If 9-11 were an inside job then there would be plenty of funding to
poison the well with sites like Rational Wiki. I don't have time to
look at all of it now and I'm sure someone else has gone through a
debunked most of the holes here. I see a couple already.
On 10/10/2014 06:55 PM, seerd...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
While I am open to and inclined to believe that there is still a lot
unknown about the 911 attacks, many of the arguments that Bhairitu
makes appear to have substantial counter arguments as I have outlined
below. .
A general criticism, not of Bhairitu’s arguments specifically, is
voiced by Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor atMIT
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology>,
[9/11 conspiracy advocates]"use the 'reverse scientific method'. They
determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their
conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible
conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that
the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument
gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." Michael Shermer, in
/Scientific American
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American>/, said: "The
mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine
a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial
thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the
rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that
scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a
convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.
If the following counter arguments don’t hold water, please explain, I
am all ears.
1) 1) Bhairitu: We allege it was a conspiracy by a faction in the
government and some corporations.
Rational Wiki: [Regarding claims that] Powerful money/Bush
family/military-industrial conspirers did it, all of whom
needed a new war in the Middle East for various commercial
reasons (oil <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oil>, arm sales,
real estate, precious bodily fluids etc.): While it could
easily be said that "they" used 9/11 to create an
unrelatedIraq War <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Iraq_War>,
they did not blame theIraqis
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Iraq>, but al-Qaeda, which isn't
really as convenient if you want to declare war with Iraq and
not lose some friends. To quoteBill Maher
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bill_Maher>, "[That Bush had
prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks] is an absurd statement,
because it contains the wordsBush andknowledge."
… the biggest problem is that for the Bush administration to enact
such an abhorrent plot and keep it a secret would seem to require a
level of competence they/never displayed at anything else/. While
there is some evidence thatintelligence
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligence_%28government%29>regarding
the attack was ignored, that does not mean it was a nefarious plot.
AsHeinlein <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heinlein>said, "You have
attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor>."
The second problem is that if BushCo/did/stage the 9/11 attack, their
failure to place the blame directly onSaddam Hussein
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein>'s regime is rather
baffling, since their alleged main "use" of 9/11 was to force the US
into war with Iraq.
Rational Wiki: [Regarding claims that] It was carried out by
Mossad to galvanize US support for Israel and destroy their
enemies: The story ofMossad
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mossad>allegedly tellingJews
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jew>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).^[41]
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-40>
However, as Bush was already one of the strongest
supportersIsrael <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Israel>has ever
had, it is questionable as to why they'd needmoreof his support.
The idea that the Jews were forewarned may originate in the fact that
9/11 happened to fall at the end of the month of Elul, during the days
leading up toRosh Hashanah
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jewish_holidays#Rosh_Hashanah>, when
observant Jews would have additionalprayers
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prayer>at their morning prayer services
and therefore would likely be late to work. However, given that there
were severalOrthodox
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Orthodox_Judaism>minyanim (prayer
groups) organized within the WTC, it is unclear how many, if any, Jews
were away from the towers due to prayer services. Then again, if
Mossad had wanted to destroy the towers when there were no Jews in
them, they could simply have waited a few days until Rosh Hashanah
orYom Kippur <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur>, when
practically no Jews would have been at work.
9/11 conspiracy theories(Wiki): In 2006, members of the
group/Scholars for 9/11 Truth
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth>/argued that a
group of US neo-conservatives called theProject for a New American
Century
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_New_American_Century>(PNAC),
which includedPaul Wolfowitz
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz>,Dick Cheney
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney>andDonald Rumsfeld
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld>, set on US world
dominance and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit
Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.^[192]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-192>
In September 2000 the PNAC released a strategic treatise
entitled/Rebuilding America's Defences/.David Ray Griffin
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin>in his 2004 book/The
New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration
and 9/11 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Pearl_Harbor>/argued
that the treatise may have been the blueprint for 9/11 attacks.
Specifically the language in the paper that read "the process of
transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to
be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like
a new Pearl Harbor" was describing an alleged motive.^[193]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-193>[194]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-194>[195]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-Griffin-195>
The Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, was drafted byPaul Wolfowitz
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz>on behalf of
thenSecretary of Defense
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Defense>Dick Cheney
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney>. This was described as "a
blueprint for permanent American globalhegemony
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony>" byAndrew Bacevich
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich>in his book/American
Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy/.^[196]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-196>
Matt Taibbi argued in his book/The Great Derangement/that conspiracy
theorists have taken what is written in the paper "completely out of
context", and that the "transformation" referenced in the paper is
explicitly said to be a decades-long process to turn theCold War
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War>-era military into a "new,
modern military" which could deal with more localized conflicts.^[197]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-tgd-197>
He said that, for this to be evidence of motive, either those
responsible would have decided to openly state their objectives, or
would have read the paper in 2000 and quickly laid the groundwork for
the 9/11 attacks using it as inspiration.^[197]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-tgd-197>
2) 2) Bhairitu: The planes were a cover and they alone would not
have collapsed the building. See, Mr. Science, you don't even know
that the buildings were designed to take a hit by those size planes.
This because a large plane hit the Empire State by accident back in
the 1940s but it also didn't sustain much damage from that. So they
made sure future buildings were also built to take such hits.
RationalWiki: The two incidents were very different. Although smaller
than the towers were, The Empire State Building is a much heavier
building. The Empire State Building is a steel-framed structure with
movement-resisting bolted or riveted connections: this means that
every joint resists bending moments and wind forces and the load from
any failed/ damaged columns can be redistributed, whereas the WTC's
steel framed-tube configuration allowed only the exterior wall to
resists bending moments due to wind. The Empire State Building's
structure can redistribute loads from failed/damaged columns, but the
core steel columns of the Twin Towers only supported downward loads.
The B-25 was a twin-engine World War II
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/World_War_II> bomber. It was much
smaller and far slower than the Boeing 767 airliners which crashed
into the Twin Towers. The B-25 is estimated at 9,750 kg flying 320
kph, versus a Boeing 767-223ER (AA 11) or 767-222 (UA 175) with a mass
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mass> of at least 90,000 kg flying at
750 kph (or 950 kph) respectively. Liberal estimates of the B-25 give
40 million kilojoules of kinetic energy
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Energy#In_physics> on impact, while a
conservative estimate gives AA 11 2 billion kilojoules and UA 175 3
billion kilojoules, resulting in least 50 times the kinetic energy on
impact.^[22]
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-21>
Furthermore, the B-25 was a propeller-driven aircraft, which meant
that it was powered by high-octane gasoline instead of jet fuel, and
the B-25 carried way less fuel than does a modern airliner. Finally,
the fire in the Empire State Building was different than in the World
Trade Center and the FDNY was able to extinguish it before it got out
of control.
3) Bhairitu: Also planes hitting the building would not have made them
fall over. To do that is a bit tricky and they hit too high to do
that. Thus it required demolition to complete the job.
9/11 conspiracy theories(Wiki): The National Institute of Standards
and Technology
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology> (NIST)
concluded the accepted version was more than sufficient to explain the
collapse of the buildings. NIST and many scientists refuse to debate
conspiracy theorists because they feel it would give these theories
unwarranted credibility.^[93]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-93>
Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept
the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World
Trade Center buildings without the use of explosives.^[94]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-bazant07-94>[95]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-ProfessorsOfParanoia-95>[96]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-conspiraciesContinueToAbound-96>
As a result, NIST said that it did not perform any test for the
residue of explosive compounds of any kind in the debris.^[43]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-nistfaq-43>
Soon after the day of the attacks, major media sources published that
the towers had collapsed due to melted steel.^[97]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-BBC_Melt_Steel-97>[98]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-NewScientist_Melt_Steel-98>
Knowledge that the burning temperatures of jet fuel would not melt
the steel support structure of the WTC contributed to the belief among
skeptics that the towers would not have collapsed without external
interference (something other than the planes). NIST does not claim
that the steel was melted, but rather that the weakened steel,
together with the damage caused by the planes' impacts, caused the
collapses.^[43]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-nistfaq-43>
NIST reported that a simulation model based on the assumption that
combustible vapors burned immediately upon mixing with the incoming
oxygen showed that "at any given location, the duration of [gas]
temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 to 20 [minutes]. The rest of
the time, the calculated temperatures were 500 °C or below.
RationalWiki: 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. NIST 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 a) the extent of damage
caused by the aircraft impact, and b) 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.
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."^[11]
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-pancake-10>
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,
nor the conclusions of experts evaluating the effects of physical
damage to and the weakening by unusually high temperatures of critical
building structures.
4) 44)Bhairitu: Silverstein goofed and said they had to "pull"
building. It wouldn't be possible to set the building up for
demolition under those conditions and that fast. It was set up in
advance.
Rational Wiki: [ The claim that] WTC 7 was demolished by order of
the WTC's owner.. comes primarily from two miscommunications. The
first was by BBC News <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BBC>, 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.^[8]
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-7>
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 National
Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) 2006 Federal Building
and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
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.^[9]
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-8>
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
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/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."
….
It's been repeatedly reported that Larry Silverstein had insured the
Twin Towers a year earlier, and it is more than "coincidental
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Coincidence>" that this insurance
covered terrorist attacks. Further, Silverstein had numerouslegal
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Legal>disputes that aimed to increase
the payout by arguing that there were two separate attacks. To a first
approximation, this was successful and Silverstein managed to claim
approximately $4.6 billion.
What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total
cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance
value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal
wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts
being/incomplete/. The total cost of the attack would be in the region
of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable cost once the relatively
measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value
and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based
activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly
what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it
was the worst ever.^[5]
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-4>
We've already noted that the World Trade Center had already been
bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots
against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of
this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an
entirely logical purchase.
5) 5) Bhairitu: Most of us know that a large jet liner could not
have maneuvered to hit the Pentagon. There would have been crash
debris and a much larger hole. It was most likely a missile.
RationalWiki: [Regarding the claim that the ] damage at the
Pentagon is not large enough to have been caused by a
passenger jet: These claims rely on the remote assessment of
non-specialists 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.
RationalWiki: [Regarding claims that] it was a missile that
hit the Pentagon: 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.
9/11 conspiracy theories(Wiki): Political activistThierry Meyssan
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Meyssan>and filmmakerDylan Avery
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Avery>claim thatAmerican Airlines
Flight 77
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77>did not
crash intothe Pentagon <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon>.
Instead, they argue that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by
elements from inside the U.S. government. Reopen911.org says that the
holes in the Pentagon walls were far too small to have been made by a
Boeing 757: "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a
hole which is only 60 ft. across?" Meyssan’s book,/L’Effroyable
Imposture/(published in English as/9/11: The Big Lie/) became an
instant bestseller in France and is available in more than a dozen
languages. When released, the book was heavily criticized by both the
mainstream French and American press, and later, from within the9/11
Truth movement <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement>by
researchers such as Hoffman^[101]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-101> and
websites such as oilempire.us.^[102]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-102> The
French newspaper/Liberation/called the book "a tissue of wild and
irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation."
9/11 conspiracy theories(Wiki): In response to the conspiracy
theorists' claim of a missile hitting the Pentagon, Mete Sozen,^[106]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-MeteSozenPurdue-106>
a professor of civil engineering atPurdue University
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_University>argues that: "A
crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a
reinforced concrete building. When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one
wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's
load-bearing columns."^[103]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-ReferenceA-103>[107]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-107> According
to/ArchitectureWeek <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchitectureWeek>/,
the reason the Pentagon took relatively little damage from the impact
was because Wedge One had recently been renovated.^[108]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-108> (This
was part of a renovation program which had been begun in the 1980s,
and Wedge One was the first of five to be renovated.^[109]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-109> )
Evidence contradicting some conspiracy theorists' claim of a missile's
hitting the Pentagon have been described by researchers within the
9/11 Truth Movement, such as Jim Hoffman, in his essay "The Pentagon
Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows",^[110]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-110> and
by others broadly refuting the role of other conspiracies in the
attacks. The evidence refuting missile claims includes airplane debris
including Flight 77'sblack boxes
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box>,^[111]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-111> the
nose cone, landing gear,^[112]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-112> an
airplane tire,^[113]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-113> and
an intact cockpit seat^[114]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-114> were
observed at the crash site. The remains of passengers from Flight 77
were indeed found at the Pentagon crash site and their identities
confirmed byDNA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA>analysis.^[115]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-115> Many
eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Further, Flight 77
passengers made phone calls reporting that their airplane had been
hijacked. For example, passenger Renee May called her mother to tell
her that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been
herded to the back of the plane. Another passenger namedBarbara Olson
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson>called her husband (U.S.
Solicitor GeneralTheodore Olson
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson>) and said that the
flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers hadknives
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knives>andbox cutters
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_cutters>.^[9]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-usgovDidPlaneHitPentagon-9>[103]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-ReferenceA-103>[116]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-116>[117]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-117> Some
conspiracy theories say the phone calls the passengers made were
fabricated by voice morphing, the passengers' bodies disposed of, and
a missile fired at the Pentagon.^[118]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-118>[119]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-119>[120]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-120>
The public interest groupJudicial Watch
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch>filed aFreedom of
Information Act
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act>request on
December 15, 2004 to force the government to release video recordings
from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station,
Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of
Transportation. On May 16, 2006, the government released the Pentagon
security camera videos to Judicial Watch.^[121]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-121>[122]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-JWflight77-122>
Judicial Watch reports that the video shows American Airlines flight
77 crashing into the Pentagon.^[122]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-JWflight77-122>
The image of American Airlines Flight 77 which appears in the videos
has been described as "[a] white blob" and "a white streak" (by the
BBC),^[123]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-123> "a
thin white blur" (by TheAssociated Press
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press>),^[124]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-124> and
"a silver speck low to the ground" (in/The Washington Post
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post>/).^[125]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-125> A
sequence of five frames from one of the videos already appeared in the
media in 2002.^[126]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-126> Some
conspiracy theorists believe the new video does not answer their
questions.^[127]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-127>
Sources
9-11 conspiracy theories - RationalWiki
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories>
image <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories>
9-11 conspiracy theories - RationalWiki
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories>
No it wasn't.
View on *rationalwiki.org*
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories>
Preview by Yahoo
"9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-99>
image
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-99>
9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclo...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-99>
9/11 conspiracy theories attribute the planning and execution of the
September 11 attacks to parties other than, or in addition to,
al-Qaeda[1] or claim there w...
View on *en.wikipedia.org*
<http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-99>
Preview by Yahoo
