Bronze-level article9-11 conspiracy theories

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 19:06, 2 May 2012 by (Talk)

Jump to: navigation, search
Some dare call it


Secrets revealed!
The revealers
Note to contributors: If you're going to put anything truther-ish on this page, you'd best be prepared to provide impeccable citations. Trust us, we've seen all the truther arguments before, so don't be trying to pass off some fringe article from 2002 as new information. We will find out.

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda, an Islamist terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden, executed a plan in which a group of (in the end) nineteen men, mostly from Saudi Arabia, hijacked four jet airplanes in order to crash them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and probably the White House.

Besides the unspeakable horror that this plan unleashed, it also gave birth to a conspiracy unlike anything the United States had seen since Pearl Harbor. 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim that the attacks were deliberately condoned or even carried out by the United States government in order to launch the War on Terror.[1] More extreme variations on these theories suggest that the attacks were masterminded by an international Jewish conspiracy, or that they were carried out as part of an ongoing strategy to bring about the New World Order.


Claims of the conspiracy theorists

Larry Silverstein was not in the Twin Towers on 9/11

Larry Silverstein (the new leaseholder for the WTC) had been going to the Twin Towers "Windows on the World" restaurant (there were no survivors on this level) to dine and meet with his new tenants; he had been doing this straight since July 26 2001. But on 9/11 he didn't go because he claimed his wife made a dermatologist appointment for him. Many truthers also point out that in the interview which he is asked where he was on 9/11 he appears to be showing signs of lying.[2]

Rebuttal: It is very likely he was indeed simply going to a dermatologist appointment. Out of the thousands of people who worked at the site during the day, many dozens at any one time would have been on holiday, off sick or simply slacking on September 11th. That one of these happened to be the owner isn't remarkable. There are plenty of important traders who did die in the attack - by the logic that one escaped proves a conspiracy, the fact that many died should disprove it, right?

There is no conclusive video evidence that any aircraft hit the Pentagon

The one video camera on the scene that was actually trained on the site of the crash was a time-lapse camera that flipped from a vague shot of the beginning of something incoming to a full-blown explosion. 9/11 truthers have argued that without a direct image of an airplane in the security footage, it can't be proven that what hit the Pentagon was actually a plane. They back up this claim by saying that there was no plane visible in the post-crash pictures. Adherents of this theory are sometimes called "no-planers," though the term has generally come to be associated with the biggest cranks in the movement who believe no planes hit the WTC either.[3]

Rebuttal: There is some video of the crash.[4] Furthermore, there is photographic evidence of wreckage on the scene and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage and damage consistent with a plane crash.[5] Essentially, the problem for no-planers is that the plane did not just hit the outside of the Pentagon, but actually penetrated some distance into the structure, some of which actually collapsed on top of the plane. Numerous witnesses saw it approach, the plane's wings took out several light posts on a nearby roadway on the way in, and plane components were scattered all over the Pentagon lawn.

Also, although inconclusive—and "personal commentary"—a photo was presented on a 9-11 truther website claiming that the "round" debris observed was not possibly the wheel of the alleged jetliner. However, it clearly was, albeit stripped of its outer edge.

In any case, why would anyone expect a high-res video camera to be pointed at the exact spot where the plane hit? The intrinsic improbability of such a circumstance would make it direct evidence of a conspiracy, and no self-respecting conspiracy would allow evidence of its existence to remain.

The damage at the Pentagon is not large enough to have been caused by a passenger jet

Rebuttal: These claims rely on the remote assessment of nonspecialists against the on-site investigation of experts on structural engineering. The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building with blast-resistant windows. It was struck by an aluminum-skinned commercial aircraft that had already lost a wing before hitting the building. The damage is consistent with this scenario.[6]

If people driving near the Pentagon who apparently were witnesses of the plane actually saw it, it would have blown them off

Rebuttal: Not proved, and insignificant. (See rebuttal to the next point.)

Other evidence suggests it was a missile that hit the Pentagon

Rebuttal: The preponderance of evidence suggests that a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon. An aircraft is known to have gone missing, the wreckage of the same aircraft was found at the Pentagon, and the damage was what structural engineers expected from such a strike. If the alleged conspirators went to this level of effort to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon, why then use a missile? Using a plane would be simpler (as you already have one ready for the task), and there wouldn't be the risk of discovery.

In NYC, explosions were heard/seen that suggest the WTC buildings were deliberately destroyed

This rather tedious contention, known to most as the "controlled demolition" theory, claims that the World Trade Center buildings, either WTC 7 or the entire complex, were brought down in a stealth demolition similar to the destruction of large buildings. The problems with this are, to say the least, numerous, and we'll deal with them in little bits.

The preparations were made in secret

This is pretty much completely impossible. Planned implosions require months of preparation, including tearing apart walls to place charges, removing extraneous material from the building, laying miles of carefully measured detonation cord, and the intentional damaging of support columns. Even night work would attract attention from the cleaning crew, as well as the workers who came in the next morning to find walls covered with fresh plaster.

On top of this, the WTC was bombed in 1993, meaning that there were routine checks from bomb squads, including sniffer dogs. Not only would these explosives have to be laid at night in secret, they would also somehow be able to beat animals specially trained to detect them.

The towers fell in their own footprint; if they collapsed from metal fatigue they should have been all over the place.

They more or less did fall symmetrically in their own footprints due to material fatigue at and above the fire and impact floors causing the upper floors to detach and fall through lower undamaged sections, which can be clearly seen until they're obscured by dust and smoke. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's 2006 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster concluded that:

  • the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and
  • the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.[7]

Based on observations of the collapses as they happened and hundreds of experts' analysis of the building site and materials, the NIST was able to consider and reject other possible explanations for large buildings collapsing in their own footprints. The first is the theory that damage to the WTC floor systems caused their progressive collapse, known as the "pancake theory."[8] The second is the theory that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled detonation. Neither theory matches the observation that each building appeared undamaged except at its top until it collapsed. The NIST concluded that damage to perimeter support columns initiated the detachment of the floors at and above the fire and impact floors, which subsequently fell into and through the towers. The claim that a building damaged by metal fatigue cannot collapse in its own footprint does not square with observations of the collapses as they happened or the conclusions of experts evaluating the effects of physical damage to and the weakening by unusually high temperatures of critical building structures.

WTC 7 was demolished by order of the WTC's owner

This comes primarily from two miscommunications. The first was by the BBC News, which broadcast an erroneous report that WTC 7 had collapsed while the building could still be seen standing through the window of their New York studio.[9] The second was an evacuation order ("Pull it") that went out shortly before the building, badly damaged in the collapse of the main towers and on fire, collapsed of its own accord. According to the NIST report, the reasons for the WTC 7 collapse include:

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.


[T]he thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.[10]

Although it wasn't completely obvious to the untrained eye at the time, WTC 7 had been seriously compromised by a 20-story gash in one corner facing Ground Zero, and by the time the evacuation order was given was visibly sagging. Conspiracy theorists have also tried to claim that "pull" is standard jargon within the demolition industry to fire off demolition charges within the building; demolition experts have denied this; the usual term would be "shoot it" or "blow it".[11]

Thermite was used to cut structural members in the buildings

This is based on a few pictures of vertical beams that had been sheared off by recovery workers. Although the thermite reaction is highly exothermic, it is nearly impossible to effectively channel it sideways to cut a vertical beam, since it tends to pour straight down as it burns. Some creative truthers have suggested the use of "thermite straps"; given that thermite is generally a powder delivered from a cone-shaped cup, it's not clear that such a device is even possible, much less practical.

This was later amended to thermate, a variation which includes sulfur, and appeared when there when chemicals were found that matched what was found in the debris. However, such claims ignore the natural occurrence of these chemicals, do not match the chemical signatures that were found in the debris, and do not have corresponding traces of two major byproducts from thermate, aluminum oxide [12] and barium nitrate.[13]

Moreover, the thermite reaction is highly exothermic. Supposed evidence of thermite use is the presence of unreacted thermite in the WTC debris. This, however, comes as close to falsifying the hypothesis of thermite use as one can reasonably get: any place containing significant amounts of elemental aluminum and iron oxide (unreacted thermite), yet not far higher amounts of aluminum oxide and elemental iron (the reaction products), can be safely assumed to be not even close to where a thermite reaction recently occurred. This criticism has been "answered" by claiming that the unreacted "nanothermite" is indeed merely a trace residue. But this would require attaching some 100 metric tons[14] of thermite to the WTC buildings' structure, in hundreds or even thousands of small packages, with nobody noticing. And even if that were true, the corresponding amount of reacted thermite has simply failed to turn up. Finding thermite educts yet failing to find the appropriate amount of thermite products turns the supposed "proof" of thermite use into a quite robust refutation of thermite use.

Explosions coming out the windows of the towers are indications of an explosive demolition

What happens when you squeeze a concertina? These side-jets of air and dust were not really explosions as such but debris being expelled from the buildings as the floors pancaked on top of each other. There is a lot of air in a quarter-mile-tall office building, and when compressed it has to go somewhere.

The "pyroclastic flows" of dust indicate that explosives must have been used

A pyroclastic flow is a movement of hot gas. In the context of the volcano, it is usually hot gasses containing hot dust and other chunks spreading out. In the context of WTC, these flows were claimed to be the cloud of dust that dispersed when the towers hit the ground.

Aside from not being hot enough to qualify as a pyroclastic flow, most claims try linking it with the controlled demolition theory. The only thing this debris flow indicates is a fast vertical compression that caused air inside the building to push dust outward over a large area.

There was a nuke in the basement

No there wasn't. The physics departments of NYU, Columbia, Stuyvesant High School, and every other school in the area would have been all over that with Geiger counters, and the Lower East Side would now be uninhabitable. Also, to put it in perspective, the 1988 PEPCON explosion in Nevada was less than a tenth of the size of the Little Boy explosion at Hiroshima in 1945, and not even half the size of the fizzled North Korean nuclear test in 2006. That'd have to be one hell of a small nuke,[15] and it doesn't even begin to take into account that the tower collapses started from the impact sites, not the basement.

Hysterical do-gooders ensured there wasn't enough asbestos in the building

This theory, proposed by none other than Andrew Schlafly,[16] holds that "Big Government", Nanny-Statism, hysterical environmentalists, lawyers and do-gooders had ensured that spray-on asbestos was not allowed in the WTC buildings, thereby ensuring they were not properly equipped to resist the fires that engulfed the structures. Furthermore, the fireproofing that was there was apparently scraped away in the impacts, rendering the asbestos point moot from the get-go.

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the building

The basic quote you see most often is:

"Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. "Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."" —Newsday, September 12, 2001

Note that it is extra security in response to the phone threats that was removed. The standard level of bomb-sniffing dogs was still present, and in one case, crushed when the tower collapsed.[17] Even if all bomb dogs were still present, their presence would either be ineffective (i.e. not able to already detect explosives being planted in the pillar), or weren't able to stop a rushed-job where sufficient explosives were somehow added overnight without being detected.

The Empire State Building was hit by an airplane

On July 28, 1945 a B-25 bomber, because of poor visibility, crashed into the 80th floor of the Empire State Building. Some truthers seem to think that a skyscraper survived a similar incident the towers should also have.[18] However, the two incidents could not be more different than night and day. The Empire State Building is a steel reinforced concrete structure. Although smaller than the towers were, it is a much heavier building. The B-25 was a twin engine World War II era bomber. It was much smaller than the Boeing 767s which crashed into the Twin Towers. Furthermore, it was a propeller driven aircraft which meant that it was powered by high octane gasoline instead of jet fuel (which a 767 holds more of). Finally, the fire in the Empire State Building was different than in the World Trade Center and the FDNY was able to put it out before it got out of control.

Flight 93 was shot down and the passengers did not fight back against the hijackers

There were recorded phone calls, either made from cell phones or airplane seat-back phones telling what was going on and about what was going down on the airplane. Cockpit voice recorders also picked up the sounds of fighting near the cockpit, and suggest that the hijackers crashed before reaching their destination because they knew they were in danger of being overrun.[19] Furthermore, the USAF did scramble two F-16s to intercept Flight 93. However, prior to 9/11 the Air Force did not have fighters stationed in the continental United States armed (this was a left over from the Cold War as advanced warning systems would likely have given the USAF ample time to prep fighters). The two jets scrambled to intercept would have had no choice but to ram United 93 out of the air, a virtual suicide mission. The pilots returned safe and sound, their jets intact, hence United 93 could only have been brought down by the passengers who had retaken the flight.[20]

The debris field is too big for the size of the plane crash

Debris was found at a different community called Indian Lake, which, according to conspiracists, is 6 miles from Shanksville. This is true, if you follow the roads. However, debris kicked up in the air does not follow the path that Google Maps would find, but instead would take a straight line, to a community which is only about one and a half miles away.[21]

Rebuttal: As a former crash investigator, debris from a high speed steep impact can stretch for miles if an explosion occurred. I've seen aircraft pieces 2 miles from an impact site.

Powerful oil money/Bush family/military-industrial conspirers did it, all of whom needed a new war in the Middle East for various commercial reasons - oil, arm sales, real estate, etc

While it could easily be said that "they" used 9/11 to create an unrelated Iraq War, they did not blame the Iraqis, but al-Qaeda, which isn't really as convenient if you want to declare war with Iraq and not lose some friends. To quote Bill Maher, "[That Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks] is an absurd statement, because it contains the words 'Bush' and 'knowledge'!" Also see the section below.

It was a neoconservative plot

  • Dick Cheney did it
  • Donald Rumsfeld did it
  • Richard Perle did it
  • Paul Wolfowitz did it

The above four people were already on record as wanting a "new Pearl Harbor" as a reason to mobilize the US armed forces into the Middle East in a new hot war. However, the "new Pearl Harbor" quote was in reference to modernizing the military and had nothing to do with declaring a war.[22]

As with any claim, the burden of proof lies upon the claimant. Apart from the one about me, because I definitely didn't do it.

The military would have scrambled to intercept

The US Air Force has planes that can hit Mach 3 (2100 mph) in moments. Why weren't they on the scene of the "missing" passenger jet planes?

Rebuttal: This is a charming conceit on behalf of people with a childlike faith in the US military, who cannot possibly imagine how bloated and inefficient an organization with unlimited amounts of money can get.[23] First off, the fastest combat plane in the US Air Force at the time was the Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle, it can hit Mach 2.5 tops[24] so wherever that Mach 3 came from is a bit of a mystery with only one unarmed reconnaissance plane in the US Air Force ever hoping to achieve that. Secondly, there were only a handful of squadrons on combat alert that day, and that doesn't mean that they are fueled up, armed, and with pilots in them (bored out of their heads).[25] In addition, the speed of events at which the attacks happened and the often conflicting information made it far too fast to stop.[26]

In addition, the Air Force keeps it's eyes on US airspace outside the US, where there is ample time to scramble fighters to stop the bombers from that vodka drinking country. It then falls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the FBI to keep their eyes on American skies (Note: Those agencies don't have planes they can scramble).

It was carried out by Mossad to galvanize US support for Israel and destroy their enemies

The story of Mossad allegedly telling Jews to stay home the day of the attack, or that no Jews died in the attack, both of which are false, brought this one forward. (The most common of these claims is that 4,000 Jews were warned to stay home.[27]) However, as Bush was already one of the strongest supporters Israel has ever had, it is questionable as to why they'd need more of his support.

Space beams!

A theory put forward by a Dr. Judy Wood claiming that as the planes hit the towers, they were also hit by an energy weapon IN SPAAAAACE!!![28] Also known for coining the term "dustification." This one was so absurd another truther debunked it.[29]

4/29 Truth

On 4/29, 2007, a gas truck exploded on a bridge in the San Francisco Bay area. The bridge collapsed when fire melted the steel support structures. Someone made a joke blog about it being a government conspiracy and linked to a bunch of truther websites. Truthers fell for the bait. Some of them still haven't caught on.[30]

Bush allowed 9/11 to happen

Another version of the conspiracy theory is that although 9/11 wasn't planned or carried out by the US government, Bush was aware that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it.[31] It is known that Bush received a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." on August 6, 2001 but this memo discussed the threat in a general way and made no mention of the specific individuals who carried out the 9/11 attacks.[32] Nevertheless, the existence of this memo, Bush's reported flippant response "You've covered your ass, now" and the fact that it was not declassified until years later contribute to the aura of foreknowledge and coverup.

A number of Al-Qaeda members conspired to hijack some planes and attack some buildings

... Okay, we'll give you that one.

Loose Change

An Internet phenomenon, Loose Change is a work of amateur film-making that was a huge hit on Google Video and beyond, and is one of the rare examples of an amateur Internet film to have made the leap to the mainstream media, going on to be broadcast in the UK. It advances many of the most popular conspiracy theories about 9/11.

False false flag operations

Truthers like to cite false flag operations that never actually happened or weren't actually false flags as "precedent" for the 9/11 conspiracy:

  • Hitler burned the Reichstag as a false flag operation to grab power!
    • Historical consensus is that the communist dissident charged with setting the fire was the one who did it. There is some debate over whether he acted alone, but little evidence to show that the Nazis were involved in any way. Even if it were true though, one guy setting an empty building on fire is hardly analagous to a 9/11 conspiracy.
  • FDR did Pearl Harbor!
  • Operation Northwood was a plan for a false flag attack.
    • This made it into the second cut of Loose Change, which alleges that a plan to blow up drone planes as part of a false flag operation to justify the invasion of Cuba is a precedent for a 9/11 false flag. This plan was proposed by a few members of JFK's Department of Defense. JFK and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara dismissed it as batshit crazy. And it didn't even involve killing anyone. If anything, this is a precedent for the president discounting such false flags.
  • LBJ did the Gulf of Tonkin!
    • There were two Gulf of Tonkin incidents involving the USS Maddox in 1964. In the first, the Maddox did engage with North Vietnamese torpedo ships. In the second, the Maddox mistakenly reported itself as being under attack. This incident was massively exaggerated by LBJ to justify the escalation of the Vietnam War, but it wasn't a false flag operation.

Problems with the "Bush Did It!" theory

The biggest problem is that for the Bush administration to successfully enact such an abhorrent plot and keep it a secret would seem to require a level of competence they've never displayed at anything else. While there is some evidence that intelligence regarding to the attack was ignored, that does not mean it was a nefarious plot. As Heinlein said, "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." Funnyman Bill Maher also addresses this here ("Sleep tight, batshit!").

The second biggest problem is that if BushCo did stage the 9/11 attack, their failure to place the blame directly on Saddam Hussein's regime is rather baffling, since their alleged main "use" of 9/11 was to force the US into war with Iraq.


23 Sep 2010: "Delegates from the US and European countries walked out of the UN's General Assembly hall during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech when the Iranian president claimed "most nations" believed the US government was behind the September 11 attacks."[33]

Common themes in truther thinking

A freakishly large number of truthers are shamelessly anti-Semitic, blaming in various members US neoconservatives (a disproportionate number, though hardly a majority, of whose most prominent members were Jewish, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz), property owner Larry Silverstein, and the Israeli Mossad for planning/covering up the attack. Many truthers also seem to be of the opinion that a group of Ay-rabs couldn't have planned an operation this complex, a slightly (but only slightly) more subtly racist attitude remniscent of Erich von Däniken.

Technological illiteracy is a frequent theme as well -- the invention of fanciful devices such as "thermite straps" to cut vertical girders for example (thermite is very hard to direct and usually burns straight down), "quiet" explosives, very-low-yield nuclear weapons, and even undetectable holographic projectors (favored by some of the no-planers) all figure into theories put forth by truthers. Outright lying is not unusual as well; for example, claims of no plane parts on the lawn of the Pentagon were directly refuted by eyewitnesses.

Truthers also seem to have a thing for digging around in the statistical noise, misinterpreting photo artifacts and other random bits of data[34] and even taking operational jargon (such as the infamous "pull it" command that was used to order the evacuation of WTC 7) out of context, while avoiding things like the fact that steel doesn't have to melt to bend, that office fires can be much hotter than just a kerosene fire, or the fact that there was a 20-story gash in the side of WTC 7 after the tower collapses that seriously compromised its structural integrity. In fact, the entire truther thought process is very much akin to quote mining. Who'da thunk.

At the conservative end of the Truther spectrum are LIHOPers (short for Let It Happen On Purpose, in contrast to MIHOPers for Made It Happen On Purpose[35]) who believe US intelligence agencies had data on the coming attacks prior to September 11th, 2001, which the administration willfully ignored, but whose direct involvement was limited to (at very most) diverting defenses that might have interfered with the attack. The least indulgent of the Truthers speculate that the 9/11 attacks were planned and carried out by Osama Bin Laden and a cadre of veteran Mujahideen, and not a lone, nondescript terrorist who single-handedly hijacked and piloted all four planes to their targets.


See also

External links


  1. They certainly took advantage of the attacks in order to execute the plans they had already made up their minds to push, even before getting into office.
  2. Lucky Larry Silverstein and his Jewboys just happened not to go to work that day
  3. See conspiracy theorist Eric Salter's A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories for an overview of these theories. Yes, some truther material is too nuts even for fellow conspiracy theorists.
  4. Watch the upper right corner at 0:24
  5. "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Flight 77 Debris". Popular Mechanics. March 2005.
  6. "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Big Plane, Small Holes". Popular Mechanics. March 2005.
  9. Early report of WTC 7 collapse by BBC
  10. NIST report
  11. Pictures of damage to WTC 7 and "pull it" explanation at Debunking 9/11 and this video showing the penthouse collapse and uneven implosion that is not characteristic of a controlled demolition
  12. Large aircraft tend to contain sizable quantities of aluminum. A place where one has crashed and burned is quite likely to have a lot of aluminum oxide scattered about, no?
  13. 9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
  14. Under the unrealistic assumption of 100% packing density, this would mean about 24 cubic meters of thermite; including packaging, this would approximately fill up a 20' shipping container. But for proper reaction, thermite cannot be a solidly-packed block; it has to be a fairly loose powder, meaning that the actual volume would be about twice as high. See for the math.
  15. Subcritical "suitcase" nukes may exist, though the facts on the matter aren't well known.
  16. [1]
  17. [2]>
  22. Rebuilding America's Defense, Page 51
  27. Absent without Leave, Snopes
  28. [3]
  29. Critique of Judy Wood's Space Beam paper
  30. 4/29 Truth website
  33. Guardian report
  34. In one case, a truther showed a picture where he had apparently mistaken speedboats in the Hudson river for missile contrails.
  35. Both are completely different the IHOPers, who recognize that "pancaking" is a normal and expected result of skyscraper collapse.
Personal tools