www.journalof911studies.com/.
[28] Ibid. See title of Dr. Jenkin’s paper
[29] Taken from: Dr. Greg Jenkins, PhD physicist, Interviews Dr. Judy Wood. Published on http://www.911blogger.com/ by Greg Jenkins. See also:
Gregory S. Jenkins, Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers, February 9, 2007. http://www.journalof911studies.com/.
[30] Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, The Star Wars Beam Weapons, December 15, 2006. http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/.
[31] James Gourley Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper ‘The Star Wars Beam Weapon’, January 9, 2007. http://www.journalof911studies.com/
[32] Tony Szamboti, The Damage to WTC Bldg's 3 and 6, the debate between the controlled demolition and beam weapons..., January 26, 2007. http://www.journalof911studies.com/
[33] For further discussion, see Journal of 9/11 Studies and Letters section. http://www.journalof911studies.com/
[34] Paul Watson, Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries, June 20, 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/ “using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples [of iron taken from Ground Zero]—we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese—these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.” See also:
Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center and Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?
[35] Paul Watson, 9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition, May 22, 2007. http://www.prisonplanet.com/
[36] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Brian Vasquez, Glowing Aluminum Disinformation? February 6, 2007. Page 2. http://www.journalof911studies.com/.
[39] Vasquez, Glowing Aluminum Disinformation?
[40] Read a response to The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds here:
Frank Legge, A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds, January 11, 2007.
[41] Vasquez, Glowing Aluminum Disinformation?
[42] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.
[43] Vasquez, Glowing Aluminum Disinformation?
[44] David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics, Debate between editors of Popular Mechanics and the makers of the film Loose Change, Democracy Now, September 11, 2006 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
[45] NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
[46] David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, An Answer to Popular Mechanics and other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, 160-162.
[47] Kevin Ryan, Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories, http://physics911.net/
[48] NIST, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
[49] Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?
[50] Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001—Applying the Scientific Method
[51] Gordon Ross, Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1, http://www.journalof911studies.com/.
[52] “A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: ‘The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-µmdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-µm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-µmdiam) particles that are typically measured.’ http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feat%20ure_lioy.html].” Taken from: Steven Jones, Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers. http://www.journalof911studies.com/.
[53] Greg Jenkins, Jim Fetzer and his “Lying Eyes”, February 27, 2007. Published on http://www.911blogger.com/.
“http://911scholars.org/ YouTube link, and http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html, Figures 15, 16, 17a and 17b
Run time is 3.5 minutes: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7937273264329816394
Google video compression makes the images slightly obscure, so make sure to check out the original video links from reference #41 in the above article: http://st12.startlogic.com/%7Exenonpup/video%20archive/collapse%2001_spire_clip.avi
And http://public.gregjenkins.promessage.com/911.wtc.1.spire.close.up.avi”
[54] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.
[55] Arabesque, ‘Thermite Hypothesis’ versus ‘Controlled Demolition Hypothesis’: a response to ‘The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis’
[56] “In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” Taken from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?” Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).
[57] Ibid.
[58] Jim Hoffman, Review of ‘A New Standard for Deception’ A Presentation by Kevin Ryan, October 15, 2006. The NIST reports low fire temperatures.
“Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F [or 280 C]) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
“Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)” http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
However, these recorded observations by NIST ignore the fact that there was molten steel as reported by the FEMA report: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study.” see also:
“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:
James Glanz, Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated, New York Times, November 29. 2001.
More evidence of molten steel listed here:
‘George Washington,’ Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? December 06, 2005. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
[59] Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? Pages 12-16.
[60] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.
[61] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.
[62] Legge, A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds.
[63] Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? page 6.
[64] Interview of Steven Jones by Jim Fetzer on the Dynamic Duo show on gcnlive, January 17, 2007. http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/JimFetzer-StevenJones_20070117.mp3 Listen to about the 83:00 mark and forward for comment about other explosives in combination with thermate/superthermite.
[65] http://www.explosionworld.com/, Did you know? “CONCRETE VS. STEEL: In the United States and Europe, support columns in most buildings are constructed of either steel 'H-beams' or concrete (with steel reinforcing bars). Some buildings actually have both. DID YOU KNOW that these two types of support columns require two completely different types of explosives to cause their 'failure'?”
[66] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.
[67] Hoffman, ScholarsFor911Truth.org: Muddling the Evidence.
[68] Ashley, Steven E. Jones, A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction.
[69] Definition of Ad-hominem fallacy taken from http://www.nizkor.org/:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
[70] Reynolds and Wood, Reynolds and Wood try to help Steven E. Jones, August 27, 2006. It is unclear who said this statement (Wood or Reynolds). However, as co-authors, they both ultimately take responsibility for it. http://nomoregames.net/.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Ibid.
[73] Reynolds and Wood, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? October 2006. http://nomoregames.net/.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Transcript: The Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer, January 2, 2007. http://www.911scholars.org/070102_transcript.html.
[76] Reynolds and Wood, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?
[77] Frank Legge, A Response to Reynolds and Wood. http://stj911.org/
[78] For discussion of Steven Jones’ position on the alternative theories supported by Jim Fetzer: Interview of Steven Jones by Jim Fetzer on the Dynamic Duo show on gcnlive, January 17, 2007. http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/JimFetzer-StevenJones_20070117.mp3
[79] Steven E. Jones, My Response to ‘An Open Letter’, November 20, 2006.
[80] Jim Fetzer, Why I am now convinced that Steve Jones is untrustworthy, February 3, 2007. Published on http:www.911researchers.com/
[81] Definition of poisoning the well taken from http://www.nizkor.org/
Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
“This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious… merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.”
[82] Fetzer, Disinformation, the Use of False Information.
[83] Definition of Appeal to authority taken from http://www.nizkor.org/:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
“If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim… even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false.”
[84] The Galileo Project, Galileo and the Inquisition. http://galileo.rice.edu/index.html
[85] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.
[86] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.
[87] Legge, A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds
[88] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.
[89] Ibid.
[90] Jim Fetzer, Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK, 2005.
[91] Jim Hoffman, A Critical Review of James Fetzer's Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK, February 6, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/.
[92] Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation.
[93] Gourley, Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”.
“Judy Wood stated this during a discussion of the WR paper on Jim Fetzer’s radio show ‘Non-Random Thoughts’” http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer/0611/20061111_Sat_Fetzer2.mp3.
[94] Gourley, Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”. Page 11. See also:
‘Thermite Experiments’, Google Video.
[95] Debbie Lewis, The BBC Joins The Ranks Of The Untrustworthy United States Media, February 24, 2007.
[96] Wood and Reynolds, The Star Wars Beam Weapons. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds call their paper: “The Star Wars Beam Weapons”.
[97] Jim Hoffman, The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows, March 28, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
[98] Greg Jenkins, Dr. Greg Jenkins interviews Dr. Judy Wood, February 1, 2007. http://www.video.google.com/ 15 minute mark.
[99] Ibid. Watch Introduction.
[100] Jenkins, Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers. See also:
Greg Jenkins and Arabesque, INTERVIEW WITH DR. JUDY WOOD AND DR. GREG JENKINS, Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com/
[101] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.
[102] Legge, A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds “‘thermite does not explode’. Jones has never said that it did.”
[103] Steven Jones, Answers to Objections and Questions, pages 75-76.
[104] Steven Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001—Applying the Scientific Method
[105] Ibid.
[106] Morgan Reynolds, We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories, March 5, 2006.
[107] Pentagon Research, Lamp poles. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html
[108] http://www.dodsbir.net/sitis/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=28508
[109] Jose Wudka, What is the ‘scientific method’? http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
[110] Steven Jones, My Response to ‘An Open Letter’.
[111] Rob Rice, NIST and ‘The Foot Of God’ Hypothesis. http://www.911scholars.org/NISTandThe%20FootOfGod.html
[112] Steven Jones, What is the Goal in the 9/11 Truth Community? Debates, or Justice? January 9, 2007.
“As identified in my talk at the University of California at Berkeley, there are four areas of 9/11 research that are so compelling that they may quickly lead to the goal of a solid investigation of 9/11 as an un-solved crime scene.”
[113] Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow, page 251.
[114] Webster Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, pages 11-58.
