BBC Documentary Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Here's some better stuff...

BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation
Outraged truth community demands answers from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, February 19, 2007

The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath.

Separated into two categories below are a number of questions intended to highlight Guy Smith's production for what it was - a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds of others that are already being asked by furious and informed community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by Smith's yellow journalism hatchet job.

GROSS FACTUAL INACCURACIES AND YELLOW JOURNALISM

1) Why did the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers? This graphic portrays the tower collapsing at a rate of ten floors every six seconds. For this to be accurate, the tower's 110 floors would have taken 66 seconds to completely collapse. In reality, the towers collapsed in just 14-16 seconds at the extreme end of the estimation. The graphic also erroneously depicts the floors collapsing without resistance, which could not have happened if the building's collapse came as a result of fire damage alone. Furthermore, the thoroughly debunked "pancake theory" holds that the core column remained upright and static as the animation shows when in reality the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust. A video explanation of the erroneous Nova animation is included below. Does producer Guy Smith consider using an animation that portrays a tower collapsing in 66 seconds an accurate reflection of how the twin towers collapsed? Will producer Guy Smith retract this error before his show is aired again? Will the BBC announce a retraction of this error as is common practice for proven factual inaccuracies carried in BBC programming?

2) Why did the program claim that debris from Flight 93 having been found 8 miles from the crash scene was a factual error on behalf of 9/11 skeptics? Both the FBI and the NTSB admitted that mail the plane was carrying had been found 8 miles from the crash scene. Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Crash debris found 8 miles away.

3) Why did the program claim that the collapse of Building 7 resulted in no casualties without mentioning the statements of both an eyewitness at the scene and Congressman Otter who both publicly stated that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse?

4) Why was footage filmed at ground zero on 9/11 of a firefighter discussing the damage to Building 7's sprinkler system used to support the notion that fires caused the building to collapse while footage and testimony attesting to the notion that Building 7 was deliberately brought down, that firefighters had been warned in advance that it was going to be brought down, and that bombs had brought the building down, uniformly ignored? Why was the testimony of Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who states he heard bombs tear down Building 7 as it collapsed , omitted from the final edit? Why were the dozens and dozens of references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin towers including the basement areas made by ground zero rescue workers and firefighters, caught both on camera and tape recorded from the firefighter's communication radios, omitted from the final edit? Why was there no effort made to include the testimony of William Rodruigez, who was a witness to underground explosions in the basement levels?

5) Why during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue were the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, not even mentioned? Why were the hundreds of millions of dollars Silverstein made from the collapse of this building alone not mentioned as a plausible motive for its demolition?

6) Why was coverage of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 narrowed into a mere debunking of the "squib" issue and testimony from the dozens at the scene who both saw and heard explosions completely omitted. In debunking the squib issue, why did the documentary fail to point out the fact that such emissions could be seen exiting the towers many floors below the collapse point?

7) Why were the numerous unprecedented wargames that were conducted on 9/11 dismissed as "routine" when they were anything but? Though the show admitted that such wargames slowed down the response to the hijacked airliners, they refused to ask who was in control of the wargames and refused to mention the fact that some of these wargames involved planes crashing into high profile buildings and the huge improbability of such a coincidence occurring.

MANIPULATIVE AND BIASED EDITING AND PRODUCTION

1) If the documentary was intended to be a balanced piece, why were only three individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement included in the final edit compared to at least thirteen individuals who advocated the official story or the incompetence whitewash? Why were individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement and were interviewed by the BBC for this program, such as former NYPD official Craig Bartmer and Jim Marrs not included in the final edit? Does Guy Smith consider a more than four to one ratio of debunkers to 9/11 skeptics a balanced appraisal?

2) How can Guy Smith justify using the strong implication on numerous occasions throughout the documentary that questioning the official story of 9/11 is insulting and hurtful to the victims? How can he justify such a blatant and cynical attempt to emotionally sway the viewer when Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, is on the record as stating that half of the victims he represents are asking the same questions as 9/11 skeptics? How can Smith justify using such virulent and propagandistic techniques to bury allegations of a 9/11 cover-up in the face of the fact that it was an admitted government cover-up in the very hours after 9/11, the EPA toxic dust scandal, that is now responsible for the debilitating illnesses that are killing off 20% of the first responders, firefighters and other 9/11 heroes? Is Smith's outright attempt to pardon the government of a 9/11 cover-up not itself an insult to the victims in those circumstances?

3) Does producer Guy Smith consider it ethical on the part of a so-called journalist to laugh off and dismiss the claims made by 9/11 skeptics before filming for his documentary has even finished or editing even begun? Can Smith be trusted to produce a balanced documentary when he has already announced his personal bias months before the program is completed or aired?

4) Why did producer Guy Smith decide to devote an inordinate amount of time to theories that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement, such as the Jewish conspiracy angle, the C-130 Pentagon angle and the Shanksville "no plane" angle? Were such topics given dominant coverage even over core issues such as controlled demolition, Building 7, wargames and the stand down, which are uniformly embraced as the most hardcore evidence by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement? Does such a focus on nebulous issues prove the charge leveled at the BBC that Smith's production was nothing more than a strawman hit piece that sought to distort and debunk fringe elements that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement? As the Angirfan blog states,

"Imagine a historian trying to prove that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or that George Bush was a good president. The bad historian would select only the parts of the evidence which suited his bad theory; and the bad historian would give lots of time to the spooky sources, and very little time to the honest sources. It was the BBC that led the way in telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now the BBC is trying to support the Bush version of 9-11."

5) Why were 9/11 skeptics afforded only brief, insubstantial and fleeting air time whereas debunkers were given the chance to speak uninterrupted at length? Why were the statements of debunkers subsequently supported in the narrative with documentation yet the statements of 9/11 skeptics were not, even though we know the producer was presented with such documentation. For example, when Alex Jones discussed a desire on the part of the Neo-Cons to have a 9/11 style event in order to launch a pre-planned war, the Project for a New American Century documents which clearly outline an agenda were not shown on screen or even mentioned. Furthermore, Alex Jones was told directly by the producers that any discussion of Operation Northwoods, which is a cornerstone bedrock of the 9/11 truth community, would not be included in the final edit.

6) Why was Dylan Avery filmed listening to the interviewer's question about the coroner's statements while looking nervous? This was a blatant attempt to portray Avery as dishonest and was not mirrored during any of the interviews with the debunkers.

7) Why were the debunkers referred to in sympathetic and sober terms whereas the personalities of the 9/11 skeptics were attacked? For example, Popular Mechanics were called a "no nonsense, nuts and bolts" publication (when in reality it is owned by the original progenitors of yellow journalism, Hearst Publishing) whereas Alex Jones was called an "evangelist" and Dylan Avery a "self-confessed dropout." Surely if this documentary was intended to have been a balanced piece, it would be left to the viewer to make up their mind about the character of the individuals featured in the program and not have it dictated to them by the sardonic female narrator.

Why were the 9/11 skeptics filmed and portrayed in an unflattering light whereas the debunkers were lent credence and authority as a result of the style and location of their filming? For example, debunkers were filmed at ground zero, Washington DC and inside military fighters, whereas 9/11 skeptics were filmed in untidy offices and, in the case of Alex Jones, a conference hall that was portrayed as an evangelic religious cult gathering. Why was Jim Fetzer positioned so close to the camera so as to make his gestures and facial expressions seem wild and overexerted? As another blog points out,

When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points. t was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism.

9) Why were scientists who represented the debunkers interviewed and yet scientists who represented the 9/11 skeptics, such as Professor Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan, omitted from the documentary? Why did Smith seek to interview former government officials who represented the debunking side and yet omitted any testimony from former government officials representing the 9/11 skeptics side, such as Andreas von Buelow or David Shayler?

10) How can Guy Smith have confidence in his conclusion that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks when even the world's leading expert on Bin Laden now says that the alleged "confession tape" is a fraud and the individual seen in the video is not Bin Laden?

I will now quote at length the excellent observations made by the 'Debunking the BBC' blog. This is just a sampling of the extensive rebuttal that is fully sourced and supported at the blog website.

There was a strong 'anti-conspiracy' theme throughout the programme. The proponents on the official story were given much more time to discuss their ideas and their opinions, and there was no camerawork or editing to make them appear less than respectable. There were only three truth-seeker proponents and yet they were vastly outnumbered by the proponents of the official story.

Popular-Mechanics was introduced as a 'no-nonsense' magazine, despite having it's article disputed and debunked.

The programme began with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'.

The programme shows us bent WTC steel columns and damaged vehicles in a warehouse, then proceeds onto the official story, whilst showing the alleged hijackers on CCTV at an unnamed airport. Then casualties were discussed, videos of shocked people were shown, and emotional phone calls were aired. This is all emotional manipulation, and it is not related to pure theory, as it does not prove or disprove anything. This did not dissuade the BBC however.

There were scientists used to support the official story, but no counter-scientists shown, such as Professor Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin PhD and others [19]. It was continually stated that blaming the government was scapegoating, yet it is precisely that act which was carried out by the mainstream media and the authorities when blaming Bin Laden.

When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points.

Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change. Avery is shown saying he does not care what the debunkers say - we believe this clip to be out of context, and that Avery was disagreeing with something else.

Fetzer was always pictured close-up when talking, to make the viewer uncomfortable and to ensure his gestures were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable - a technique that could be used to subliminally turn the viewers off him. There was no explanation made of Fetzer's conflicts with other prominent members of the truth movement regarding his more unusual theories.

Avery and Fetzer were used the most. Alex Jones was not, despite the fact that Alex Jones is one of the more eloquent, respected, and knowledgeable people on these matters.

It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism.

There were several baseless phrases delivered throughout the show, like: "secrecy breeds conspiracies", it is as if they tried to compare the spread of conspiracies to the spread of bacteria. The X-Files guy said that debunking articles aren't liked by some as they take away those people's 'security blanket', and he said conspiracies are present because we've been lied to before, and that 'cynicism and hopelessness still infects us'. He also said 'we're all storytellers', compares conspiracy theory to 'myth', says conspiracists simplify things, and that conspiracies are pleasing to certain people with a political agenda.

The BBC tried to say that believing President Bush was a murderous madman was 'acceptable' to conspiracists, but there was no mention of how widespread that view truly was across society. There was also an attempt to smear conspiracy theory as merely 'Chinese whispers' on the internet which quickly grew to ridiculous proportions.

There was a camera shot of a worker outside the Pentagon; he said: 'flawed people need to make a name for themselves', regarding the Pentagon theories. This appeared to smear all truth-seekers, regardless of whether they accepted the Pentagon theory or not, it also wrongly suggested that truth-seekers wanted fame alone.
The BBC allowed scientists to do a 3D simulation of the Pentagon crash to support the official story, but a truth-seeker's simulation was not used for the WTC collapse. Apparently the scientists who did the Pentagon crash simulation received hate mail from 'conspiracy theorists', who were overly 'emotional' and accused them of being government assets. This was clearly an attempt to paint truth-seekers as unstable and dishonest.

There was focus on a supposed internet rumour that said the X-Files team tried to warn people of 9-11 though the Lone Gunmen WTC episode. It is acknowledged on the internet that this show 'predicted' 9-11, but only in response to official claims that the 9-11 scenario had not been envisioned previously, but not that the X-Files team possessed special information.

The programme finished with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'.

The 9-11 victim's families are themselves asking for an investigation into 9-11, so it appears the BBC used some victims to support it's hit piece whilst ignoring others. [20] Furthermore the 9-11 first responders were made ill by the New York air which they were told was safe to breathe. [21] Many of the emergency service's dogs also suffered fatal illness for the same reasons. The BBC failed to mention this too.

Amidst the myriad of attacks upon its credibility, the BBC failed to mention that Loose Change is being revised to filter out mistakes made and concentrate on infallible evidence. Will Guy Smith release a version 2 of his documentary? Will his propagandistic and manipulative tissue of lies be corrected? Will Smith answer any of the questions listed above? Or will what has become for many the Blair Broadcasting Corporation continue to excel in shoddy research, outright factual fallacy and bias emotional manipulation, while taxing the British public for the courtesy of having to put up with it?

Critical thought...has to make you wonder.

Good video Toro.
Calgary, you are a fool.

sorry bout the C&P... thought I'd put it here rather than start a whole new thread. Anyone who still believes that this tape is authentic needs to get their heads examined.

Expert Goes On Record: Bin Laden 9/11 Confession Is Bogus
Professor says there is no doubt infamous Bin Laden tape is fake, being used to deflect 9/11 "conspiracy theories"

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, February 19, 2007

A leading expert on Osama Bin Laden has officially gone on the record saying that he believes the so called "9/11 Confession" tape, released shortly after the attacks, is an outright fake that has been used by US intelligence agencies to deflect attention from
“conspiracy theories” about 9/11.

Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program, joined Kevin Barrett last Friday on his radio show (gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007, first hour) in his first public interview since comments he made last year indicating that he believes Bin Laden may be dead and that many of the newer tapes are either fake or consist of old audio and video.

The "Confession" video, played ad infinitum in the wake of the attack on Afghanistan in December 2001, was magically found in a house in Jalalabad after anti-Taliban forces moved in. It featured a fat Osama laughing and joking about how he'd carried out 9/11. The video was also mistranslated in order to manipulate viewer opinion and featured "Bin Laden" praising two of the hijackers, only he got their names wrong.

This Osama also uses the wrong hand to write with and wears gold rings, a practice totally in opposition to the Muslim faith.

Despite the fact that the man in the video looks nothing like Bin Laden, the CIA stood by the video whilst many, including Professor Lawrence now, have declared it an outright fake.

Lawrence is the author of a book entitled Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, which translates Bin Laden's writing. In January 2006 he told ABC news that a newly released audio tape was missing several key elements and "was like a voice from the grave". The Professor had analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book, and, while the CIA confirmed the voice on the tape as Bin Laden, Lawrence questioned when it was recorded and declared the timing of its release as politically convenient.

Last Friday Lawrence, citing informants in the US intelligence apparatus’s Bin Laden units, told Kevin Barrett that everyone knows the tape is fake, adding that the hoax has been kept alive because it is politically useful to those who wish to bolster the official 9/11 conspiracy that 19 hijackers directed by Bin Laden from a cave carried out the attacks.

We have previously covered the scores of times Osama Bin Laden has been used as a tool of fear and control as a tried and tested method whenever the going gets tough. Many tapes have been determined to be total fakes by voice analysis or simply re-hashes of old material.

Research led us to discover that the most recent "Al Qaeda" video releases featuring Bin Laden had already featured in a docudrama The Road to Guantanamo. The media tentatively even admitted that it was the government that released the tapes.

In a separate revelation, AP reported that an expert on Islamic extremism deemed the Al Qaeda footage as so out of character for al-Qa'ida it could have been taken by a security agency.

Bin Laden was created by US intelligence , worked with US intelligence in the late 70s and 80s, was used as a patsy by US intelligence before and after 911 and is now being used as a manipulative tool of fear by the criminal elite faction currently in power in the US.

In June 2006, Muckraker Report investigative reporter Ed Haas contacted the FBI to ask why 9/11 was not specifically mentioned on Bin Laden's wanted page on the FBI website.

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's most wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11," he was told Rex Tomb.

In Bin Laden's first interview after the 9/11 attacks he denied any involvement. This isn't like a kid caught thieving in a sweet shop - terrorists always claim responsibility for attacks they have perpetrated otherwise why bother killing people to send a political message?

Then came the now thoroughly debunked "Confession Tape".

The fact that the FBI does not consider the 'confession tape' as reliable evidence of involvement in 9/11 was subsequently completely dismissed by the Washington Post and others who still say the tape proves that Al-Qaeda have, "proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings."

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?secti ... id=3828678

This guy should know Bin Laden better than the "experts" of CKA. :wink:

Professor Says Bin Laden Tape a Fake Leaked by Pakistanis

ABC News 11 | January 20 2006

A Duke professor says he is doubtful about Thursday's audiotape from Osama bin Laden.

Bruce Lawrence has just published Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, a book translating bin Laden's writing. He is skeptical of Thursday's message.

It was like a voice from the grave, Lawrence said.

He thinks bin Laden is dead and has doubts about the tape. Lawrence recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book. He says the new message is missing several key elements.

There's nothing in this from the Koran. He's, by his own standards, a faithful Muslim, Lawrence said. He quotes scripture in defense of his actions. There's no quotation from the Koran in the excerpts we got, no reference to specific events, no reference to past atrocities.

While the CIA confirms the voice on the tape is bin Laden's, Lawrence questions when it was recorded. He says the timing of its release could be to divert attention from last week's U.S. air strike in Pakistan. The strike targeted bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and killed four leading al Qaeda figures along with civilians.

Lawrence believes faulty Pakistani intelligence led to the strike and the civilian deaths, and the tape was leaked by Pakistani authorities to divert attention from their mistake.

It led to a failed military operation where America got blamed, but they people who are really to blame are the ones who provided the intelligence, Lawrence said. I think this is an effort to say were not going look at this terrible incident that happened.

Another element that Lawrence takes issue with in bin Laden's latest message is its length - - only 10 minutes. Previously, the shortest was 18 minutes.

How does one become an expert on Bin-Laden?

in the case of Calgary.. Crack addiction.

It's funny and instrumental that all this falls at the feet of George Bush, yet again. If such a huge and powerful lobby existed, it makes you think that it would undrmine both parties.
Considering the thousands of bureaucrats that remain after a change of administration, not to mention the millions of fire departments, police, etc...
It's funny that the Gov. can't do anything right in most peoples views but here they can pull rabits out of their asses.

The rational person's answers to the fantastic theories about 9/11.

I'll post more later.

# Some of the hijackers were trained to fly by the US Government
http://www.911myths.com/html/trained.html

# The hijackers reportedly had girlfriends, drank alcohol, went clubbing, not the acts of fundamentalists
http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html

# Mohammed Atta was a regular visitor to Jack Abramoffs casinos
http://www.911myths.com/html/atta_and_abramoff.html

# The security camera footage claiming to show Hani Hanjour at Dulles airport on 9/11 actually shows someone else altogether
http://www.911myths.com/html/hanjour_video.html

# There’s no chance that one of the hijackers passports could be recovered from the WTC rubble
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

# Many of those named as hijackers are still alive
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

# And the FBI have even admitted they don’t know who many of the hijackers were
http://www.911myths.com/html/doubts_ove ... ntity.html

# How could such sophisticated attacks have been carried out by a bunch of flight school dropouts?
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_sch ... pouts.html

# The planes were flown to their targets by remote control, not hijackers
http://www.911myths.com/html/remote_control.html

# A former German Defence Minister has confirmed the existence of Home Run, a remote control system present in all 757’s and 767’s
http://www.911myths.com/html/home_run.html

# The alleged hijackers don’t appear on the passenger manifests
http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijacke ... fests.html

# The FBI had DNA samples of the alleged hijackers before 9-11
http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers_ ... files.html

* John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial flights in July 2001
http://www.911myths.com/html/ashcroft_c ... ights.html

* Insider trading on American Airlines and United Airlines stocks prove foreknowledge of 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

* Jeb Bush declared martial law in Florida, 4 days before 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/jeb_bush_d ... _law_.html

* One day before 9/11 Rumsfeld announces $2.3 trillion missing from Pentagon funds, suspiciously perfect timing that kept the story out of the headlines
http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__ ... rilli.html

* 4000 Israelis failed to turn up for work on 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/4000_israelis.html

* Israeli company ZIM Shipping left the WTC only two weeks before the attacks
http://www.911myths.com/html/zim_shipping.html

* Bush was warned al Qaeda were taking part in activities “consistent with preparation for hijackings” only weeks before 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/august_6_memo.html

* Odigo employees told of 9/11 a few hours in advance
http://www.911myths.com/html/odigo.html

* San Francisco mayor Willie Brown was warned not to fly on 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/willie_brown.html

* Top Pentagon officials cancelled their flight plans on September 10th
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_officials.html

* Ariel Sharon cancelled a plan to speak in New York on 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/ariel_sharon.html

* Anne Tatlock of Fiduciary missed 9/11 by attending a small meeting of WTC business leaders at Offutt Air Force Base
http://www.911myths.com/html/anne_tatlock.html

* Why wasn’t Bush immediately removed from the Florida school on 9/11, after the second impact? Was it because they knew he was in no danger?
http://www.911myths.com/html/bush_on_9_11.html

# Payne Stewart and the story of the “speedy” interception

http://www.911myths.com/html/payne_stewart.html

# "It takes about one minute" for the FAA to contact NORAD about a problem plane, after which NORAD can scramble fighter jets “within a matter of minutes” to anywhere in the United States
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts ... e_faa.html

# Fighter intercepts are routine, with 67 taking place in 9 months before 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html

# A June 1st 2001 change in intercept procedures required all requests for assistance in hijackings to be approved by the Secretary of Defence
http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_ass ... roval.html

# Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD hijacking exercises on 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/cheney_in_ ... norad.html

# Eye-witness testimony casts doubt on the time NORAD claimed they scrambled jets to intercept Flight 11
http://www.911myths.com/html/otis_scramble_time.html

# Intercepts of suspect planes normally happen within 10 minutes. Why not on 9/11?
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html

# The hijacked planes should still have been tracked on radar, even if their transponders were turned off
http://www.911myths.com/html/primary_radar.html

# The many war games and exercises scheduled for 9/11 delayed military response to the hijackings
http://www.911myths.com/html/war_games_ ... _9-11.html

# Why were fighters not launched from Andrews Air Force Base, closest to Washington?
http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html

# When fighters were launched, they flew at suspiciously slow speeds
http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html

# General Myers initial story was that no fighters were launched until after the Pentagon was hit
http://www.911myths.com/html/myers_and_timeline_1.html

# The 9/11 Commission say that NORAD didn’t recognise the threat from 9/11-type attacks until they happened, but that just isn’t credible
http://www.911myths.com/html/recognisin ... hreat.html

# Progressive collapse doesn’t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident
http://www.911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html

# A power-down at the WTC provided an opportunity to plant explosives
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

# As did the suspicious removal of the WTCs bomb-sniffing dogs
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_s ... _dogs.html

# Accounts of WTC explosions from William Rodriguez, Kim White, Louie Cacchioli and many more prove there were bombs in the building
http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_o ... sions.html

# The seismic record proves both there were explosions before any planes hit the WTC, and just before the collapse began
http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_ev ... e_wtc.html

# WTC collapse photos reveal steel columns being fractured and ejected at great speed, something that could only have happened through demolition
http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html

# The WTC steel was split into neat 30 foot lengths during the collapse, strongly indicating the use of explosives
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_le ... steel.html

# The towers fell at free fall speeds
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

# A purely gravity-driven collapse could not have provided enough energy to pulverise the WTC concrete and create the observed dust clouds
http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html

# Molten steel found at the WTC couldn’t have been created by fire, but does make sense if explosives were involved
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

# DP Grimmer tells us that it was possible to use thermite at the WTC, but do his calculations stand up to scrutiny?
http://www.911myths.com/html/grimmer__t ... e_wtc.html

# Thermate-signature chemicals have been discovered on WTC samples
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_ ... e_wtc.html

# And don’t miss Dr Frank Greenings detailed paper on the WTC collapse, which he’s kindly agreed to let us host here
http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

# But what about the streams of molten metal, the angle cut beam, the...
http://www.911myths.com/html/but_what_about___.html

# The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of an airliner, so why did it fall on 9/11?
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

# A Bush family member had links to a company responsible for WTC and airline security
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

# Black smoke from the tower fires shows they were starved of oxygen and could have been controlled
http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

# Firefighter radio traffic reveals that there was no raging inferno in WTC2
http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

# New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani had advance knowledge of the collapse. Who could have known they were coming down?
http://www.911myths.com/html/giuliani_a ... rning.html

# Fire wouldn’t have brought down one tower so much quicker than the other
http://www.911myths.com/html/collapse_time.html

# If the Madrid Windsor survived a 26 hour inferno, why did the WTC collapse at all?
http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html

# The editor of Fire Engineering wrote an editorial saying structural damage and fire alone weren’t enough to bring down the WTC
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html

# The Empire State Building survived a crash with a B-25 bomber, so why did the WTC have to collapse?
http://www.911myths.com/html/empire_state_b-25.html

# And don’t miss Dr Frank Greenings detailed paper on the WTC collapse, which he’s kindly agreed to let us host here
http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

# The WTC was losing money, suffering from major asbestos problems, and that may be one reason why they were brought down
http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_mon ... e_wtc.html

# Why was the WTC specifically insured against terrorism just before the attacks?
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

# Silverstein Properties have made substantial profits as a result of the WTC collapse
http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

# Building 7 wasn’t significantly damaged by the main WTC collapse, so there was no reason for it to fall
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

# The claim that there wasn’t enough water to fight WTC7 is a lie
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_water_supply.html

# WTC7 only had small, limited fires.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

# Footage of the WTC7 collapse shows clear signs of demolition squibs.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

# Larry Silverstein admitted that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, anyway
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

# An emergency drill covering the crash of a hijacked plane into the Pentagon took place in October 2000
http://www.911myths.com/html/hijacking_drill.html

# And the exercise was authored by Flight 77 pilot Charles Burlingame
http://www.911myths.com/html/burlingame_and_mascal.html

# Why did Flight 77 make a complicated 330-degree turn around the Pentagon, before hitting it in an area that had recently been reinforced?
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_path.html

# Washington Air Traffic Controllers thought the plane was a military jet
http://www.911myths.com/html/military_plane.html

# Flight 77 should have been shot down by the Pentagons missile batteries
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_m ... eries.html

# Flight 77 could not have smashed through all three Pentagon rings
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_r ... it_ho.html

# CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre said: "there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon"
http://www.911myths.com/html/jamie_mcin ... ntago.html

# There was no wreckage identifiable as coming from a 757
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

# The Pentagon lawn was quickly covered in sand and gravel. What were they trying to hide?
http://www.911myths.com/html/lawn_covered.html

# Tell-tale remains of the real plane that hit the Pentagon were placed in a box, covered in a blue tarpaulin, and quickly moved away
http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html

# How could the passengers bodies be identified, when the plane was destroyed by fire?
http://www.911myths.com/html/bodies_identified.html

# Where were the passengers luggage and personal effects?
http://www.911myths.com/html/personal_effects.html

# Flight 93 was reported as landing in Cleveland
http://www.911myths.com/html/93_landed_ ... eland.html

# Telephone calls from the Flight 93 revealed the plane had been holed
http://www.911myths.com/html/plane_holed.html

# The final Flight 93 call reported an explosion and smoke within the plane
http://www.911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html

# An engine found away from the main debris shows that Flight 93 must have been hit by a missile
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

# Seismology reports reveal Flight 93 crashed 3 minutes after the time used in the official story
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_seismology.html

# Was there a crash at all? The mayor of Shanksville said “there was no plane”
http://www.911myths.com/html/there_was_no_plane.html

# bin Ladin was trained and funded by the CIA
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_ ... e_cia.html

# Bush took FBI agents off the bin Ladin family trail
http://www.911myths.com/html/back_off_bin_ladin.html

# bin Ladin met with a CIA agent only weeks before 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html

# George Bush senior met with a bin Ladin brother on the morning of 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_ ... enior.html

# bin Ladin denied responsibility for 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html

# And previously bin Ladin has clearly accepted responsibility for everything, why not this time?
http://www.911myths.com/html/previous_claims.html

# The bin Ladin family were rushed out of the US after 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

# The December 2001 bin Ladin “confession” video is an obvious fake
http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html

# Some say al Qaeda doesn’t even exist
http://www.911myths.com/html/do_al_qaeda_exist.html

# And that bin Ladin didn’t use the name al Qaeda until after 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_al_qaeda_name.html

# Richard Myers said on the record that “the goal has never been to get bin Ladin”, and George Bush says he doesn’t care, either
http://www.911myths.com/html/ignored.html

* Coleen Rowley and the “direct sabotage” of FBI investigations
http://www.911myths.com/html/coleen_rowley.html

* DIA analyst Julie Sirrs warned about dangers in Afghanistan, but was forced to resign
http://www.911myths.com/html/julie_sirrs.html

* FBI Robert Wright had his terrorist funding investigation shut down in January 2001
http://www.911myths.com/html/robert_wright.html

* The FEMA WTC investigation wasn’t even funded
http://www.911myths.com/html/bpat_funded.html

* FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team weren’t allowed access to Ground Zero
http://www.911myths.com/html/bpat_access.html

* The recycling of the WTC steel prevented a proper investigation
http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

* DIA analyst Julie Sirrs warned about dangers in Afghanistan, but was forced to resign
http://www.911myths.com/html/julie_sirrs1.html

* One of the motives of 9/11 was to overthrow the Taliban, and allow the construction of oil and gas pipelines across Afghanistan
http://www.911myths.com/html/9_11_and_t ... eline.html

* A Pakistani diplomat confirms that the Afghan war was pre-planned months before 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/niaz_naik_ ... of_bo.html

* Afghan President Hamid Karzai was once a paid consultant for oil company Unocal
http://www.911myths.com/html/hamid_karz ... nocal.html

* The ISI, and perhaps the US, were implicated in the 9/9 assassination of Aghanistan's Northern Alliance chief Ahmad Shah Massoud
http://www.911myths.com/html/ahmed_shah_massoud.html

* A 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" said that a New Pearl Harbor would help gain support for US actions to gain control of Central Asia
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_grand_chessboard.html

* Neo-con think tank predicted a New Pearl Harbour
http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html

* Pakistan’s ISI helped fund the 9/11 attacks, and America covered it up, perhaps to avoid an investigation of the cosy relationship between the ISI and CIA
http://www.911myths.com/html/pakistan_s ... 11_fu.html

* There were suspiciously few passengers on each of the hijacked planes
http://www.911myths.com/html/passenger_numbers.html

* If the attacks were supposed to kill the maximum number of people, then why not fly a plane into a nuclear power plant?
http://www.911myths.com/html/911_nuclear_target.html

* Many supposedly dead passengers are not listed as killed in the Social Security Death Index
http://www.911myths.com/html/social_security.html

* The cellphone calls supposedly made from hijacked planes on 9/11 were faked
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_9_11_c ... _real.html

* Air Force One was threatened on 9/11 using the top secret code word Angel, indicating insider involvement in the attacks
http://www.911myths.com/html/angel_is_next.html

* The virtually indestructible black boxes all mysteriously disappeared
http://www.911myths.com/html/black_boxes.html

* A Bush-linked bank is given a record fine for laundering terrorist funds
http://www.911myths.com/html/riggs_bank.html

* Bush and bin Ladin have financial interests in the Carlyle Group, which has made billions of profits from the Iraq war
http://www.911myths.com/html/carlyle_group.html

* FAA records indicate two of the supposedly hijacked flights were not destroyed on 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/registration_numbers.html

* The senior researcher on Popular Mechanics 9/11 Debunking piece is the cousin of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff
http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html

* A 9/11 Government conspiracy wouldn’t require as many people as some seem to believe
http://www.911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html

* A surprisingly large number of world-renowned microbiologists were mysteriously killed in the weeks after 9/11
http://www.911myths.com/html/microbiologists.html

* It’s impossible that the 7/7 London bombings could have so precisely corresponded with an antiterrorist exercise that was running at the same time
http://www.911myths.com/html/7_7_exerci ... ities.html

Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

Toro,Think he will bite? :lol:

He should recognize those links,I used them on him enough untill he bailed and ran like a frightened child. :roll:

lol! heh heh heh

Sounds like you two have made a crusade about this. Would you like to tell the rest of us about it?