A Guide Through Common 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93, Hijackers

[ref]

This is the final compilation post. I have gathered together the 4 separate parts I have written earlier.

This post is for the ones, who come across these conspiracy theories and claims and want to know what really is behind them. This post is also for the more experienced conspiracy debators, serving both as a link source and as a reminder. This is an evidence based view of the events. And no, I do not work for any government or organization.

I have noticed that many people find long and complicated reports difficult to approach. That is why I felt there was a need for a guidebook that describes the explanations and theories in few easily accessible sentences. That is the purpose of the "In Brief" -section, which explains every claim in a nutshell. If the reader becomes more interested and wants to know more, further readings are linked to every claim.

This post has 4 parts: WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93 and The Hijackers. I have concentrated on the events of the day of 9/11. I have not included such topics as Foreknowledge, Goventment actions, Insider trading etc. If the reader wants to know more about these topics, at the end of this post is a links collection where you can find access to further knowledge about all topics surrounding 9/11.

Links to posts of each individual topic:
WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93, The Hijackers

Note: I have added one new topic on the WTC part of this compilation, the claim that BBC reported WTC 7 collapse too early. Also a couple of links are added to this compilation that do not exist in the original individual parts, as well as an all-around 9/11 link compilation in the end of this post. Otherwise the content of this compilation is identical to the individual posts.

Here it is, all in one. In order: WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93, The Hijackers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTC

• Claim: There were bombs in the building. People heard explosions.

Discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...83&postcount=1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=186
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

There are accounts of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...s_full_01.html

In Brief: Most of those accounts are about the sound of the towers as they were collapsing, and some are about cars, trucks, etc. that were on fire after the collapses. None have seen actual bombs, or claim nowadays that actual bombs went off. Accounts before the collapse are of bodies from the towers hitting the ground or other structures.

The bomb theory would require a huge risk of getting caught beforehand, starting the explosions from the wrong part of the towers, a huge amount of people who would have to remain silent, a risk of making the explosions too visible and getting caught, enormous amount of wiring. Remember, no one is claiming to have seen or heard actual bombs.

The no bomb theory requires a plane and a fire.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The lobby was damaged. There were explosions in the basement of North Tower.

Discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...1&postcount=40

In Brief: The explosion in the north tower elevator shafts, which damaged several floors, the lobby, and basement levels, was caused by jet fuel. Why risk getting caught by blowing up the basement? What if the collapse started accidentally from there? There is no sense weakening the base, if the collapse should start from the top.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: Larry Silverstein said Pull, meaning they decided to demolish the building.

The quote goes: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In Brief: They made the decision to pull, which means the Fire Department. Fire Departments don't demolish buildings. Why would Larry Silverstein accidentally admit demolition on a non-live TV-show and not have it edited away. Pull meant the personnel, that had to be pulled from the scene, because WTC 7 showed signs of critical failure.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: WTC 7 had only small, local fires. And no plane hit it. It should have not collapsed.

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

In Brief: There is a huge amount of eyewitness material comfirming the damage, as well as fires. Also videos from the south side show large amount of smoke from almost each floor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: WTC 7 was classic Controlled Demolition Style Implosion

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In Brief: WTC 7 damaged surrounding buildings. The Penthouse collapsed way before the actual building. The pile was not tidy. Those are not signs of Controlled Demolition. Pictures from the scene confirm this. Those that are not selected to show the scene only after the place was partly cleaned.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: There was Thermite and Molten Metal. Pictures and Steven Jones have confirmed this.

Discussed here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_...t_the_wtc.html

In Brief: The colour of the material means nothing. The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

The elements that Professor Jones reports finding have already been discovered by other WTC dust surveys, who for the most part don’t seem surprised by their presence. It seems likely that, in all cases, there are other WTC sources that can deliver far more of these elements than you would ever see from thermite/ thermate.

There’s also no clear evidence that the suspect elements are available in proportions that match what you’d expect from a thermite/ thermate reaction.

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The Towers shouldn't have collapsed from the impacts and fire. No steel framed building have collapsed due to fire alone. It had to be controlled demolition.
  

Discussed here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=214
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstrea...1/WTCpaper.pdf
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

In Brief: The towers had their unique design. They can not be compared to other buildings, which have not been even damaged by an impact before the fires.

They were hit by airplanes. Their fireproofing was removed from the impact zones. Why would you fireproof steel if fire did nothing to it? The structure was weakened by the impacts and further by the fires. The collapse was not improbable, it was evident.

Controlled demolition is never started from the top. And nothing was controlled in the twin towers collapse. Debris flew everywhere.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: Silverstein Made a Huge Profit from Insurers.

Discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...on#post2193448
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/ny...=1&oref=slogin

In Brief: Silverstein is rebuilding. The total cost of the massive project is now estimated at $9 billion.

The insurance proceeds, about $4.6 billion, only covered about half the total cost. The other half had to be made up with a combination of state, federal and private financing.

Where is the profit?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: There were demolition squibs seen when the towers collapsed.

Discussed here:
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

In Brief: A buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris can also have similar effects. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.

The perpetrators would have known that all the cameras would film the event. Why make visual explosions?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The towers fell at free fall speeds.

Discussed here:
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

In Brief: Neither of the towers fell at so called free fall speed. The surrounding debris fell faster than the towers itself. A huge piece of the core of the north tower can be seen standing for a while after the collapse. This can be confirmed from the collapse videos.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: But what about the concrete? It was pulverized.

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...zed+concre te

In Brief: WTC was not made of reinforced concrete. Towers had steel with 4 inch lightweight concrete floors. An enormous amount of energy was released in the collapse. That energy destroys everything.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: BBC reported WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually collapsed. This was a script they slipped out early and proves the conspiracy.

Discussed here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...onspiracy.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=75768
http://www.newstatesman.com/200606190037

In Brief: BBC really reported the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building, better known as WTC 7, some 20-30 minutes prior to its collapse. The news day was extremely busy and during live coverage things are often mixed up, before more information emerges to clarify the events. This report was most probably caused by the misinterpretation of the reports saying WTC 7 was in immediate danger of collapsing and personnel in the area had to be pulled away.

The confusion is very clearly shown by the fact, that building 7 is still standing in the background of the BBC reporter. This would be the biggest blunder ever by the conspirators, why would they need to release any statements about the collapse, let alone too early? This collapse report is an honest mistake, nothing more.

BBC has responded to this and clearly states the following:

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had."

Recommended WTC reading for the interested:

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...splay.php?f=64
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Pentagon

• Claim: The hole in Pentagon is too small to be caused by a Plane.

Discussed here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=6
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bu...PDF/b03017.pdf
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

In Brief: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: There was no identifiable plane debris at Pentagon. The small amount of debris found could be carried away by hand.

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bu...PDF/b03017.pdf

In Brief: There definitely was plane debris at the site. The impact damage also fit that of an Airplane. The plane travelling at a very high speed and hitting a hard wall creates a huge impact force. This force destroys everything into small pieces.

Consider this:

There was debris. If it was carried there before the attack, all the people driving past Pentagon could have caught them redhanded. If it was carried there after the attack, the focus of all the people on the motorway was already at Pentagon. The debris could not have been carried there before or afterwards. A Plane crashed there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: A Missile hit The Pentagon.

Discussed here:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bu...PDF/b03017.pdf
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

In Brief: The number of eyewitnesses mentioning a plane is huge. The number of eyewitnesses mentioning a missile is zero. The impact damage fits that of a plane.

Pentagon is located in a big city. Pentagon is close to a busy motorway. Could anyone hit Pentagon with a missile, claim it to be a plane and get away with it without risking the operation? No.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: How could the passengers be identified if the plane was so destroyed? / There were no passengers.

Discussed here:
http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary.../12279-1.shtml
http://www.911myths.com/html/bodies_identified.html

In Brief: What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

Teams of forensic scientists, under the direction of Demris Lee, technical leader of the Nuclear DNA Section, took over the difficult chore of generating a DNA profile of the victims. Their work included not only the Pentagon crash victims, but the victims of the Somerset County crash as well. Every one of the organization's 102 DNA analysts, sample processors, logistics staff, and administrative personnel were involved -- from collecting, tracking, analyzing DNA samples, and gathering and logging DNA reference material to preparing DNA reports. For 18 days following the terrorist attacks, AFDIL employees worked on 12-hour shifts, seven days a week to meet the mission requirements.

There were the bodies and passengers we are told to. Or the 102 analysts are in on the conspiracy. Which one is more likely?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: A Video clearly showing Pentagon hit has not been released.

Discussed here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pen...deo/index.html
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bu...PDF/b03017.pdf
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...ght=doubletree
http://www.flight77.info/maguire.htm

In Brief: Video showing the impact from the Pentagon Checkpoint has been released. Video showing the fireball from the Doubletree Hotel camera has been released.

Videos have been evidence for the Moussaoui trial, thus not released until 2006. FBI has said 85 videos are in their possession but a huge majority of them shows neither the site, or the impact. Or show the area only after the impact. Only a couple of them show anything at all.

Surveillance cameras are not 24 frames per second cameras and they are not located in anticipation of an airline attack. We have already seen the impact from one angle and the fireball from two angles. We know there was a plane from all the evidence and eyewitnesses above. Why would we still need to see a crystal clear video?

Remember. If there was a clear video, conspiracy theorists would say it was manipulated and photoshopped. That has already been stated by the likes of David Ray Griffin and others. There is always a conspiracy theory.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder data is faked.

Discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=66047
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

In Brief: Simply. It is not faked. The analysis claiming it's fake do not take into account everything needed. The data verifies everything about plane hitting the Pentagon.

Why would they leave fake information to be found at the Pentagon, then release it to the public for scrutiny?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The fallen light poles are suspicious.

Discussed here:
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...n+lightpol es

In Brief: Multiple eyewitnesses have witnessed the plane hitting the light poles.

Consider the following:

How could a missile clip light poles? We have all the evidence and eyewitnesses supporting a plane. Why would they have to fake a light pole story? What purpose would that serve?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: Hani Hanjour could not pilot the plane into the Pentagon, making such difficult turns.

Discussed here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot186/
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...=zembla#27m40s

In Brief: Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. The manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. Landing a plane is difficult. Flying it into something is easier.

An amateur pilot in Holland was able to hit Pentagon 3/3 times, when he tried it with a simulator. Hanjour had enough skills to fly a plane. He didn't have to land.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: Pentagon had missile batteries to protect it.

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentago...batteries.html

In Brief: If they did exist then wouldn’t you have expected Pentagon employees to also have raised this question?

An automatic shoot-down of anything that violated the Pentagon airspace is not possible. The Pentagon is located very close to the approach for Washingtons Ronald Reagan airport.

There has not been any reports of an existence of any missile batteries before 9/11.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: Why did the hijackers hit the only part of The Pentagon that was recently renovated?

Discussed here:
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/projects.htm
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/projects-W1.htm

In Brief: What actually WAS renovated was Wedge 1. Not the entire side of the Pentagon.

Pentagon consists of 5 Wedges, which consist of a corner and half the length of one side of the Pentagon to both directions from the corner.

Wedge 1, approximately 1 million square feet, was the first fifth of above ground space in the Pentagon to undergo renovation. Structural demolition and the abatement of hazardous materials began in 1998, followed by the installation of new utilities and the build-out of tenant areas. A phased move-in of tenants began in February 2000, with the last tenant move-in completed February 6, 2003.

So the plane hit the side of the Pentagon, which consisted of Wedge 1 to the right of the impact zone and Wedge 2 to the left of the impact zone.

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/wedge...iagram_web.jpg

The whole Pentagon is undergoing renovation. That part was renovated first, because it is Wedge Number 1. It was also on a direct flight path of the plane.

There is nothing strange about this.

Recommended Pentagon reading for the interested:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bu...PDF/b03017.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...splay.php?f=64
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Flight 93

• Claim: Flight 93 landed in Cleveland

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/93_land...cleveland.html
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
http://www.freetimes.com/story/681

In Brief: Liz Foreman, whose name was attached to this story, tried to clear it up in February 2006: “The story in question, an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true.
Once the AP issued a retraction a few minutes later, we removed the link. I only removed the link TO the story. We did not remove the story itself. This was my error probably due to the busy nature of the day.”

One plane landed in Cleveland, Delta Flight 1989, which was first misidentified as Flight 93. The other mystery plane, a KC-135, only returned to the hangar.

Vernon "Bill" Wessel, the director of safety and mission assurance at NASA Glenn reports the following:
“A KC-135 had to come back to the hangar," says Wessel, as if realizing for the first time that this aircraft may have caused some undue confusion. A team of scientists from the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown to Cleveland on this KC-135 to conduct micro-gravity experiments. The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. "After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel." The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: Seismology reports indicated a crash time 10:06, 3 minutes later than the official time.

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_seismology.html
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

In Brief: The initial seismic report claiming the time 10:06 was from 2002. The Commission had this to say:

“The seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets. These data sets constrain United 93's impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community. Furthermore, one of the study's principal authors now concedes that "seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93.”

There are no reports of the authors of the original seismic report having disputed this conclusion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: Flight 93 was shot down. Debris was found miles from the crash site.

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=7
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=8
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence.../producer.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...le=Indian_Lake

In Brief: There was a white jet in the vicinity of Flight 93--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C. The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on. The only military plane in the vicinity of the crash site was an unarmed C-130 cargo plane. The cargo plane was returning to Minnesota before Flight 93 crashed and was flying at 24,000 feet about 17 miles from the crash site.

A fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, just over 300 yards south of the crash site, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was travelling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground" says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert.

Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheet metal landed in Indian lake. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater, easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash.

If a missile had hit Flight 93, there would have been more evidence of it and a much larger heavy debris area.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The phone calls from Flight 93 were fake, cell phones could not have worked.

Discussed here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics..._-_Phone_calls
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...le=Cell_phones
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_9_1...en_t_real.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

In Brief: Ten passengers and two crew members were able to make calls that went through. All but two of them were airphone calls. Only two phone calls, one by Edward Felt and one by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles, came from cell phones — both at 9:58 a.m, shortly before the plane crashed. At this point, the aircraft was ~5,000 feet above sea level. They worked.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: There were no bodies.

Discussed here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=8
http://www.freetimes.com/story/681
http://www.post-gazette.com/headline...ht931027p5.asp
http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary.../12279-1.shtml

In Brief: 102 DNA analysts took over the difficult chore of generating a DNA profile of the victims. Their work included not only the Pentagon crash victims, but the victims of the Somerset County crash as well.

Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, says human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site.

He also states:
“There were pieces of people. Trust me. I cleaned it up. The plane hit the ground doing 575 miles per hour. The rest of the remains were vaporized on impact. But we did ID everyone onboard.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The impact hole was way too small for an aircraft.

Discussed here:
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html
http://www.freetimes.com/story/681

In Brief: Multiple eyewitnesses saw an airplane. Everyone onboard was identified by DNA. Lots of plane debris and both black boxes were found. Is there any question anymore?

Again, as in the case of Pentagon, the speed of the plane was very high. One shouldn’t expect to see an almost intact fuselage. Everything breaks into small pieces with huge impact forces.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The Val McClatchey smoke plume photo is fake.

Discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=61633

In Brief: That whole claim and analysis is made by one single person, who lives a conspiracy life and has no actual photo analysing skills or training. The claim has zero substance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: Mark Bingham called his mom and used his full name. That must be fake.

Discussed here:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...k-bingham.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/mom__th...k_bingham.html

In Brief: Mark’s mom says the following in a Discovery Channel “The Flight That Fought Back” documentary:
“Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business.”
http://www.911myths.com/Hoglan.avi

Recommended Flight 93 reading for the interested:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...ines_Flight_93
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...splay.php?f=64
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech.../1227842.html?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Hijackers

• Claim: The passport of Satam al-Suqami couldn’t have survived the inferno and collapse. It was found in a grid search and it was in too good condition.

Discussed here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_...rrTrav_Ch2.pdf
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ame/911/911tr/012604.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17...ism/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

In Brief: Some reports have falsely claimed this was Atta’s passport. The passport never went through the inferno and collapse. A passerby in a suit picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective Yuk H. Chin shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. WTC 2 collapsed only shortly thereafter. Mr. Chin gave the passport further to the FBI on 9/11.

Lots of things from the planes ended up on the streets below before the collapses. Amongst them was a hijacker’s passport.
http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/september_11&page=1

On September 18th a CNN report stated the following:

“Police and the FBI completed a grid search of area streets near the site of the World Trade Center looking for clues, said Barry Mawn, director of New York's FBI office. The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center.”

The report first talked about a grid search, then in the next sentence it mentioned that the passport was found last week. This has lead to a false conclusion, that a grid search produced the passport finding.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: Several of the hijackers are reported to be alive.

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...itle=Hijackers
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor..._theory_1.html

In Brief: The story was first reported by the BBC and several other news agencies in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. BBC updated their story in 2006. The update clearly states:

“The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.”

The FBI and the 9/11 commission have confirmed, that the hijackers responsible for the attacks have been positively identified. There has been no issue of doubt raised by further reviews to the hijackers identities.

If the alive theories were true, it would be easy to just go and interview them. This has not been done, but the issue has been avoided giving many excuses. This claim is still alive, the hijackers are not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The hijackers outwitted the most highly sophisticated military defence in the world. It could not have been possible without help, NORAD stand down order and distracting war games.

Discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=70300
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...08/norad200608
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

In Brief: North America is surrounded by an area called the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is responsible for the intercept of aircraft inside the ADIZ. All preparations were made only concerning aircraft entering the USA from outside its borders.

Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) and Transport Canada handle the ADIZ clearances, so a request for intercept from one of these agencies precedes any action by NORAD against civilian aircraft. NORAD do not directly monitor air traffic inside the ADIZ themselves.

None of the aircraft hijacked on September 11 entered the ADIZ zone surrounding North America. The hijackings took place inside continental USA. Prior to September 11, there was no formal system in place for military intercepts of civilian aircraft outside the ADIZ. From 1991 to 2001 only one military intercept occurred over continental USA airspace, the Payne Stewart flight. The intercept took 81 minutes and the aircraft transponder remained on at all times.

All four aircraft hijacked on September 11 had their transponders turned off. In order to identify the hijacked aircraft, Air Traffic Controllers had to first cross-reference all of the aircraft appearing on the secondary radar screen with their correlating reading on the primary screen. This is an enormous task.

Failure by NORAD to intercept the hijacked planes on 9/11 was not caused by any orders. It was a result of enormous workload, lack of preparation against attacks from inside continental USA, complicated operating procedures and lack of time.

The exercises occurring on September 11 that involved NORAD were “Vigilant Guardian” and “Global Guardian”.

These were command post exercises. This means that all the battle positions that are normally not filled were filled. It was a rapid transition from an exercise into a real world situation. When the first reports of a hijacking were given, a rapid clarification was made with the words “is this real-world or exercise?” Once this clarification had been made, the exercises posed no further hindrance to NORAD’s response. The exercises actually enhanced the response, since all staff positions were already filled.

Special thanks to Andrew Burfield for his extensive NORAD analysis.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The names of the hijackers do not appear on the passenger manifests.

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hija...manifests.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/officia...st_images.html
http://graphics.boston.com/news/pack...1_manifest.gif
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...n/OG00010.html

In Brief: The hijackers do not appear on the victim lists put together by CNN. Those were not the official passenger manifests. CNN specifically states that the hijackers are not included.

But Boston Globe obtained passenger manifests of the flights that departed from Boston only a few days after the attacks. The hijackers are included there. The official and complete passenger manifests of all flights were released as part of the Moussaoui trial. They do include every hijacker and their seat positions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The hijackers couldn’t have flown the planes into their targets.

Discussed here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_..._dropouts.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot186/
http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...=zembla#27m40s

In Brief: The manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes.

They were not expert pilots, but they had some extensive training with simulators and smaller planes. Landing a plane is difficult. Flying it into something is much easier. They had the skills to do that. For example, an amateur pilot in Holland was able to hit Pentagon 3/3 times, when he tried it with a simulator.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The hijackers were from a cave. They couldn’t have pulled this through.

Discussed here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042801315.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...C_2001_attacks

In Brief: Mohamed Atta, the pilot of flight 11, came from a middle-class household in Egypt. In Hamburg, Germany, he earned his master's degree in architecture.

Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot of flight 175, was from the United Arab Emirates and had joined the UAE army. Later when in Germany, he enrolled in a university with a military scholarship.

Hani Hanjour, the pilot of the Pentagon plane, was a son of a businessman in Saudi Arabia. He first arrived to USA already in 1991.

Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, was a son of an industrious, wealthy family in Beirut. Jarrah moved to Germany and studied aerospace engineering at the University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg.

15 other hijackers joined the pilots aboard the four airplanes. All but one were from Saudi Arabia, most were from families headed by tradesmen and civil servants, well-off, but not wealthy.

As for the planners, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed completed a degree in mechanical engineering in 1986. Osama Bin Laden earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979.

Caves do not describe these people.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: There were no hijackers involved.

Discussed here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary.../12279-1.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-11-sept11-remains_x.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/officia...st_images.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/headline...ht931027p5.asp

In Brief: The hijackers and their identities have not been in any doubt since late 2001. The known identities have survived many reviews. And these people were really on board the planes.

In New York City, medical examiners used DNA that FBI had collected from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms to match body parts with three of the 10 hijackers who crashed there. The enormous destruction of the towers has made further identifications impossible, only 58% of all WTC victims have been identified.

In the Pentagon and Pennsylvania cases, nine genetic profiles that matched no known victims were presumed to be hijacker remains. All the people on board the planes are known, all the people at the crash sites are known. There is no question that the 9 remaining people are the hijackers.

We have official manifests that include the hijackers. We have multiple telephone calls that confirm the existence of the hijackers. We have security camera images that show the hijackers. We have DNA identification of several of them. We have 9 extra people besides identified victims at two crash sites.

There were hijackers involved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Claim: The hijackers were not even devoted followers of Islam. They enjoyed drinking and lap dances.

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042801315.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/st...906442,00.html
http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html

In Brief: At first, it must be said that the reliability of these behaviour statements is in question. In some reports the identification of the actual hijackers is questionable, while in other reports the description of the very same event varies from source to source.

Nonetheless, while this kind of behaviour seems rather suspicious, a deeper look reveals that terrorists do not always act like one would expect.

Different sources report the following:

“Ziad Jarrah came from a secular Muslim family that was easygoing -- the men drank whiskey and the women wore short skirts about town and bikinis at the beach.”

“Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a frequent visitor to Manila's red light district, including its karaoke bars and mirrored go-go clubs, where he introduced himself to women as a wealthy businessman from Qatar.”

“They must have assumed that the purifying nature of their approaching martyrdom gave them some sort of cosmic dispensation.”

"Their sense of dispensation was derived directly from the idea that they were engaged in jihad (holy struggle). Now you know, in jihad there are certain liberties allowed. I believe they took the liberty of making their own interpretation of these dispensations or liberties granted to the one making jihad."

It would seem, that so-called errant western behaviour does not exclusively mean that you cannot be a terrorist at the same time. Their suicide mission might be interpreted as a purifying event, making their earlier behaviour less damaging. And you have to keep in mind, that Islamic Law condemns the killing of innocent civilians. They were not following the strict rules of their religion there either.

Recommended reading concerning the hijackers for the interested:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunk911myths.org
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...splay.php?f=64


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Useful links for all-around 9/11 knowledge:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bu...PDF/b03017.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.debunk911myths.org
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech.../1227842.html?
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...splay.php?f=64


Special thanks go out to all the people whose research has played a key part in this post:
Mark Roberts, Mike Williams of 9/11 Myths, Andrew Burfield and all the people in the JREF forum.

[apathoid]

Great job Ref!

Mods, can we make this post a sticky?

[The Almond]

Excellent work ref. I'm bookmarking your post and making sure to link to it whenever I have the chance.

[Firestone]

Bravo!!!

I also think this should be made a sticky or included in the Resources.

And you should also have a way to update this post regularly with new material (no idea it this is feasible on this forum).

[ref]

Thanks all

It has been a long but rewarding experience to put all this together. I have no idea, if it's possible to modify posts later to update contents. At least we can add posts to the thread if nothing else.

And everybody, feel free to link or sticky this post or whatever you want. As the CT's say, this is all common knowledge

[sesshin]

Thank you for posting this. I have bookmarked it is a valuable reference.

[Kiwiwriter]

Ref, my hat is off to you, not to mention a lot of my hair. Great work.

Twoofers, read this first! If you can, that is.

[ref]

Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter

Ref, my hat is off to you, not to mention a lot of my hair. Great work.

Twoofers, read this first! If you can, that is.

Please, not the hair

Thanks Kiwi. Hardcore truthers won't read this. But then again, I didn't write this for them either. They won't listen to anything. But they can't give any facts either, just namecalling and ridicule.

[greyleonard]

Thanks.

[Brainache]

Once again I am in awe of the people posting at this forum. Well done Mr Ref!

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by apathoid

Great job Ref!

Mods, can we make this post a sticky?

Seconded, a superb post full of valuable links and information.

Great work Ref.

[ref]

Revolutionary91 @ LC forum criticized me for spelling analyzing wrongly with an s. His crushing argument is, I have no spelling skills. That's a really strong argument. It changes the whole point of everything I have ever said, doesn't it. Maybe I spelled it wrong, because my native language is something he wouldn't understand a word of. But they don't think that far.

[The Doc]

Originally Posted by ref

Revolutionary91 @ LC forum criticized me for spelling analyzing wrongly with an s. His crushing argument is, I have no spelling skills. That's a really strong argument. It changes the whole argument, doesn't it. Maybe I spelled it wrong, because my native language is something he wouldn't understand a word of. But they don't think that far.

The same happened to me when I released "Screw 9/11 Mysteries". Apparently spelling voids your argument Here's the quote. Irony in bold.

Quote:

"The simple fact of the matter here is that this person cannot even spell SENTENCE CORRECTLY. How the hell are you going to even begin explaining to me what occurred on 9/11, IF YOU CANNOT SPELL SENTENCE CORRECTLEY

Excellent work again Ref

Nicely done.

[maccy]

Originally Posted by ref

Revolutionary91 @ LC forum criticized me for spelling analyzing wrongly with an s. His crushing argument is, I have no spelling skills. That's a really strong argument. It changes the whole point everything I have ever said, doesn't it. Maybe I spelled it wrong, because my native language is something he wouldn't understand a word of. But they don't think that far.

Not only is it a stupid argument, it is also wrong. Analysing is the correct spelling in British English. For example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/st...052028,00.html

see also:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...2723&dict=CALD

In general, the standards of spelling and grammar are much higher among debunkers than truthers.

Great work on the summary, Ref.

[ref]

Originally Posted by maccy

Not only is it a stupid argument, it is also wrong. Analysing is the correct spelling in British English. For example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/st...052028,00.html

see also:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...2723&dict=CALD

In general, the standards of spelling and grammar are much higher among debunkers than truthers.

Great work on the summary, Ref.

Hah, thanks for this maccy. They teach British English in our schools. And I agree, standards of spelling and grammar are much higher among debunkers.

[ref]

Originally Posted by The Doc

The same happened to me when I released "Screw 9/11 Mysteries". Apparently spelling voids your argument Here's the quote. Irony in bold.

Excellent work again Ref

Nicely done.

Oh, that just so stupid. What a way to debunk our work, nice irony by the way They really have no arguments.

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally Posted by ref

Revolutionary91 @ LC forum criticized me for spelling analyzing wrongly with an s. His crushing argument is, I have no spelling skills. That's a really strong argument. It changes the whole point of everything I have ever said, doesn't it. Maybe I spelled it wrong, because my native language is something he wouldn't understand a word of. But they don't think that far.

I guess Revolutionary91 missed the memo that English was invented in England, and that's how "analyse" is spelled.

More importantly, that's the biggest criticism they could come up with?

[JimBenArm]

Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter

I guess Revolutionary91 missed the memo that English was invented in England, and that's how "analyse" is spelled.

More importantly, that's the biggest criticism they could come up with?

Nuh-uh! English was invented by George Washington, and we made the British speak it after we won the Revolutionary War!
It's in some book I read, and I saw it on the History Channel, but the BBC erased all the copies of it!

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally Posted by JimBenArm

Nuh-uh! English was invented by George Washington, and we made the British speak it after we won the Revolutionary War!
It's in some book I read, and I saw it on the History Channel, but the BBC erased all the copies of it!

No, Franklin struck the ground with his lightning rod, and out sprang Washington, fully clothed, on his horse, and the three of them, Franklin, Washington, and the horse, rode off to win the American War of Independence.

John Adams wrote that.

So Franklin invented English.

[JimBenArm]

Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter

No, Franklin struck the ground with his lightning rod, and out sprang Washington, fully clothed, on his horse, and the three of them, Franklin, Washington, and the horse, rode off to win the American War of Independence.

John Adams wrote that.

So Franklin invented English.

Oh yeah!
Franklin's rod was 3" rebar, wasn't it?

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally Posted by JimBenArm

Oh yeah!
Franklin's rod was 3" rebar, wasn't it?

Only Franklin's mistresses know for sure.

[boloboffin]

Greyl has posted this over at DU, and you would just be amazed at the response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...mesg_id=145530

Hide your strawmen before you click over, they are getting a thrashing. Be sure to check out the actual attempt to find fault with one of the arguments (hijackers in strip clubs). High hilarity!

[ref]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Greyl has posted this over at DU, and you would just be amazed at the response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...mesg_id=145530

Hide your strawmen before you click over, they are getting a thrashing. Be sure to check out the actual attempt to find fault with one of the arguments (hijackers in strip clubs). High hilarity!

Thanks for the link! I can't wait to see how that developes

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by ref

Thanks for the link! I can't wait to see how that developes

It's incredible. Our intrepid CTer, HamdenRice, has chosen hijackers in strip clubs. Hamden (girl or boy? don't know) quotes the "in brief" argument, but not the supporting links. Hamden then mocks the idea, and goes on a small rant about James Randi.

I post the actual links, and quote that fascinating dialogue between the Muslim scholar and the Aljazeera reporter, who is hardly a Western plant.

Hamden first denies that the links have ANYTHING to do with the argument, and then shrieks over and over about how James Randi can bend spoons, and how I'm getting my information from a MAGICIAN!

It is a wonderful thing you have done here, ref. Thanks so much.

[ref]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

It's incredible. Our intrepid CTer, HamdenRice, has chosen hijackers in strip clubs. Hamden (girl or boy? don't know) quotes the "in brief" argument, but not the supporting links. Hamden then mocks the idea, and goes on a small rant about James Randi.

I post the actual links, and quote that fascinating dialogue between the Muslim scholar and the Aljazeera reporter, who is hardly a Western plant.

Hamden first denies that the links have ANYTHING to do with the argument, and then shrieks over and over about how James Randi can bend spoons, and how I'm getting my information from a MAGICIAN!

It is a wonderful thing you have done here, ref. Thanks so much.

That's a classic. First a handpicked quotation that makes the impression I just made things up. When properly corrected, follows the denial. After the denial comes the rant about all the things that have nothing, nothing to do with the original subject, or anything else for that matter.

Thanks bolo. I'm glad if this further helps to show CTers lack of arguments and evidence.

[MG1962]

Quote:

Hah, thanks for this maccy. They teach British English in our schools. And I agree, standards of spelling and grammar are much higher among debunkers.

We use s down under as well. Though z can be substituted

[boloboffin]

WilliamSeger, a poster here and at DU, put this sobering picture together. I thought it should be here for future reference.

[Pardalis]

Please mods, could you put this thread in the stickies?

[The Demon's Head]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Please mods, could you put this thread in the stickies?

I second that. This thread would be quite useful to the one's who are unsure on what to believe.

[ref]

I put the contents of this post on a website. That way everything can be easily updated. I may launch something else, or a bigger site in the future, but as of now this basic material can be found here.

http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/

[maccy]

I've added your site to the links page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d=18#linkid122

[ref]

Originally Posted by maccy

I've added your site to the links page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d=18#linkid122

Ok that's fine I couldn't find it there though.. maybe it's my tired old eyes.

[Gravy]

Fantastic job, ref!

[david carmichael]

Is there anything you could hyperlink me to that I could import over to the "Pentagon FDR...." thread PERTAINING TO......

..... whether the "radar altitude" of 273 feet some TWO SECONDS before the crash was a "hard number above the ground" as claimed by CT Truther, JDX?

..and once again, ref... great job!

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...1/crater25.jpg

WilliamSeger, a poster here and at DU, put this sobering picture together. I thought it should be here for future reference.

It's not really very accurate though...

-Gumboot

[LashL]

Originally Posted by ref

I put the contents of this post on a website. That way everything can be easily updated. I may launch something else, or a bigger site in the future, but as of now this basic material can be found here.

http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/

Ref ~ the website looks fantastic, too! GREAT JOB!

[greyleonard]

Originally Posted by gumboot

It's not really very accurate though...

You know the drill: What's not accurate enough?
Plane too small?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by greyleonard

You know the drill: What's not accurate enough?
Plane too small?

It's mainly just that the position of the aircraft in relation to the ground doesn't in any way reflect the actual position of the aircraft moments before impact.

-Gumboot

[boloboffin]

To be fair, the picture was made to show how the airplane could fit into the crater. If the picture can be improved, I'd appreciate it.

[DarkMagician]

Originally Posted by ref

I put the contents of this post on a website. That way everything can be easily updated. I may launch something else, or a bigger site in the future, but as of now this basic material can be found here.

http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/

A little grammar note regarding Silverstein's comment: When you have enclosed quotations, you alternate double and single quotes.

Bob said, "Jenn said, 'Bill said, "Steve said, 'Too many people use too many quotes in sentences.'"'"