We show that the September 11, 2001 attack
was a carefully engineered inside job similar to
such as the Oklahoma City bombing.
In the aftermath of this attack, as in previous cases,
a community of skeptics worked to expose the fraudulence of the official story.
However, by 2001, the World Wide Web had become established as one
of the principal modes of communication.
It immediately became the main arena
for the information wars surrounding the attack.
Given how much was invested in the success of the attack,
it is only reasonable to expect that elaborate deceptions
would be crafted to confuse and discredit the skeptics.
A raft of websites have popped up since the attack
promoting theories ranging from patently absurd to subtle hoaxes.
In some cases websites that had established reputations
before the attack were used to inject nonsense into
the discourse of 9/11 skeptics.
Here we review just three websites --
a list which just scratches the surface of the broad array
of websites that appear to be part of a campaign
to discredit the case for official complicity in the attack:
A case in point is 911review.org,
which was originally rolled out in late 2003, just as
was coming into prominence.
Our analysis of that site finds that it has the effect
of discrediting skepticism of the official account of the attack,
whether by design or incompetence.
Another example was Physics911.net
also rolled out in late 2003,
with the ostensible goal of providing a
Scientific Panel for the Investigation of Nine-Eleven (SPINE).
Both 911Review.org and Physics911.net
promoted hoaxes like the
and pushed implausible science fiction scenarios like
Numerous other sites serving to discredit serious analysis of 9/11/01 lack
the sophistication of 911review.org and Physics911.net.
Some, such as letsroll911.org, are almost entirely devoted
to amplifying the idea, supported by no evidence,
that missiles were used in the attack on the Twin Towers.
OilEmpire.us was the first site to provide a complete rundown
on such sites in mid-2004 --
a time when several new such sites sprang up.
e x c e r p t
[T]he 9/11 truth movement has been having long overdue successes
in shifting public consciousness
many more people now understand that 9/11 was not a surprise attack.
This is probably why bogus websites and fake films with easily disproved
material have been developed, which distract from the best evidence
These websites promote the idea that blurry photos with illogical
and supported claims should be the basis for 9/11 truth outreach efforts,
instead of the issues surrounding the failure of the Air Force
to intercept the hijacked planes[.]
Lip service to the core facts of the attack is sometimes used
in dissembling sites to establish bona fides within segments of
the 9/11 Truth Movement.
For example, Victor Thorn, on the WingTV website, writes in
"9-11 Bottom Line: Explosives in the WTC":
As the 9-11 Truth Movement surges forward and attempts to determine who
the guilty parties actually are, we likewise need to step-back for a moment
and focus on what constitutes the crux of this matter. In other words,
we've been expending so much energy on peripheral issues that we're losing
sight of the most damning act of all the explosive demolition of the
World Trade Center towers and WTC7. Now this isn't saying that the war games,
our military stand-down, Flight 93, or the absence of a Boeing 757 at the
Pentagon are unimportant; but in the end, none of these areas of study hold
the potential to prove that our government was directly involved in the
planning, execution, and cover-up of 9-11 as does the deliberate destruction
of the twin towers. We shouldn't be mamby-pambying around any longer
with facilitation, negligence, or incompetence; we should be going straight
for the throat by proving that these provocateurs engaged in a planned mass
murder by placing bombs in these buildings!
This position will sound reasonable to most people who accept that
the Twin Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition --
a position supported by evidence provided in
The World Trade Center Attack
section of this website.
However, the article provides no links or references to any other
work backing up the allegation of explosive demolition.
Elsewhere on the site, Victor Thorn attacks Jim Hoffman for his
deconstructing the theory that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
reply to Thorn's attack
provides the links to source articles that are conspicuously absent
from the attack piece.
Thorn's attack piece and site also fail to note that Hoffman has assembled
some of the most compelling evidence for the explosive demolition
of the Twin Towers, such as
presented to numerous audiences.
Nor does the WingTV site have a single link to
wtc7.net or its subdomains,
This pattern of omission is a tool used by other dissemblers
to appear to support a position while actually undermining it.
illustrates, perhaps better than any website,
how disinformation both exploits and neutralizes
some of the best work of 9/11 Truth researchers and activists.
The website presents several potent assets:
However, through the energetic spokespersonship of James Fetzer,
exploits these assets
to increase its profile and thereby promote the
Pentagon no-jetliner theory featured on its "Resources" page.
- The scholarly and meticulous work of
members Steven Jones and David Griffin.
- The impressive list of
Scholars For 9/11 Truth members,
including such distinguished contributors to the 9/11 Truth cause as
Andreas Von Buelow,
Robert M. Bowman,
- The concept of a group of scholars bringing together
their expertise to challenge the government's account --
a first in the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The association of the junk science typified by the
ScholarsFor911Truth.org's resources page
with the competent work of Jones and Griffin featured on the home page
functions both to advance the former,
and discredit the latter through association.
In an essay examining ScholarsFor911Truth.org,
Jim Hoffman concludes that the website may sabotage the work of
e x c e r p t
Because of the importance of the flawed
that may happen despite the good intentions and excellent credentials
of many of the group's members.
In late-2005, people looking into Steven Jones' work would
be directed to his paper on the
Brigham Young University website.
Now, people are directed to ScholarsFor911Truth.org,
which mixes the scholarly work of Steven Jones and David Griffin with
unscientific, sensationalist, and even offensive material.
In the context of the flawed ScholarsFor911Truth.org website,
Jones' work will be much easier to dismiss as the product
of a group of "conspiracy theorists."
The creator of Flight77.info offers the following
incisive critique of ScholarsFor911Truth.org on his blog
e x c e r p t
i hate sort of beating-up on certain segments of the collective of people
who are skeptical about the official version of happened on 9/11...
but here i go again: scholars for 9/11 truth: another just provocative
web site. how can you tell? among other things, on their home page,
they promote the 9/11 music video called 'loose change' that offers up
every crack pot pod missile theory in the book.
'loose change' is out there
just to provoke people emotionally. its substance is in its appeal to teens
and twentysomethings. so why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' aligning
themselves with a tin hat munching 9/11 music video? why are the 'scholars
for 9/11 truth' also promoting the no 757 theory? answer: the web site is
just provocative. it's using the blanket (AKA
'big tent'; throwing enough
shit at the wall) approach to attract more people to the concept that 9/11
was an inside job. then by magic, one of these new people will uncover
the proof we need to hang the true conspirators.
what's wrong with this 'scholarly' approach? anyone? anyone ? bueler? bueler?
once bush & co reach the end of their reign - that's the finish line,
they win. once those powers-that-be are out of power, people lose interest.
we need to get 'em for 9//11 while they're in office if we're going to end
this endless war on terrorism.
so the problem with the scholars for 9/11 truth's throw-enough-shit-at-the-wall
approach is that they're spinning a new generation of 9/11 skeptics into 9/11
goofballs who are going to spend the next 2 1/2 years looking at the same old
pictures of the pentagon going, 'gee, that IS a small hole...' and who will
spend endless hours replaying the WTC video trying to see the missile pods.
what does it gain the 9/11 truth movement if everyone is a member - but we're
all full of shit reciting misinformation?
[EDITOR'S NOTE: hyperlinks added to excerpt by 911Review.com]
Although the website
had the appearance of speaking for the members of
Scholars for 9/11 Truth,
numbering more than 200,
the site was actually controlled by James Fetzer.
By November of 2006 Fetzer was openly attacking Steven Jones
and heavily promoting ideas that
or space beams were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
In December of 2006 a majority of the membership of
voted to form a new group,
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice,
with the website
Fetzer began to migrate to several other domains including
Physics911.net (and .ca,.com,.org, and others)
appeared in 2003, presenting itself as scientific approach
to analysis of the attack.
The site, which mixes articles by scientists like
Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan
with pseudo-scientific articles and wildy speculative scenarios,
is anything but scientific.
e x c e r p t
Dewdney’s seminal misinformation/disinformation essay, “The Missing Wings,”
is a pseudo-scientific analysis of the popular meme,
“How did a great big plane like a Boeing 757 fit into that tiny little hole?”
The essay entirely abandons scientific methodology,
which would begin with an examination
of how various are the remains of commercial airliner crashes,
especially depending upon the type of impact that occurs.
Instead, “Wings” offers four possible explanations
for the seeming disappearance of the wings,
but never the obvious possibility, viz.,
that most of the wings disintegrated into small pieces
upon impact with the fašade. Such an omission is especially odd
in light of Dewdney’s statement in the article that
“The outermost tier of columns is located just inside the Pentagon wall,
a nearly three-foot thick structure of brick, concrete and limestone facing.”
As you know, Jim Hoffman has an essay showing the disintegration
of a smaller jet crashing into an immovable chunk of reinforced concrete.
What we do not know and cannot know is whether what Dewdney calls
the three feet of reinforced materials did a similar job
on the Pentagon crash; instead Dewdney ignores event the possibility.
Dewdney considers the possibility that the explosion of the fuel tanks
shattered the wings, but rejects it because – according to him –
the portion of the plane carrying fuel would have entered the building,
leaving the fuel-less wings outside. Let us see his application
of the scientific method.
3. Could the wings have been entirely fragmented by
the explosion of the fuel tanks after the aircraft struck the building?
The fuel tanks of a 757 are located under the fuselage,
as well as in the wing roots.
The entire fuel storage area of a 757 would easily fit inside
the initial entry hole and, consequently, any explosion
would have been largely confined to the building’s interior.
As we shall see, the wings could not have entered the building,
where they might possibly have encountered such a fate.
The wing root is the reinforced portion of the wing that hugs the fuselage,
and is the opposite end of the wing tip. The difficulty with Dewdney’s
creative idea is that almost the entire volume of both wings of
a Boeing 757-200 is filled by the fuel tanks; hence those wings
might have been possibly “fragmented by the explosion of the fuel tanks.”
Had Dewdney applied the diligence of a high school student writing
a term paper, let alone the scientific method, by googling
“Boeing 757 ‘fuel tanks’” he would have learned this.
What happened to the big commercial airliner seen by so many eyewitnesses?
The actual Flight 77 (or a duplicate of it) flies over the Pentagon
and on toward Reagan International Airport or, possibly,
Hollings Air force Base. By this time, flights would still be
coming to the nearest airport all over the United States and
no one would remark on such a landing.
Several witnesses reported this aircraft, as well.
But the extraordinary fact about the “flyover” claim
is that there has never been a single eyewitness claim
of seeing a massive Boeing 757 flying atop the Pentagon,
disconfirming this “hypothesis” if it can be dignified with that term.
And think, please, isn’t Dewdney’s claim that “Several witnesses
reported this aircraft, as well” a preposterous bluff?
Who are these people? What did they see?
And how would any of them recognize “this aircraft”
as the one that so many others said that they saw crash into the Pentagon?
The Missing Wings,
subjected to a point-by-point critique in
Missing Logic: A Review of The Missing Wings
is one of several key articles on the Physics911 sites,
which dominate the search space around the terms "physics" and "9/11".
By transparently making unsupported claims,
embracing naive mis-conceptions,
and advancing wildy and totally-unsupported scenarios
that seem calculated to offend victims of the attack,
these articles cast a shadow of discrediting association
over the fact-based articles alongside them in Physics911.*.
page last modified: 2010-05-10