September 11: A Critical Examination of the Evidence
Introduction: Following the Evidence Wherever It Leads
Now let's drive in to the deep end my friends and foes!
The purpose of this article is not to present every 9/11 conspiracy claim as established fact. Nor is it to insist that every anomaly surrounding September 11 proves a particular alternative explanation.
The purpose is considerably simpler:
What happens when the major pieces of evidence are examined together rather than one at a time?
Twenty-five years after September 11, 2001, an enormous body of material exists concerning the attacks: the official chronology, air-defense response, intelligence warnings, insider trading allegations, hijacker identification, physical evidence from the World Trade Center, firefighter testimony, the destruction and handling of evidence, the collapse of Building 7, the investigation of explosives and thermitic materials, and the subsequent conduct of government agencies.
Some of these subjects have straightforward explanations. Some remain genuinely disputed. Some popular 9/11 claims have turned out to be weak or mistaken. Others have survived years of attempted debunking.
That distinction matters.
I am not interested in defending a theory simply because it is called a “9/11 Truth” theory. If evidence contradicts something I have previously believed, then that evidence matters. Likewise, if an alleged debunking does not actually answer the evidence it claims to refute, that matters too.
One of the most useful principles expressed in an article I published in 2008, Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories, was that alternative explanations should ultimately be arbitrated by evidence rather than assumptions about the motives or psychology of the people proposing them.
The article itself was written by anonymous academic researchers and published by me with their permission. I considered it important enough to preserve, particularly because the original site on which it appeared subsequently disappeared.
The article discusses, among other things, the tendency to dismiss an entire body of research because some individual claims are weak, the misuse of ad hominem arguments, the assumption that conspiracies are inherently implausible, and the importance of distinguishing individual claims from the larger evidentiary question.
That distinction is especially important with 9/11.
1. The First Question: What Kind of Evidence Are We Talking About?
There are several fundamentally different categories of 9/11 evidence.
There is physical evidence: the buildings, aircraft debris, steel, dust, residues, photographs and videos.
There is eyewitness evidence: firefighters, police officers, emergency workers, civilians, air-traffic controllers and others who experienced the attacks.
There is documentary evidence: government records, intelligence warnings, FAA records, NORAD records, financial transactions and investigative reports.
There is chronological evidence: when agencies knew something, when they were notified, what they did, and when they did it.
And there is behavioral evidence: what institutions and individuals did before, during and after the attacks.
These categories should not simply be lumped together.
A video of an apparent explosion is not equivalent to a laboratory analysis of dust. A discrepancy in a government timeline is not equivalent to proof of controlled demolition. An intelligence warning is not proof that somebody knew precisely what was going to happen.
But neither should these categories be artificially isolated.
The real question is whether apparently independent pieces of evidence converge.
2. NORAD, FAA and the Military Response
One of the most important areas requiring examination is the response to the hijacked aircraft.
The official chronology presents a remarkable sequence of events.
The 9/11 Commission's staff report states that at approximately 10:11 a.m., after news concerning a bomb aboard Flight 93 had spread through NEADS, personnel attempted to locate fighter assets. A Syracuse Air National Guard unit said it could launch fighters with loaded guns in approximately fifteen minutes.
The same chronology states that at 10:13 the Herndon Command Center advised FAA headquarters that it had concluded Flight 93 had crashed. At 10:15 NEADS contacted Washington Center regarding Flight 93 and was told that it had already crashed.
The report further states that 10:31 a.m. was when NEADS received its first official rules of engagement authorizing military aircraft to shoot down tracks that did not respond to direction. The report also says that NEADS personnel were confused about the order and that it was not passed along to the pilots in the manner one might expect.
This is important precisely because it does not establish that Flight 93 was shot down.
In fact, the official chronology says the opposite: Flight 93 crashed before the relevant authorization reached NEADS.
That is why I have never found the “Flight 93 was shot down” argument particularly compelling as an argument for an inside job.
If the aircraft was shot down, then someone had to actually intercept and destroy it. That would constitute an affirmative action requiring evidence.
If it was not shot down, however, the question becomes one of military response and possible institutional failure.
And that question does not become less interesting merely because the alternative theory is wrong.
Quite the opposite.
If the official chronology is substantially correct, then Flight 93 was hijacked, turned toward Washington, and ultimately crashed without being intercepted and destroyed by fighters.
That is an extraordinary failure requiring explanation.
And if alternative research concerning the chronology is correct in suggesting that some of the official times are themselves problematic, the question could become even more serious—not because a revised chronology proves an inside job, but because the longer the aircraft remained unmolested, the more difficult the response becomes to explain.
This is the point that can easily be lost in the “shot down/not shot down” debate.
The important question is not:
“Which theory helps 9/11 Truth?”
It is:
“What actually happened, and why?”
The 9/11 Commission's own documentation is therefore essential to the discussion.
John-Michael Talboo detailing his research into the many pre-9/11 warnings of terrorist attacks using planes as weapons.
At the following link I detail the UNBELIEVABLE LACK of response from NORAD and other facilities equipped to defend our air space on the morning of September 11, 2001.
3. Flight 93 and the “Shot Down” Question
There is another reason I think this issue deserves a more nuanced treatment.
Flight 93 crashed at extremely high speed. The final flight data and cockpit recording place the crash at approximately 10:03 a.m., with the aircraft descending rapidly during the final struggle in the cockpit.
The fact that the aircraft broke apart extensively upon impact is therefore not, by itself, evidence that it was shot down.
Indeed, if an aircraft traveling hundreds of miles per hour impacts terrain at a steep angle, extensive fragmentation is exactly the sort of result one would expect.
The more interesting question is not what the wreckage looked like afterward.
It is what happened before the crash.
The military response to Flight 93 should therefore be evaluated independently of claims about what happened to the aircraft at the instant of impact.
There is also an important distinction between:
“The official story about Flight 93 contains serious problems.”
and
“Flight 93 was shot down.”
The first proposition does not logically establish the second.
That distinction is important because investigators should not select an explanation merely because it damages the official story.
If the official story is wrong, the replacement explanation still has to be demonstrated.
4. Prior Knowledge, Warnings and Foreknowledge
The military response is only one component of the larger question.
There were numerous warnings and intelligence reports concerning terrorist activity and potential attacks involving aircraft prior to September 11.
The existence of warnings does not establish foreknowledge of the precise attacks that ultimately occurred.
That distinction is essential.
There is a tremendous difference between:
“The government knew terrorism was a threat.”
and:
“Specific individuals knew the September 11 attacks were going to occur.”
The first is indisputable.
The second requires evidence.
The proper investigative question is therefore not simply whether warnings existed, but:
What did specific agencies know?
When did they know it?
Who received the information?
What did they do with it?
What information was ignored?
What information was withheld?
Were warnings improperly compartmentalized?
Were investigative opportunities missed through incompetence, bureaucracy or something more deliberate?
These questions are much more productive than simply saying “the government knew.”
To get some disturbing answers to those questions, please check out my extensive research archives at the following links...
5. The Financial and Institutional Context
The larger context also matters.
The 2008 article Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories that I preserved on my blog discusses the importance of examining institutions, incentives and relationships rather than automatically assuming that every suspicious event constitutes a centrally coordinated conspiracy.
That principle applies here as well.
A suspicious financial transaction is not automatically proof of foreknowledge.
An intelligence failure is not automatically evidence of complicity.
A destroyed document is not automatically evidence of criminal intent.
But those things can become important when they form part of a larger pattern.
This is why the broader institutional context surrounding September 11 deserves examination alongside the physical evidence.
6. The World Trade Center Collapses
The three World Trade Center collapses remain one of the central physical questions in the 9/11 debate.
The Twin Towers were struck by aircraft and subjected to massive fires and structural damage before collapsing.
That alone does not tell us precisely how the collapses progressed.
World Trade Center 7 presents a different evidentiary question because it was not struck by an aircraft.
The question surrounding WTC 7 is therefore not simply whether the building collapsed.
It is why it collapsed, what structural sequence produced the observed collapse, and whether the available evidence adequately distinguishes between competing explanations.
This is where video evidence, eyewitness testimony, structural analysis and the physical evidence have to be considered together.
A responsible investigation should not begin with:
“It looks like a demolition, therefore it was a demolition.”
But neither should it begin with:
“The government says fire caused it, therefore all other observations are irrelevant.”
The correct method is to establish what each hypothesis predicts and compare those predictions with the evidence.
Thankfully, individuals associated with the 9/11 truth movement have done just that and are winning the battle in the court of peer-reviewed science, according to my extensive and unchallenged research on the matter. Feel free to disagree. The voluminous material produced to this end and the facts these papers present speak for themselves, if you ask me.
Who is Winning the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Battle?
Another question on this thread that I'm comfortable leaving up to you, the dear reader, because I think the implications are self-evident...
7. Firefighters and First Responders
One of the most substantial bodies of eyewitness material comes from firefighters and other first responders.
I preserved an extensive collection of this material in my 2014 article:
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth Tribute Page
The page is important not because every firefighter quoted there was necessarily correct about every interpretation.
It is important because it preserves a large body of firsthand testimony that deserves examination.
The page includes testimony from firefighters who reported hearing explosions, seeing unusual phenomena, questioning the official explanation, and calling for an independent investigation.
It also preserves the Firefighters for 9/11 Truth petition and its list of firefighter signatories.
Among the material reproduced there is a statement attributed to retired FDNY Lieutenant Anton Vodvarka questioning the official explanation of the collapses, as well as testimony from other firefighters concerning explosions and unusual sounds.
The article also preserves references to the oral histories of hundreds of firefighters and emergency responders.
That material is particularly valuable because the witnesses were not all making the same claim.
Some reported explosions.
Some described what they heard as explosions but later reconsidered their interpretation.
Some remained convinced that explosions occurred.
That variation is itself informative.
Eyewitness testimony should not be treated as infallible.
But neither should hundreds of firsthand accounts simply be dismissed because eyewitnesses can sometimes misinterpret sounds.
The proper approach is to compare those accounts with photographs, recordings, structural behavior and physical evidence.
8. The Sounds of Explosions
In an article that I wrote for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and that was reviewed by members of the organization, I responded to a commonly tossed-about debunking talking point.
In my article:
Debunking the Debunkers: The Sounds of Loud and Clear
I examined arguments concerning recordings of apparent explosions and the testimony of people who interpreted sounds as explosions.
One particular recording became controversial because of disagreement over precisely what a firefighter was saying.
Was he saying something resembling “Seven's exploding”?
Or was he saying something resembling “the city's exploding”?
That linguistic question matters if someone is claiming the recording explicitly identifies WTC 7.
But it does not exhaust the evidentiary issue.
A recording can be ambiguous concerning words while still containing an audible event that requires identification.
And that distinction is important.
If the sound itself resembles an explosive event, the appropriate question is what produced it.
The fact that a particular interpretation of the accompanying speech is disputed does not automatically identify the sound.
Conversely, the fact that a sound resembles an explosive event does not automatically prove demolition.
The audio needs to be analyzed as audio.
9. The Proximity of the Firefighters to WTC 7
The location of the firefighters in the relevant footage is also important.
The people recording and discussing the event were operating in the vicinity of WTC 7.
That does not prove that an explosion came from inside WTC 7.
But it means that dismissing the footage as unrelated to the building without examining the physical location and acoustic environment would be inadequate.
This becomes especially interesting when considered alongside other first-responder testimony concerning explosions and unusual sounds in the vicinity.
The Barry Jennings testimony is one example frequently raised in this context.
Jennings described hearing explosions in or around WTC 7 earlier that morning.
Again, his testimony should not simply be treated as automatic proof of demolition.
But neither should it be treated as irrelevant merely because another explanation for the sounds might exist.
Next up is nano-thermite allegedly found in WTC dust. For those who still argue the explosive sounds were not loud enough, the following must be noted. The literature on these materials states that their
shockwave characteristics can be "tuned" for various purposes, which might include reducing the overall volume or sharpness of the blast sounds.
10. The Thermite / Nano-Thermite Question
This is one of the areas where my own research became particularly involved.
The central question is whether unusual red-gray chips and other materials recovered from World Trade Center dust constitute evidence of thermitic material.
The 2009 paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe reported that the researchers identified red-gray chips whose characteristics they argued were consistent with energetic thermitic material.
Jim Hoffman's accompanying analysis, preserved at:
discusses both residues and unignited fragments, including the provenance of the samples, physical structure, chemical composition and thermal behavior.
The existence of the paper does not by itself prove that thermite was used to demolish the World Trade Center.
That requires another inferential step:
the material must actually be what the researchers claim it is;
it must have been present in the World Trade Center dust;
its presence must be attributable to the attack rather than some other source;
and there must be a demonstrated mechanism connecting it to the destruction of the buildings.
Those questions are separate.
But the opposite claim—that there is simply “no evidence” of thermitic material—is also too categorical when there are published analyses claiming precisely that.
Furthermore, when no peer-reviewed rebuttal has been produced to refute that claim, there is all the more reason to take it seriously.
The only half-assed attempt at a peer-reviewed refutation of the original thermite paper sidestepped this normal process in favor of a public stage presentation of their purported findings claiming to be a debunking of the original study. This despite claims that this paper by James Millette would indeed be peer-reviewed. This review never materialized, to my highly informed knowledge. A good indicator of that being true is search queries fail to return such a newsworthy result, instead leading only postings on websites like this forum.
I co-authored a 32 page paper as a debunking aimed at this written work that was the basis for the stage presentation.
In my article published by Richard Gage, founder of
AE911truth.org, we address claims that the original work wasn't properly reviewed.
More importantly, we clearly demonstrate blatant methodological failings such as not doing the same ignition test done by the 9/11 truth-advocating scientists who penned the original piece. This testing even being done in the first place came about via independent testing by chemical engineer Mark Basile.
We also spell out why this ignition test was always arguably the most important one that a replication attempt could do (namely, one that is failing to be a true replication attempt) and would have helped greatly to put to bed a laundry list of evidence we presented indicating that Millette wasn't testing the same materials. Finally, no similarly organized and equally professionally presented rebuttal to our work has ever been produced either. If it has, nobody told me, and I've looked intensily.
11. Mark Basile and Independent Testing
Chemical engineer Mark Basile is particularly important to this discussion because he became involved in independently examining the red-gray material.
My article The Sounds of Loud and Clear also preserved Basile's comments concerning the physical structure and chemistry of the material, as well as his observation that ignition produced iron-rich particles.
Basile's work is relevant because he was not simply repeating somebody else's microscopic observations.
He conducted his own testing.
That does not make every interpretation automatically correct.
But independent replication is precisely what scientific disputes require.
The question then becomes whether the experiments were properly designed, whether the samples were properly documented, whether appropriate controls were used, and whether the conclusions follow from the observations.
That is a much more productive debate than simply calling one side “truthers” and the other side “debunkers.”
12. Scott Creighton and the Chain-of-Custody Dispute
This brings us to Scott Creighton.
I originally published:
Debunking Scott Creighton's Debunking of Nano-Thermite
The dispute was not merely over whether nano-thermite existed.
It involved the provenance and chain of custody of the World Trade Center dust samples.
Creighton challenged the evidentiary value of the material because of questions concerning its provenance.
That is not inherently an unreasonable question.
Chain of custody really does matter.
If material is going to be presented as forensic evidence, investigators need to establish where it came from, who possessed it, how it was handled and whether contamination or substitution can reasonably be excluded.
That is basic forensic methodology.
Where I disagreed with Creighton was in what happened after material was provided to him for examination.
According to my later account, Mark Basile supplied WTC dust in substantial quantities and supplied documentation identifying the sources from which he had obtained it.
Creighton nevertheless maintained that the samples could not be authenticated to the standard he required.
That is a legitimate evidentiary objection in principle.
But if someone receives samples specifically so that they can test a hypothesis, and then does not perform the proposed testing, the dispute becomes more complicated.
That history is documented more extensively in my later article:
Fake News Leads to a Real 9/11 Truth News/WTC Dust Study Update
That article contains an important update because Creighton eventually responded publicly and stated that he still had the samples and was willing to return them.
That exchange is significant because it demonstrates that this was not simply an abstract argument about laboratory methodology. Actual physical samples were involved.
13. The Other Side of the Scott Creighton Dispute
There is another article that should be considered alongside the original Creighton piece:
Debunking the Debunkers: The Sounds of Loud and Clear
That article discusses the chain-of-custody argument directly and reproduces statements from Basile and Steven Jones concerning the experiments performed on the red-gray chips.
Jones stated that Basile's observation of iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition material was significant because it provided evidence of iron-oxide reduction at high temperature.
Again, this does not settle the entire demolition question.
But it demonstrates why the debate cannot responsibly be reduced to:
“The samples were never examined.”
They were examined.
The more difficult question is what those examinations establish.
14. The Missing Experiment Problem
There is an ironic feature of the thermite controversy.
For years, both sides demanded additional testing.
Researchers who believed the material was thermitic wanted more independent laboratories to examine it.
Critics wanted the samples subjected to testing capable of distinguishing thermitic material from ordinary paint or other construction materials.
That is precisely what should have happened.
Instead, much of the debate became an argument about whether the other side had sufficiently demonstrated its case.
That is backwards.
If an important physical question remains experimentally testable, the obvious solution is:
Test it.
The fact that this was not pursued more aggressively by government investigators is itself a legitimate question.
15. NIST and the Explosives Question
One particularly important point is frequently misunderstood.
NIST itself acknowledged that it did not test the recovered WTC steel for explosive or thermite residues as part of its investigation.
That does not mean NIST therefore discovered thermite.
It means something narrower:
The investigation did not resolve the thermite question by testing the steel for such residues.
That distinction matters.
The proper conclusion is not:
“NIST didn't test for thermite, therefore thermite was used.”
Nor is it:
“NIST investigated the buildings, therefore thermite was ruled out.”
The actual evidentiary situation is somewhere between those statements.
The question remained controversial partly because the relevant forensic testing was not performed in the manner advocates on either side would have preferred.
16. The Problem of Evidence Preservation
This leads to a much broader issue.
The World Trade Center site was an enormous crime scene.
The steel was rapidly removed, processed and ultimately destroyed or exported.
That does not automatically establish a cover-up.
There were legitimate logistical pressures following an unprecedented disaster.
But from a forensic perspective, the destruction or removal of potentially relevant physical evidence is nevertheless consequential.
A criminal investigation normally attempts to preserve evidence before disposing of it.
Therefore the question should be:
What evidence existed, what was preserved, what was tested, what was not tested, and why?
That is a perfectly legitimate question regardless of one's ultimate conclusion about the cause of the collapses.
17. The Wider Problem With “Debunking”
This is where the 2008 article I preserved becomes relevant again.
Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories argues that one common method of dismissing controversial research is to identify the weakest version of an argument and defeat that version.
Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories
That problem exists on both sides.
A 9/11 researcher who argues:
“The government says X, therefore X is false”
is committing an evidentiary error.
But a debunker who finds one weak 9/11 claim and then treats it as representative of every claim is committing the same type of error in reverse.
The proper method is claim-by-claim analysis.
For example:
Was Flight 93 shot down?
Were there military fighters in position to intercept it?
When did NORAD learn about the hijacking?
When did the shoot-down authorization occur?
What happened to the aircraft?
What caused WTC 7 to collapse?
Were explosive residues tested for?
What were the red-gray chips?
What did firefighters actually hear?
What did the oral histories record?
What intelligence warnings existed beforehand?
Each question has its own evidentiary standard.
18. “Conspiracy Theory” Is Not an Answer
The word “conspiracy” describes an alleged agreement between multiple actors.
It does not determine whether the allegation is true.
Governments have historically been involved in real conspiracies.
Corporations have been involved in real conspiracies.
Criminal organizations have been involved in real conspiracies.
Individuals have conspired to commit crimes throughout history.
Therefore the mere existence of a conspiracy allegation cannot establish either truth or falsehood.
The only useful question is:
What evidence supports it?
That is why the phrase “conspiracy theory” should never substitute for an examination of the evidence.
At the same time, the existence of a real conspiracy somewhere else in history does not prove a conspiracy occurred on September 11.
Again:
Evidence decides the issue.
19. What About Claims That Turned Out to Be Wrong?
This is particularly important to me because I have spent many years in this field.
There are 9/11 Truth claims I do not accept.
Flight 93 being shot down is one example.
Some claims about the Pentagon are another.
Some interpretations of particular videos have been shown to be mistaken.
Some eyewitnesses undoubtedly misidentified what they saw or heard.
Some early reports were simply wrong.
None of that bothers me.
If something is wrong, it is wrong.
The existence of bad evidence does not make good evidence disappear.
Likewise, finding a legitimate problem with one piece of alternative research does not validate every element of the official account.
20. Why the Firefighter Evidence Still Matters
The firefighter evidence is a particularly good example of this principle.
I would not argue:
“A firefighter heard an explosion, therefore explosives destroyed the building.”
That is too large an inference.
But I also would not accept:
“Firefighters sometimes misidentify sounds, therefore their testimony is irrelevant.”
That is equally unreasonable.
The testimony should be examined collectively.
Who heard what?
Where were they?
What time was it?
What did they initially report?
Did they later change their interpretation?
Did other witnesses report similar events?
Are there recordings?
Do photographs or videos corroborate any part of the testimony?
Does the physical evidence support or contradict it?
Those are questions an actual investigation should answer.
21. The Broader Investigative Failure
Ultimately, this may be the strongest common thread running through many of these controversies.
The argument does not have to be:
“Every alternative theory is correct.”
It can instead be:
“The investigation was not sufficiently comprehensive to justify the level of certainty with which its conclusions have subsequently been presented.”
That is a substantially narrower claim.
And it is easier to evaluate.
The question becomes whether investigators:
preserved the evidence;
tested competing hypotheses;
documented the chain of custody;
investigated explosives;
investigated thermitic materials;
reconciled contradictory eyewitness testimony;
reconstructed the military response;
examined intelligence failures;
investigated financial anomalies;
and adequately addressed all major physical anomalies.
Where the answer is “yes,” we should accept the findings if the methodology is sound.
Where the answer is “no,” further investigation is justified.
22. A Personal Standard: Follow the Evidence
This has always been my basic position.
I don't need every 9/11 Truth claim to be true.
I don't need every government explanation to be false.
I don't need to defend a particular researcher because he belongs to the same movement I do.
If Scott Creighton makes a valid evidentiary objection, then the objection should be considered.
If the objection is inadequate, it should be answered.
If Mark Basile produces an experiment, the experiment should be examined.
If his methodology is flawed, demonstrate the flaw.
If firefighters report explosions, examine the testimony.
If another explanation accounts for the sounds, demonstrate that explanation.
If NORAD's chronology contains inconsistencies, establish exactly what those inconsistencies are.
If Flight 93 was not intercepted, explain why.
If it was intercepted, demonstrate the evidence.
This is how historical investigation is supposed to work.
23. The Importance of Being Willing to Be Wrong
The greatest danger in controversial historical research is not skepticism.
It is certainty.
A researcher who has already decided what happened can find a way to interpret almost anything in support of the conclusion.
That applies to official investigators.
It applies to debunkers.
And it applies to conspiracy researchers.
The solution is not to abandon theories.
The solution is to make them falsifiable.
If a piece of evidence genuinely contradicts my hypothesis, I should change the hypothesis.
If evidence survives a challenge, it deserves to remain in consideration.
This is why the strongest version of the 9/11 question is not:
“Can I prove the official story is false?”
It is:
“Does the official explanation adequately account for the totality of the evidence?”
And that is a much more difficult question.
24. Conclusion: What Can Actually Be Said?
After examining the evidence, I do not think intellectual honesty requires pretending that every controversial
9/11 claim has equal merit.
It plainly doesn't.
Some are weak.
Some are plausible but unresolved.
Some are supported by substantial evidence.
Some popular claims are demonstrably mistaken.
But the existence of weak arguments does not eliminate the stronger ones.
The questions surrounding the military response, intelligence warnings, the destruction and handling of evidence, the World Trade Center collapses, firefighter testimony, WTC 7, the investigation of explosive residues, the red-gray chips, sample provenance and the chain-of-custody controversy remain legitimate subjects of historical investigation.
The thermite question, for example, should not be presented as though the existence of thermitic material has been conclusively demonstrated to have caused the collapses. But neither should it be represented as a question that was conclusively eliminated by an investigation that did not perform the relevant testing on the steel.
Likewise, Flight 93 should not be portrayed as having been shot down without evidence. The more interesting question is why the military response unfolded as it did, and whether the chronology supplied by official investigations adequately explains it.
And the firefighter testimony should neither be worshiped as infallible nor dismissed as worthless.
The same principle applies everywhere.
Follow the evidence.
Not the government.
Not the “Truth Movement.”
Not the debunkers.
Not the personalities.
Not the preferred conclusion.
The evidence.
That is the standard that should have governed the investigation of September 11 in the first place.
As I've stated before...
Unsurprisingly, the duh-bunk-turds hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.
The
Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these?
Many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."
