August 28, 2008

9/11 Misinformation: Flight “Passenger Lists” Show “No Hijacker Names”

9/11 Misinformation: Flight “Passenger Lists” Show “No Hijacker Names”

By Arabesque

Misinformation: Passenger “Manifests” Contain “No Arab or Alleged Hijacker Names”

The assertion that 9/11 passengers lists “contained no Arab names” is frequently seen in the 9/11 truth movement.[1]  For example, this article by Enver Masud is headlined, “Why are there no Arab names on the passenger list for the planes used in the September 11, 2001 attack…?”[2] The 9/11 website 9/11 Hard Facts claims, “[On] officially released passenger lists provided by the airlines to the media, no Arab names appear on any of the four passenger lists.”[3] In David Ray Griffin’s 9/11: The Myth and the Reality, he repeats the claim that, “[Their] names should be on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released contain neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any other Arab names.”[4] John Leonard, Webster Tarpley and Kevin Barrett’s publisher repeats the claim that “Scholars [for 9/11 Truth]… report things like ‘there were no Arabs on the passenger lists’”[5] As well, Michael C. Ruppert, citing Gary North wrote, “Another easy and non-debatable hole is with the passenger lists and the hijackers. Gary North, Ph.D. - a history professor… relied on lists published by CNN… Official reports state that there were only 19 hijackers. Second, none of listed passenger names are Arabic, Muslim… The government needs to provide an explanation for this glaring discrepancy.”[6]

Passenger Manifests versus Victim Lists

In fact, the U.S. Government withheld the actual passenger lists for years.  An earlier version of Jim Hoffman’s page on the passenger lists reported correctly that there was previously “no public evidence… Researchers who have attempted to obtain this information from the airlines have been rebuffed.”[7] However, many 9/11 researchers mistakenly cited “victim lists”—not passenger lists.  Jim Hoffman explains:

“According to the official story, teams of four and five Islamic hijackers took over Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. Victims lists for the four planes published by CNN and elsewhere are free of Arab names…  This fact has been highlighted as suspicious by some researchers describing the lists as passenger manifests. However, these lists are not passenger manifests, but lists of victims… CNN describes its criteria for including persons in its memorial in a pop-up window labelled ‘About this site’… ‘(Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included)…’ In July of 2006 a large collection of documents was published on a website containing prosecution and defense exhibits for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui… The faxes, reproduced below, include the names of the alleged hijackers.”[8]

Referring to “victim lists” as if they were “passenger lists” would be significantly misleading.  The CNN website frequently cited reveals that the alleged hijackers were intentionally not included.  The Complete 9/11 Timeline also cites “Terry McDermott’s 2005 book, Perfect Soldiers… Names of the five hijackers [on the manifest] are highlighted.”[9] McDermott apparently got these images and other material from the FBI, but 9/11 blogger and researcher Reprehensor claims, “When [Elias] Davidsson tried to get the manifests via FOIA, he was denied [access].”[10] These printouts are criticized by Elias Davidsson who says that, “these printouts contain no authentication and were not accompanied by chain-of-custody reports. These lists were released discreetly, without comments or indication as to their source… the FBI and the airlines have consistently refused and continue to refuse to release the authentic, original, passenger lists and flight manifests, of the four 9/11 flights… As the names of all victims and alleged hijackers have been publicized within days after 9/11, privacy considerations cannot explain the refusal to simply confirm—by releasing the original, authentic, documents—what has been publicly asserted since 9/11.”[11] In other words, the authenticity of these documents have been questioned by some 9/11 researchers.

Who Had Access to Flight Manifests on 9/11? 

The Complete 9/11 Timeline citing Tom Murphy reports that Ed Freni, the director of aviation operations at Logan, “[Received] the manifests for Flight 11 and Flight 175 at 9:30 a.m… [circling] the names of the… men later accused of being the plane’s hijackers.”[12] Richard Clarke claims in his book Against All Enemies that he received information about the passenger manifests from the airliners at around 9:59 A.M. on 9/11. An FBI official informed Clarke that, “We recognize some names, Dick. They’re al-Qaeda.”[13] The FBI timeline confirms that at 10:59 A.M., “United Airlines Flights #175 and #93 manifests [were] obtained by FBI Chicago CP… 5 Muslim names on UA fL 93 manifest, 6 Muslim names on UA FL 175 manifest.”[14] By 11:00 A.M., Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection claimed, “We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs… looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information… within 45 minutes.”[15]

When was the List of Alleged Hijackers Finalized? 

Although Bonner claimed that “Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers” at 11:00 A.M. on 9/11, documented reports show that it took until September 14th until the list of alleged hijackers was finalized.[16] On September 13th, CNN reported that “The FBI is working on the assumption that there were between 12 [and] 24 hijackers directly involved in the attacks.”[17] This same report issued a correction stating, “CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center… Federal sources had initially identified the brothers… Their names had been tied to a car founded at an airport in Portland, Maine… their identifications were stolen and… had no role in the hijackings.”[18] In fact, Ameer was dead a year before 9/11.[19] According to the Complete 9/11 Timeline, “Hani Hanjour’s name is not on the list” at this time.[20] The next day, “CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers”, but proceeds to add “Mosear Caned” to form a total of 19 suspects.[21] Without explanation, the name “Mosear Caned” is removed and replaced with Hani Hanjour later in the day in a report taken from an “FBI press office document listing 19 ‘individuals who have been identified as hijackers aboard the four airliners.’”[22] According to the Washington Post, Hanni Hanjour’s name was “not on the American Airlines manifest for [Flight 77] because he may not have had a ticket.”[23] There is no source for this claim, but presumably, it comes from the FBI.  This claim is interesting considering that it is contradicted by the fact that Hanjour’s name shows up on the reproduced faxes provided by the Moussaoui trial.[24] On September 20, 2001 Director Mueller acknowledged that “the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.”[25] In September 2002, Mueller admitted on CNN that there was “no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.”[26] However, this claim is contradicted in 2006 with the FBI claiming they are “confident” that they have “positively identified the nineteen hijackers.”[27]

What about the Security Videos? 

Airport officials and the U.S. Government are either refusing to release them or claiming that they do not exist.  Unbelievably, the Boston Herald reported a few weeks after 9/11 that, “Logan International Airport is missing… surveillance cameras… Logan officials acknowledged the ‘deficiency’…”[28] This is significant because two of the flights originated from Logan airport on 9/11.  As Jim Hoffman confirms, “The public has not been treated to any video showing any of the alleged hijackers at Boston Logan Airport, the origin of Flights 11 and 175, or Newark Airport, the origin of Flight 93.”[29] Citing Michael Taylor, president of American International Security Corp, Jim Hoffman reports that “Newark airport does have video cameras in its departure lounges.  So does Dulles International Airport… the FBI has refused to release any video from these airports.”[30] In 2004, USA Today released images from a “surveillance video from Washington Dulles International Airport the morning of Sept. 11, 2001” which showed “four of the five hijackers being pulled aside to undergo additional scrutiny after setting off metal detectors.”[31] The video was only obtained after a lawsuit from the “Motley Rice law firm… representing some survivors' families who are suing the airlines and security industry over their actions in the Sept. 11 attacks.”[32] Family members have commented on the video.[33] Unusually, the video does not have a time stamp on it.  However, the released video has clearly been edited since the film is slowed down and zoomed in at certain parts to emphasize the alleged hijackers.  As well, the footage appears to be a combination of two different camera shots because there is more than one camera angle.[34]  Airport security manager Ed Nelson describes the FBI confiscating this video some time after 10:00 A.M. on 9/11 saying: “They pulled the tape right away… They knew who the hijackers were out of hundreds of people going through the checkpoints… It boggles my mind that they had already had the hijackers identified… Both metal detectors were open at that time, and lots of traffic was moving through. So picking people out is hard… I wanted to know how they had that kind of information.”[35] If other passengers from flight 77 or anyone else at Dulles airport on 9/11 were seen in this video, it would confirm that it originates from 9/11.  However, Elias Davidsson claims that he has been prevented from speaking to airline employees, stating:

“Airline personnel traditionally see off passengers… one would have expected to see, hear and read international media interview airline employees under headlines such as ‘I was the last to see the passengers alive’. Yet no such interview is known to have taken place. The 9/11 Commission does not even mention the existence of any deposition or testimony by airline personnel that witnessed the boarding of the aircraft. And even the identities of these employees remains secret: As a response to this author’s request to interview American Airlines employees who saw off passengers of flight AA77, the airline responded that their identities cannot be revealed for privacy reasons.”[36]

The only other video evidence of the alleged hijackers does not come from the airports directly involved with the 9/11 attacks.  On their way to Logan International Airport in Boston, the Boston Globe reported images showing “Mohamed Atta and… Abdulaziz Alomari, passing through a security checkpoint at the Portland, Maine, airport at 5:45 a.m. on Sept. 11.”[37]

Other Problems with the Hijackers

As Hoffman also explains, there are other problems with the official story in relation to the hijackers including, the existence of a handful of reports in mainstream newspapers of those suspects proclaiming their innocence after the attack…   Six of the 19 suicide hijackers identified by the FBI shortly after the attack by name, photograph, and other personal details reported themselves alive… [and] the reported lack of piloting skills of the suspects.”[38]


While some 9/11 researchers have mistakenly referred to victim lists as “passenger lists”, 9/11 researcher Michael Ruppert correctly points out, “Every journalist makes mistakes from time to time. The New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, all of them publish hundreds of corrections every year. It’s the journalist who does not acknowledge and correct errors who cannot be trusted.”[39] Ruppert does not endorse the claim that “no hijacker names appear on the passenger lists” in his book Crossing the Rubicon.[40] Promoting mistakes even after they have been pointed would be an example of disinformation.[41]

What is striking about official reports is that it took several days to confirm the total number of hijackers.  There is no explanation why someone named “Mosear Caned” was placed on a list of Hijackers and why he was replaced by Hani Hanjour.  The explanation given for Hanjour's absense from the initial list of suspects was that Hanjour “was not on the flight manifest.”[42] This cannot be the case however, because Hanjour’s name appears on the flight manifests provided in the Moussaoui trial.  This is a clear contradiction that must be explained. 

By withholding evidence pertaining to the 9/11 attacks like the airliner passenger lists, videos of passengers boarding the planes on 9/11, and videos of the Pentagon attack, the U.S. Government is actually encouraging misinformation.  For years, there was no verifiable evidence that the alleged hijackers were on the passenger manifests because the U.S. Government refused to release these documents.  By not releasing these documents, the U.S. Government actually encouraged speculation that the hijackers names did not show up on the passenger lists.  In fact, the authenticity of these documents are in question by some 9/11 researchers.  However, there is a difference between asserting “evidence is being withheld” and “there is no evidence”—only the first claim can be verified.  Misinformation benefits the U.S. Government and its cover-up of the 9/11 crimes.  As Thomas Pynchon explains, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”[43]

[1] Ran Prieur, 9/11 FAQ,, September 5, 2006

[2] Enver Masud, 9/11 Commission Report: Why No Arab Names on Passenger List? July 26, 2004

[3] 9/11 Hard Facts, Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists,

[4] David Ray Griffin, 9/11: The Myth and the Reality,, April 5 2006

[5] John Leonard, Moussaoui: Mad Patsy Playing for the Prosecution. Show Trial Unconstitutional, Experts Say,, April 21, 2006

[6] Michael C. Ruppert, It’s A Lie, From The Wilderness Publications,, October 15, 2001

[7] 9/11 Hard Facts, Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists

[8] Jim Hoffman, Passenger Lists: Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers,, page last modified: August 27, 2008

[9] Paul Thompson, September 13, 2001-September 14, 2001: 18 Hijackers Named, Mysterious Name and Then Hanjour’s Name Follows One Day Later, Complete 9/11 Timeline

[10] Reprehensor, McDermott got the ‘faxes’ from the Effa Bee Eye, comment, Friday August 29, 2008

[11] Elias Davidsson, No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11,, February 8, 2008

[12] Tom Murphy, Reclaiming the Sky: 9/11 and the Untold Story of the Men and Women Who Kept America Flying, (AMACOM), September 5, 2006, pp. 30-33

[13] Richard A. Clarke, Against all enemies: Inside America's war on terror, (New York, NY: Basic Books), March 22, 2004, pp. 13-14

[14] FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, & FBI Chicago, timeline of investigation, Sept. 11-12, 2001

[15] Gail Sheehy, Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show,, February 15, 2004

[16] Gail Sheehy, Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show,, February 15, 2004

[17] CNN, Feds think they've identified some hijackers,, September 13, 2001

[18] CNN, Feds think they've identified some hijackers

[19] CNN, Feds think they've identified some hijackers

[20] Thompson, September 13, 2001-September 14, 2001: 18 Hijackers Named, Mysterious Name and Then Hanjour’s Name Follows One Day Later

[21] CNN, America Under Attack: List of Names of 18 Suspected Hijackers,, September 14, 2001

[22] CNN, FBI list of individuals identified as suspected hijackers,, September 14, 2001

[23] Washington Post, Four Planes, Four Coordinated Teams,, September 16, 2001

[24] Jim Hoffman, Passenger Lists: Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers,, page last modified: August 27, 2008

[25] BBC, Hijack 'suspects' alive and well,, September 23, 2001

[26] Timothy W. Maier, FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists,, June 11, 2003

[27] Steve Herrmann, 9/11 conspiracy theory,, October 27, 2006

[28] Doug Hanchett and Robin Washington, Logan Lacks Video Cameras, Boston Herald, September 29 2001

[29] Hoffman, Airport Video: No Video Shows Hijackers Boarding Targeted Flights,

[30] Hoffman, Airport Video: No Video Shows Hijackers Boarding Targeted Flights

[31] The Associated Press, Video shows 9/11 hijackers' security check,, July 21, 2004

[32] The Associated Press, Video shows 9/11 hijackers' security check

[33] Bill Hutchinson, Shocking video of hijackers Set off metal detectors,, July 22, 2004

[34] Court TV Online, 9/11 Hijackers Screened Before Flight,

[35] Susan B. Trento and Joseph J. Trento, Unsafe at any Altitude: Failed Terrorism Investigations, Scapegoating 9/11, and the Shocking Truth about Aviation Security Today, (Steerforth Publishing), October 3, 2006, p. 37.  See also:

Thompson, (After 10:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: FBI Immediately Identifies Hijackers on Dulles Security Video, Complete 9/11 Timeline

[36] Davidsson, No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11

[37] Denise Lavoie, Company helps 9/11 probe after losing one of its own, Associated Press. September 11, 2002. 

Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline cites news reports that the alleged hijackers were “caught on security cameras visiting a gas station, two ATMs, and shopping at a Wal-Mart. The next morning they fly back to Boston.”

Thompson, Context of 'February 2008: Considerable Video Footage of 9/11 Hijackers Remains Unreleased', Complete 9/11 Timeline

[38] Hoffman, Passenger Lists: Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers


[40] Hoffman, Passenger Lists: Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers

[41] Arabesque, 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples,

[42] Washington Post, Four Planes, Four Coordinated Teams,, September 16, 2001

[43] Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow, page 251.

August 27, 2008

Kevin Barrett: "Not a single Israeli was killed" in the World Trade Center on 9/11

Kevin Barrett: "Not a single Israeli was killed" in the World Trade Center on 9/11

By Arabesque

Shortly before Kevin Barrett was banned from, he made the following statement on April 17, 2008:

One of the "very good" things about 9/11, from an Israeli perspective, was the miracle of the Twin Towers. Somehow all the Israelis just didn't happen to be there that day. The vile rumor that "no Jews died in the Towers" was probably spread by Mossad as a pre-emptive strike against people noticing that no ISRAELIS died in the Towers. This is what Ahmadinejad should be harping on!

It is an amazing fact that citizens of more than 100 nations died in the Twin Towers, but not a single Israeli was killed, despite the well-known heavy presence of Israelis in the World Trade Center. China lost 20 people, Columbia lost 18, the Dominican Republic lost 25, India lost 34, Ecuador and Italy both lost 13, the Phillipines lost 16, Japan and Jamaica both lost 21, Trinidad and Tobago lost 15, the UK lost 68, and indeed the majority of nations on earth lost people in the World Trade Center... and Israel lost exactly ZERO, zilch, nada... While the USA lost 2,464 people.
After posting this false information, administrator Reprehensor saved a copy of the post after deleting it from, saying:
Removed Kevin's comment... the comments associated with the original comment are gone too. The comment that "no Israelis" died at the WTC is just plain wrong. (I saved a text file if anyone needs their comments sent to them)...
9/11 blogger loose nuke posted a rebuttal, citing an article that listed the deaths of 5 Israeli citizens on 9/11:
President Moshe Katsav, US Ambassador Dan Kurtzer, Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert, the families of five Israelis killed on September 11, and others gathered outside the Israel Museum in Jerusalem yesterday to remember the nearly 3,000 who died in the attacks a year ago.
Greer Fay Cashman, Five Israeli victims remembered in capital, The Jerusalem Post, September 11, 2002.

The US Department of state website cites mainstream media articles which indicate that there were many Jews who died in the 9/11 attacks:
Shortly after September 11, 2001, false rumors began to circulate claiming that 4,000 Jews, or 4,000 Israelis, had failed to report for work at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11, supposedly because they had been warned to stay away by Israeli secret services, which were allegedly responsible for the attack. The claim is totally false....

Vague conspiracy theories blaming Israel began to appear within 24 hours of the attacks. Syria's government-owned Al Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the "4,000 Jews" claim. According to U.S. embassy reporting, its September 15th edition falsely claimed "four thousand Jews were absent from their work on the day of the explosions."

The 4,000 figure apparently came from an article entitled "Hundreds of Israelis missing in WTC attack" which appeared in the September 12th internet edition of the Jerusalem Post. It stated, "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attacks." ...

According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%.

This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Masterlist

9/11 Disinformation

General Articles

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

Disinformation and the False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy

The Sound of Disinformation: What Will They Say Next?

Ad Hominem Attacks and Disruption

9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries

The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy: A Study in Divisive Accusations, Insults, and Ad-Hominem Attacks

The True Tale of the Mad Hatter

Pentagon Flyover

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’

Pentagon Flyover Theory: RIP

TV Fakery and No Plane Theory

Webster Tarpley interviews Nico Haupt and Jeff King: TV Fakery

September Clues Debunked

Directed Energy Weapons

Letters in response to Judy Wood’s Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis

Wood’s Request for correction to NIST: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Dr. Wood Interviewed by Greg Jenkins

They said What?

Captain Eric May

Kevin Barrett

August 23, 2008

NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower

NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower

NIST claims "fire" had better chance of knocking down tower than planted explosives in bizarre response to interview question

By Arabesque

NIST has finally released their final report into the collapse of Building 7, which collapsed inexplicably on 9/11. The New York Times quoted Sunder who said, "[The] reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery... It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.” Earlier, Sunder was scratching his head, saying, "We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." Similarly, the collapse baffled FEMA who lamely concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” In other words, despite the fact that FEMA claimed a diesel fuel explosion would have been improbable, NIST is now asserting that mere "fires" knocked down WTC 7? As NIST admits, this would be the "first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building." A 9/11 blogger named Buru Dragon comments on NIST's press conference saying:

[A] reporter appeared to temporarily stump Sunder with a very basic but perfect question. Throughout the presentation Sunder spoke about building seven as if it were particularly susceptible to collapse by even moderate fires because of the design. However Sunder would later go on to explain that it would require a very large amount of explosives to bring it down by demolition... "if the buildings were so vulnerable to collapse due to regular fires alone, wouldn’t they also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives?" Sunder... proceeded to stumble through some convoluted explanation for why only fire could be responsible... [seeming] caught off guard and uncomfortable.

If this wasn't bizarre enough, NIST took 7 years to reach this conclusion. Jim Hoffman commented in response to FEMA's original report:

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Because of this, many are openly disputing NIST's explanation. Raw Story explains that "As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul":

Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn't believe a word of the theory. His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute's claim in a press conference.... "Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused." "There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through," Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.

The press conference by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is available on their website. In an article entitled, Conspiracy theorists 'not swayed' by WTC7 explanation, Raw Story also quotes Richard Gage who explains that molten metal was ignored by the NIST report:

FEMA found [molten metal]... Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].

Jim Hoffman's website 9/11 research addresses this phenomenon of molten steel mentioned in the FEMA report (but completely ignored and omitted in the new NIST report), writing:

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused 'intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.' The New York Times described this as 'perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.'

In response to NIST's report on Building 7, 9/11 blogger George Washington pokes fun at their explanation saying:

NIST has solved the mystery of WTC 7, explaining that a brand "new phenomenon" was discovered, namely, that "thermal expansion"... NIST also discovered another new phenomenon it calls "fire". (NIST explained that fire is hot)... which led to the "thermal expansion".

How impressive could this "thermal expansion" be to explain the collapse of WTC 7? We can only turn to NIST who explain helpfully, "At any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed." To put this in perspective, WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 p.m., many hours after the fires were started. The collapse was not entirely a surprise apparently, as some news organizations were reporting it collapsing before it collapsed.

Quoting expert opinions and contradictions in NIST's explanation, George Washington also writes

NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse... NIST [said]: 'No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.'... What about this, this, this, this, this and this?... why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?... what about the pools of molten metal at ground zero for months? And why was the at and under the ground at the site of WTC 7 as hot as the ground under WTC 1 and 2? why didn't NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge (and see this) by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?

John Doraemi describes the NIST report as being written in "bad faith":

With the release of the NIST final report on Building 7 we can safely say that the government remains committed to the ongoing cover-up, and that crucial evidence was simply ignored... Most relevant to the WTC7 building investigation is that all of the steel [which they now attempt to use computers to simulate...] was disappeared from history, and melted down in Asia -- ILLEGALLY -- and without any justification whatsoever. Bad Faith is that NIST deliberately misled the public by claiming that "140 decibel" explosives would have been required to take out support columns, knowing full well that evidence of incendiary material (thermate) was found, which produces no such noise.

How indeed could a building be more likely to collapse from small offices fires than from pre-planted explosives? Further to this observation, the New York Times, quoting WTC 7 building owner Larry Silverstein explained that like most modern structures, WTC 7 was reinforced to survive structural damage: "We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity."

Barry Jennings, who was in WTC 7 on 9/11, claimed that he was stuck inside of the building after a massive explosion and that firefighters tried to get him out of the building before either of the twin towers collapsed.

Responses from other 9/11 researchers should be expected in the coming days.

August 18, 2008

How Can You Expose the 9/11 Cover-up by Starting a Blog?

How Can You Expose the 9/11 Cover-up by Starting a Blog?

By Arabesque

The corporate media has proven that they are largely not interested in covering incriminating 9/11 information. Because of this, there are many reasons that 9/11 activists should run their own 9/11 blog or website. As I previously discussed, simply running a 9/11 website increases the visibility of 9/11 information when you link to other 9/11 websites, videos, and media.  What are some things that you can do by starting a 9/11 blog to bypass gatekeepers and the corporate sponsored media?    

Reporting and Citing 9/11 News, Research, and Information

Quoting excerpts of 9/11 articles increases their visibility when they are hyperlinked. As well, videos are easily re-posted on blogs and promoting a selection of media is going to attract a variety of visitors. 

When quoting articles, they should be preceded by an introduction that describes the content you are quoting.  It is essential at the very least to establish “who” is being quoted.  Longer excerpts can be shortened with (…).  It is helpful to quote excerpts and provide links to original articles for full reading. 

Example #1:

In 2002, a Bush official widely believed to be Karl Rove explained how the media is manipulated to “create our own reality”:

“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’”

Ron Suskind, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, New York Times, October 17, 2004

It is helpful to cite the source in the event the link is no longer available online.

Example #2:

President Bush explains how the public is manipulated:

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." George Bush, May 24, 2005

Example #3:

In a letter given in response to Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and family members, NIST, the organization tasked with explaining the collapse of the World Trade Center admitted, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Shorter quotations (3 or less lines) do not have to be placed in a separate line, as seen above. 

In some cases it may be necessary to add clarification to quotations.  For example, the identity of someone referenced in a quote may be unclear.  “He said it was false” could be replaced with “[Bob] said it was false”.

Creating Transcripts of Video, Radio, and Other Media

By making transcripts of videos, radio interviews, and other media, they can be more accessible. Even partial excerpts can be very useful when long interviews or videos can have noteworthy information worthy of being highlighted.


Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza and 9/11 Family Member Bob McIlvaine: 9/11 Symposium, West Hartford Ct, 11/03/07

“The Government knew… other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come... And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission.

And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.”

In this example, 9/11 blogger and activist Jon Gold made a transcript of this video on  Because of this, the text shows up in search engines and those who do not have time to watch videos can read a transcript or even partial transcripts.  Particularly significant excerpts can also be highlighted with bold and italic.

Reporting Your Own Activism

By reporting your activism on a blog or website, you are making your own news. 11th day of Every Month

SAN DIEGO, Aug 11, 2008

If every activist posted all of their photos and information on one website it will only have limited exposure.  By cross posting activism on your own blog and a main site like, you are significantly increasing the visibility of your activism.  As I explained in another post, internet search engines rank websites based on how many different websites link to them.  This is apart from the obvious fact that having activism posted in more than one location makes it more visible.  If you are viewing this photo to the right, it only proves my point.  Would you come across this information if it was not actively promoted?  The cumulative effect of a virtual army of 9/11 bloggers would be dramatic, leaving gatekeepers and the corporate sponsored media in the dust. 

9/11 Research

By researching, you are increasing awareness about 9/11. Posting articles involving your own research is a great way to get involved, and it can be a challenging, but rewarding pursuit.

The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.

Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst in the film 9/11: Press for Truth

The craft of CIA analysis was designed to be an all-source operation, meaning that we analysts were responsible – and held accountable – for assimilating information from all sources and coming to judgments on what it all meant. We used information of all kinds, from the most sophisticated technical collection platforms to spies to open media.  Here I have to reveal a trade secret, which punctures the mystique of intelligence analysis. Generally speaking, 80 percent of the information one needs to form judgments on key intelligence targets or issues is available in open media.  It helps to have training from past masters of media analysis, which began in a structured way in targeting Japanese and German media in the 1940s. But, truth be told, everyone with a high-school education can do it. It is not rocket science.

Ray McGovern, George W. Bush: A CIA Analysis,, August 22, 2007

Although we can’t know the entire truth about what happened on 9/11 without an impartial investigation, Ray McGovern just let you in on a little secret.  80% of the information that we need to know already exists in the public domain.

This is why a resource like Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline is particularly valuable.  When it comes to 9/11 research, I also recommend Jim Hoffman’s 911 Research.  These are two outstanding resources for 9/11 research.  With the example of Jim Hoffman’s website, his attention to detail and careful review of information should be a model for any serious 9/11 investigator.  He carefully cites his information so that researchers can go back to the original sources.  Another excellent resource is the Google search engine.  Of course, if you use this, you have to evaluate the credibility of any information you come across.  A good way to learn how to research is to look at the work of 9/11 researchers like David Ray Griffin, Michael Ruppert, and others.

It is particularly useful for 9/11 researchers to focus on information that is not covered in detail anywhere else.  Writing about topics that no one else has written about or covered in depth “fills in the gaps” of 9/11 knowledge.  For example, although many had remarked about the promotions following 9/11, I could not find a complete article anywhere that addressed all of the evidence surrounding this issue.  To remedy this situation, I wrote an article entitled, Cui Bono? The 9/11 Promotions.  As hard as it is to believe that no one wrote an article completely addressing all of the promotions following 9/11, doing a search for “promoted + Richard Myers +Ralph Eberhart +Montague Winfield + Bowman + Michael Maltbie + David Frasca” confirms that this is true.

Critical Review

By reviewing articles, research, websites, and videos, you are helping others sort through 9/11 information. Critical reviews not only increase awareness of 9/11 issues, they help others to critically evaluate 9/11 information.

Jim Hoffman, (who has written many critical reviews) explains I think quite clearly the need for critique within the 9/11 truth movement in his critical review of the 9/11 documentary, 9/11 mysteries:

“The Necessity of Critique

  • Without a method to distinguish true from false theories, investigations of the crime will remain mired in ambiguities.
  • The scientific method is the proven method of distinguishing between true and false theories.
  • The scientific method depends on critique (peer review).
  • A culture hostile to critique is antagonistic to science and to the development of a persuasive, actionable case for investigation of the crimes of 9/11/01.
  • Such a culture supports stereotypes of challenges to the official story as irrational and faith-based.”

In this same presentation, Jim Hoffman observes that, “[to] be successful [the] '9/11 community needs to create a culture conducive to critique…”

This leads to my next point.  There is a difference between critique and ad hominem.  As Hoffman explains, “Rational critique is discouraged [by some within the 9/11 truth movement] and reframed as… censorship… divisiveness… [and] infighting.” In other words, we should not confuse personal attacks with constructive critique.  As I discussed in an article about divisiveness within the 9/11 truth movement, ad hominem attacks and accusations can be exploited to disrupt the 9/11 truth movement.

A Note about Disinformation and Misinformation

Fact checking and corroborating sources is essential.  Although this may be a tedious process, by being careful you are less likely to promote misinformation.  What is misinformation?  Misinformation is the unintentional promotion of false, inaccurate, or misleading information.  Here is what I consider to be a classic example of 9/11 misinformation.  It is often reported that “no hijacker names” appear on the flight manifests.  From the 911 research website, Jim Hoffman writes:

“According to the official story, teams of four and five Islamic hijackers took over Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. Victims lists for the four planes published by CNN and elsewhere are free of Arab names…  This fact has been highlighted as suspicious by some researchers describing the lists as passenger manifests. However, these lists are not passenger manifests, but lists of victims… CNN describes its criteria for including persons in its memorial in a pop-up window labelled ‘About this site’… ‘(Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included)…’ In July of 2006 a large collection of documents was published on a website containing prosecution and defense exhibits for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui… The faxes, reproduced below, include the names of the alleged hijackers.

This is a perfect example of misinformation.  As you can see, referring to “victim lists” as if they were “passenger lists” is significantly misleading. 

When false information is spread deliberately in an attempt to mislead, confuse, or misinform, it is an example of disinformation.  As I argued in my article, 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples, the official story of 9/11 itself is Disinformation—information that is intentionally promoted to mislead through omission and distortion.  Official reports consistently fail to investigate, comment upon, or even mention blatant contradictions, contradictory timelines, contradictory evidence, and contradictory statements.


When it comes to 9/11 activism, you are only limited by your imagination.  Anyone can get involved by blogging about 9/11 information, making transcripts of 9/11 media, reporting your own activism, making your own 9/11 research, and making your own critical reviews of 9/11 news, research, and other media.

By creating a blog and posting links to 9/11 information, you are taking part in the effort to expose the truth about 9/11.  If only a small number participated in the effort to inform the public about 9/11, the results would be small.  By simply creating a 9/11 blog or website, you are increasing the visibility, search ranking, and amount of visitors who encounter 9/11 information, 9/11 websites, 9/11 activism, and other 9/11 news, video, and media.  Creating a blog or website and linking to 9/11 information is in itself taking action to expose the 9/11 cover-up. 

August 16, 2008

Don't Know How to Blog? Explaining Some Blog Features on

Don't Know How to Blog? Explaining Some Blog Features on

By Arabesque

In this blog I will explain how to add a links list, menu list, the blog editor, commenting, HTML functionality, and creating RSS blog feeds.

In case you missed it, here is a quick video that explains how to setup a blog:

How do I Add a Links List? has some very user-friendly commands that make setting up a blog and organizing it very easy. After setting up a blog and logging in, you can add a links list by editing “layout" from your dashboard. Layout can also be accessed as shown on the left. This video explains how to add a "link list" to the sidebar of your blog:

You can create multiple link lists. For example, on my blog, I have link lists for 9/11 sites and blogs. When you create lists and add-on elements to your blog, you can easily move them around by dragging them in the layout screen.

How Do I Create a Menu or List of Content on My Blog?

Let's say you have important articles, activism, videos, etc. that you want to permanently highlight on your blog. Normally, when you post on your blog, new entries "push" older ones below. By creating a sidebar that permanently links to material you want to highlight, this content will be easily retrievable and permanently visible.

There are two main ways to do this. From the layout screen, you can select either the "text" or "list" options from the "add a gadget" icon.


Using the text gadget allows you to create whatever text you want, add hyperlinks, etc. This is just like a text editor like Microsoft Word. When you post articles on your blog, each blog will have its own address, which means you can directly link to these pages on your sidebar. Add text and a hyperlink (like this) and important content is highlighted on your blog sidebar after you save your changes.


The "list" gadget allows you to create a list of items. This video explains:

How Do I Control Blog Comments?

Comments on blogs can be allowed, moderated, or not allowed.

How Do I Use the Blog Editor?

The help website explains some of the function of their blog editor and the three modes of editing:
Blogger's post editor has three modes:

* Compose: a wysiwyg mode where you manipulate text with formatting buttons
* Edit HTML: a raw mode where you edit the html manually
* Preview: renders a full-body preview of the post, including its Title, links and images
The "what you see is what you get" (or wysiwyg) editor is like a typical, Microsoft Word text editor.

A good tutorial for the functions can be found at

The most important functions are for posting images and adding hyperlinks.

How Do I Add Add Third-Party Functionality or Other Code to Your Blog?

Let's say you want to add a website counter to track visitors or add a banner. For example, the forum has a new banner. How can I add this to the side of my blog?
With the layout tab, select "add a gadget" and choose "HTML/JavaScript". Copy the HTML code and paste it into the box provided:

The banner should work.

Creating a Blog List: Promoting other 9/11 blogs

This video explains how to add a blog list on your blog.

Why is this useful? You can promote the latest content from other 9/11 bloggers on your blog automatically. Of course, there are many excellent 9/11 bloggers out there and you'll want to promote their content on your site.

My blog currently has a blog list so you can see an example.

As an added benefit, google values websites that update their content more than sites that do not. By having a blog list that updates, you are in fact increasing the visibility of your blog in search rankings (as well as the other 9/11 sites that you link to), because google values sites that update regularly.

In order to add sites to this list, you will need to find their feed address. What is this?
A site feed is a machine-readable representation of your blog that can be picked up and displayed on other web sites and information aggregation tools.
Almost every blog has an RSS feed. You'll have to find this address which is usually somewhere on a sidebar or the bottom of the blog in most cases. For example, on the bottom of my blog you find:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
If you want to add a blog to your blog list, you will need to copy the RSS feed address. For example:

How do I add an RSS feed from 911blogger?

Let's say you want to promote the latest front page stories from on your blog. On the left side of my blog, I have the latest stories from How can you do this?

After logging in to and going to your blog layout, select add a gadget. From this list, select "feed".

The RSS address for 911blogger is

Add this address to the feed gadget and now you can promote the latest 911blogger stories on your blog.

As I explained, one of the important reasons for starting your own blog is that by linking to 9/11 sites like and, you are increasing their visibility and the number of people who visit these sites.

U.S. Corporate Media spins Russian Response to Georgian attack as "Aggression"

In this video, Fox News interrupts a Civilian who reports that Georgia instigated attacks against Russia.

A Russian American blogs about Georgia, saying: "America needs to wake up"

Gorbachev responds to Larry King on CNN about Russian response to Georgian attacks spinned as "aggression" by Russia:

Former Reagan official explains that Georgian attacks on Russia were approved by the Bush administration.

9/11 researcher Michael Ruppert comments on the situation saying:
The United States has been pushing Russia hard since well-before 9/11, trying to weaken and encircle it. I devoted a whole chapter to that subject in Rubicon. It is clear that the Bush Administration, in its Neocon cock-suredness, mistook Russia's comparatively tepid responses thus far as a sign of weakness. This is a rope-a-dope strategy that the U.S. looks certain to lose unless it can pull a rather large and intimidating hippopotamus out of the hat. The potential humiliation for U.S. prestige is so great that I would bet that the "football" has been dusted off in Beijing while Hu Jintao wonders what happened to his Olympic games. Either the Chinese had advance warning or they did not. If they did, which I suspect, then it's perfect to have Bush in Beijing where both Russia and China can carve him up like a Thanksgiving turkey. If they didn't, then I'm certain that Russia had a huge carrot to put on the Chinese table as the first tanks crossed the border.


Russia has just brought the energy discussion back to the only real problem there is, Peak Oil...

The BTC pipeline, so familiar to FTW and Rubicon readers, carries about a million barrels a day of Caspian oil around Russia to a Turkish port in the Mediterranean from whence it gets shipped to Europe AND the U.S. It happens to run right through Georgia. More importantly, since it started operations just a few years ago, it has represented Europe's last (belated) futile hope for energy independence from Russia. Take a million barrels a day offline, or threaten to in a global oil market with no elasticity or swing producers, and watch what oil and gold prices do. The ramifications of this are enormous as the Saudis get pushed nearer the inevitable point at which they have to admit decline as the world will inevitably run to them for another dog-and-pony show of increased production.
What must be remarked upon is the incredible hypocrisy of U.S. officials and their acquiescing corporate media. An article by Patrick J. Buchanan asks: Is Not Western Hypocrisy Astonishing?
"Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia's invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser's blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili's blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America's lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight – Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.

Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?

The spin game continues.

Craig Paul Roberts:

"This about sums up the pessimistic state in which I existed prior to the go-ahead given by the Bush Regime to its puppet in Georgia to ethnically cleanse South Ossetia of Russians in order to defuse the separatist movement. The American media, aka, the Ministry of Lies and Deceit, again accommodated the criminal Bush Regime and proclaimed “Russian invasion” to cover up the ethnic cleansing of Russians in South Ossetia by the Georgian military assault.

Only this time, the rest of the world didn’t buy it. The many years of lies–9/11, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections, yellowcake, anthrax attack, Iranian nukes, “the United States doesn’t torture,” the bombings of weddings, funerals, and children’s soccer games, Abu Ghraib, renditions, Guantanamo, various fabricated “terrorist plots,” the determined assault on civil liberties–have taken their toll on American credibility. No one outside America any longer believes the US media or the US government.

The rest of the world reported the facts--an assault on Russian civilians by American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian troops. The Bush Regime, overcome by hubris, expected Russia to accept this act of American hegemony. But the Russians did not, and the Georgian military was sent fleeing for its life."

Global Research comments:
What is clear, however, is that the BBC is giving carte blanche to the Georgian point-of-view to be aired on its services while nothing whatsoever is being heard from the Ossetian side. The BBC's repetitive playing of a statement by George Bush, given several days ago, without balancing these against statements from the Russian side indicates where the BBC is coming from.
If the U.S. corporate media didn't care about the outcome of the Georgia affair (i.e. that it didn't affect U..S. interests), would they be spinning Russian retaliation as "aggression"? These charges are too comical to be believed coming from a Government that invaded a country based on deliberate lies (i.e. aggression--not self defense) while using its corporate sponsored media to "sell" the war to the public. The United States has been training Georgian troops, funding them, and trying to get Georgia into NATO. The United States is an interested party in the affair. USA news reports:
"But behind the scenes, a pressing question within military and diplomatic circles is whether this week's fighting will mean an end to Georgia's hopes to joint the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, membership that President Bush has strongly backed."