Physical Evidence

a trap to snare the 9/11 truth movement

related pages:
Qlipoth said...
Mark wrote:

"No, Jeff, you are talking about artificially delimiting 9-11 discussion to one course available--as good as Ruppert ever attempted to do,..."

...thus confirming once again that poor old Michael Ruppert is still Whipping-Boy Number One for New Truthers everywhere. Of course Ruppert didn't "artificially delimit" anything. (How could he?) What he did do was to predict very early on that the "physical evidence" line of enquiry would lead to endless, fruitless and increasingly arcane "debates", before eventually terminating somewhere deep up its own ass. QED.


Pentagon attack: physical evidence debunks missile hoax


A Review By Carolyn Baker
January 21, 2007

Some individuals believe that physical evidence is important to analyze, while others do not. Still others believe that some other object besides a plane hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, while other individuals are virulently opposed to that notion. I personally believe that a consideration of the physical evidence, although it has virtually all been destroyed and removed from any possibility of examination, is relevant, and I disagree with those who assert that debates regarding the physical evidence are a distraction from the analysis of motive, means, and opportunity. For me, it is not either/or but both/and. Critical thinking demands an inclusive examination of all facets of any crime.

reply: critical thinking shows there is overwhelming physical evidence that Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon, even if some sincere people got fooled and now their egos are reluctant to admit this reality (admitting it would also require "truth movement" leaders to realize that some of their most popular books and movies contain a lot of hoaxes planted by the perpetrators).

Some disingenous voices claim the "physical evidence" supports far-out claims that the plane crashes were faked -- but the truth is that the physical evidence actually debunks this nonsense. The "physical evidence" mantra is most often used by those promoting positions that are either speculative or entirely fictitious -- which is why the media strategy is to focus on these claims when covering the 9/11 "truth" movement.

It is likely the "no plane" hoax is pushed very hard to distract from circumstantial evidence that remote control was used to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon. The supporters of "no plane" hoax(es) do not seem interested in the 2006 patent granted to Boeing for the "auto-land" system for controlling planes by external command (a technology presumably developed over many years that could have been used on 9/11 to ensure precision strikes that balanced the "need" of the neo-cons to have their "new Pearl Harbor" while also making sure that the damage would not be too extreme. The first plane flew over Indian Point nuclear power station north of New York, and a crash there could cause a Chernobyl scale catastrophe much worse than the toxic plume created by the collapse of the World Trade Center. And a plane piloted by terrorists would have risked a crash into Donald Rumsfeld office - opposite the actual crash site at the Pentagon - or the National Military Command Center. Hitting any other part of the Pentagon would have caused far more damage than was done on 9/11. Remote control of the 9/11 planes is probably not provable, but it fits the proven evidence better than any other theory or paradigm. Very few 9/11 "truth" books, websites, movies, etc. even hint at this possibility, presumably because it would invalidate the specious claim that the plane crash (or crashes?) were somehow faked, even though the physical evidence proves that this has zero truth to it.
The Pentagon Attack:
What the Physical Evidence Shows by
Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9, March 28, 2006

The theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 (the kind of plane that Flight 77 was) is promoted by the most widely distributed books, videos, and other media challenging the official account of the 9/11 attack. The no-Boeing theory forms the central thesis of Thierry Meyssan's books L'effroyable Imposture (The Frightening Fraud), and Le Pentagate; is featured by the videos Painful Deceptions, 9/11 In Plane Site, and Loose Change; and is the subject of the Flash animation 9/11 Pentagon Strike. These pieces have been distributed worldwide in quantities reaching into the millions, thanks to a combination of excellent production values, entertaining and captivating styles of presentation, and expert and well-financed marketing. The work of 9/11 researchers who do not embrace the no-Boeing theory has been eclipsed in every medium except the web.

In late 2004 I wrote The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics. In it, I examined the no-Boeing theory from a several perspectives including analysis of its:

evidentiary support

That essay presents a cumulative argument against the no-Boeing theory using each of these perspectives. Critics of this essay failed to acknowledge this and instead zeroed in on one or another point to highlight it as if the entire case against the no-Boeing theory hinged on that point. For example, several critics have mis-stated my position as relying exclusively on the accounts of eyewitnesses, ignoring my detailed examination of the 'physical evidence case' for the no-Boeing theory.
In this essay I look exclusively at the physical evidence of the Pentagon attack -- post-crash photographs and verifiable information about the building, the Boeing 757-200 aircraft, and the physics of aircraft crashes based on case studies. In some cases I mention elements of eyewitness accounts, but only to frame my analysis of the what photographs show about the crash. I show that the physical evidence is consistent with the crash of a 757, noting flaws in popular arguments to the contrary.
The many eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack constitute a rich body of evidence that strongly supports the conclusion that the attack plane was either a Boeing 757 or a very similar aircraft. The physical and eyewitness evidence are thus mutually corroborating, a fact that is obscured by common errors in evaluating the physical evidence. Many researchers have dismissed the body of eyewitness evidence out of hand, primarily for two reasons:

Allegations that the body of witness evidence as a whole is plagued by bias, contamination, and unreliability (addressed here) have been widely promoted and have not been effectively countered, apparently because the ponderous volume of the witness reports discourages analysis.
Assertions that physical evidence trumps witness evidence in any crime investigation have fostered a reflexive disdain for witness evidence while lending a false sense of infallibility to arguments based on photographs.

Factors such as these have contributed to the creation of a false dialectic, which has eyewitness evidence supporting the Boeing theory and physical evidence supporting the no-Boeing theory. By focusing on the physical evidence here, I hope to sidestep that dialectic and clarify what conclusions the physical evidence actually supports.

Debris is Consistent with a Jetliner Crash
Pentagon Facade Damage Fits a 757
Interior Damage is Consistent with a 757 Crash
Damage to Surroundings Fits a 757
Specific Debris Matches a 757
Suppressing Evidence of the Crash Serves the Cover-up

[emphases added]


demolition theory is not a path to 9/11 truth

NOVEMBER 26, 2003
by Michael C. Ruppert. What works, what doesn't and a long overdue amends to our readers. There is much to be learned from the 40th anniversary of the JFK assassination, other great crimes and what has worked on the post-9/11 playing field. But we may not have forty years to debate the point.
Read Now:

What I believe is that on Septmeber 11th, many of the alleged hijackers were likely not even aboard the planes, and that it is possible that they were flown (via existing and well-documented) remote control technology. I believe that none of the alleged hijackers had acquired the proficiency required to perform the complicated maneuvers used. I do not accept the government's version of the collapses of the towers and WTC 7, and I believe that those collapses were caused by artificial means other than the aircraft collisions. The fact that there are credible mainstream reports showing that many of the 19 hijackers are still alive leads me to question the government's account further. But with the hijackers, one confronts what is called in the intelligence trade a "legend" of immense complexity that has not been definitively unraveled. I do believe that some of the 19 hijackers were aboard the four flights as tokens, and I am absolutely convinced that Flight 93 was shot down as some attacks were allowed to take place successfully, and others were prevented.
An execellent analysis of this legend by Chaim Kupferberg is located at: "Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11", by Chaim Kupferberg.
This brings me to an artificial "straw" argument that has evolved from the controversy over physical evidence: Let-it-happen-on-purpose (LIHOP) vs. Make it happen on purpose (MIHOP). Again, for the record, as I have stated clearly on many occasions, I am absolutely convinced that the US government was a deliberate facilitator of the attacks before they occurred. I believe that the US government and its intelligence agencies - in cooperation with other intelligence agencies, especially the Israeli Mossad, Pakistan's ISI and Britain's MI6 - actively protected some of the 19 hijackers before the attacks, and made sure that they were free and allowed to circulate unmolested in order to fulfill the requirements of the "legend". One might include Russia's DFS and Germany's BND in this list, but the evidence here is inconclusive.
I believe that in its desperation to secure an attack "on the order of Pearl Harbor" (that would, as Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in 1997, cause the Amercian people to support "the imperial mobilization necessary" to control 60% of the world's known energy resources), controlling elements of the US government, using highly compartmentalized procedures, saw to it that the attacks were carried out. I believe that those attacks were brought together using elements of plans already in place within Al Qaeda (Project Bojinka), the above named intelligence services, and some cooperation from Saudi "assets" operating outside the Saudi government, and that they were "enhanced" and refined by US intelligence agencies using existing assets and covert manipulation of command and control capabilities to ensure that fighter aircraft were not scrambled in a normal fashion as they had been 67 times in the year before 9/11.
I believe that much of Al Qaeda and many of the so-called hijackers were either witting or completely unwitting US assets who were either ordered, pushed or manipulated into fulfilling their roles on 9/11. I do not believe that it is established that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was captured, or that he delivered the confessions which have been attributed to him. Multiple credible mainstream press reports indicate that he was either killed or still remains at large. The only thing we have to go on here is the government's questionable word and no appearance of KSM to back it up

I think the main reason people want to believe that explosive charges were used is that it makes the scenario less frightening. Nobody wants to face the fact that any given tall building might have been improperly constructed or designed, and might collapse under relatively little stress. In the case of the World Trade Center, the towers were constructed inside the legal framework of the Port Authority for the specific purpose of avoiding having to comply with the building code. That's a real conspiracy.

Rice Farmer said...
The physical-evidence approach is a double-edged sword. It is admittedly a good tool to get people interested in considering possibilities other than the government's explanation. But from there on it's perilous. If independent investigators and observers had been allowed to examine the physical evidence, it might be a different story. But access was restricted and everything was cleaned up in record time. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the fact is that we have very little to work with. So arguing from the physical evidence is a very weak position that debunkers find easy to counter. We are reduced to "dueling simulations" and other such absurdities.

On the other hand, Rubicon amasses known and verifiable facts, makes connections, and builds a solid case without setting foot in the quicksand of the physical-evidence argument.

Debates with debunkers have taught me that they love to argue about what brought the towers down. But they avoid arguing about the evidence presented in Rubicon. They don't want to talk about the money trail or the war games, for instance. I got into a debate with Alexander Cockburn once. I did my best to engage him in debate about the evidence presented in Rubicon, but he dismissed it out of hand and talked only about the physical evidence. Debunkers know that Rubicon's approach spells the end of their argument, and that's why they consistently drag their opponents into the quicksand of the physical evidence. Our best weapon against them is to stop trying to make our case using "Loose Change."
A Logical Fallacy of 9/11 Argumentation

Just as with the latest debunking article in the CounterPunch newsletter, debunkers apparently believe that by demonstrating that the WTC towers collapsed without help from demolition charges, they have won the whole 9/11 debate. This is a logical fallacy.
I make no claims to knowing what really made the towers collapse. I’m not a physicist or structural engineer, and honestly don’t understand the intricacies of the argument. But understanding it isn’t necessary to see the real purpose behind the debunkers’ efforts.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the debunkers are right, and the towers crumbled due to the impact of the jets and the heat of their fuel burning. What does this prove? It proves only one thing: that the towers did not collapse due to controlled demolition. That’s all. It does not disprove complicity in 9/11 by US elites. This is the sophomoric fallacy peddled by Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Popular Mechanics, and the rest of the debunkers and left gatekeepers who concentrate public discourse on 9/11 into the narrow area of the physical evidence.
How can people of supposedly high intellectual caliber make such simple mistakes in reasoning? The answer is that they aren't -- it is planned this way. Their physical-evidence argument is calculated to gut the 9/11 truth movement by focusing on this one weak area, and they believe it will work because the TV generation is weak on logic.
Once again, let’s say for the sake of argument that they debunkers are right about the towers, and even about WTC7, which they don’t talk about much. Many in the 9/11 truth movement would experience great consternation at this because they believe the supposed demolition of the towers, along with the photographs of the Pentagon, are our best evidence.
In reality, this is no great loss. First of all, as noted above, the assumption that the WTC buildings collapsed due to causes cited by NIST and debunkers does not at all disprove US complicity in 9/11. Second, due to the almost complete lack of physical evidence, this is actually our weak area. We shouldn't be concentrating our efforts here in the first place.
Our best evidence is the huge body of excellent circumstantial evidence which points at US elites. Debunkers know this, which is why they shy away from discussing the war games, the money trail, oil and drug connections, gross contradictions in the official story, Middle Eastern connections, and the relationship between jihadists and the CIA.
So, don’t be fooled by this logical fallacy. When debunkers claim they have proved how the towers fell, sidestep this trap by challenging them with what they don’t want to talk about: the circumstantial evidence. This whole problem has arisen because the 9/11 truth movement concentrates 90% or more of its attention on the physical evidence, and debunkers are taking advantage of that.
Friday, December 08, 2006
9/11 Debunking: Intellectual Dishonesty, Faith, and Illogic

The classy left gatekeeper publication The Nation has just published another 9/11 debunking article, by Christopher Hayes. Despite the publication’s claim to be disseminating “unconventional wisdom,” this article is quite conventional in terms of debunking technique and the overarching belief that the system just needs some tweaking.
Hayes’ thesis is that although the 9/11 truth movement is wrong, the US media and the Bush administration itself are much to blame for the emergence of this grassy-knoll conspiracy theory.
The media are to blame for not being skeptical, and for reporting everything that Bush says verbatim, he says. So many of Bush’s claims and announcements turn out to be a crock of baloney that it’s no wonder the public doesn’t believe either the media or Bush. And the 9/11 Commission’s report has problems, he admits. Well, Hayes is definitely on to something here, and while I don’t know about Hayes himself, most of us with functioning brains saw through Bush’s lies from approximately the day after he was inaugurated. What surprises me most in this respect is that people like Hayes express disbelief about most or all of what Bush says except for 9/11. On the one issue of 9/11, they just believe Bush. This is what I call the “faith-based” or “Fox Mulder” mentality. “I want to believe.” For some reason these people want to believe Bush’s flimsy, contradiction-ridden, logic-challenged story. I say this because without that strong will to believe, Bush’s story simply cannot stand up to close scrutiny.
One wonders if Hayes has ever seen a White House press conference. Has any one of Bush’s press secretaries ever given a straight answer? Every answer is evasion, spin, distortion, or an outright lie. Or these Answer Men simply do not answer the question! Everything posted on the White House website is smarmy, insincere propaganda. And yet, on this one issue of 9/11, Hayes and the rest of the “I want to believe” crowd believe Bush. Truly, it is faith-based thinking that beggars belief. And this from people who claim to be journalists!
In all-too-predictable fashion, Hayes latches onto the physical evidence argument and attacks the video “Loose Change.” This is classic debunker technique: attack your opponent’s weakest point, but make no mention of facts and arguments that you cannot counter. To be honest, the 9/11 truth movement itself is much to blame here. Starting on the very day of the tragedy, Bush quickly set to work concealing and destroying the physical evidence. Crime scene cleanup began immediately, videos were quickly confiscated (how did law enforcement agents know immediately where all those videos would be?), and precautions were taken to keep evidence out of public view. As a consequence, there is virtually no physical evidence, and people who decide to take this route are reduced to arguing about simulations and melting points, and about photographs and poor-quality videos, whose provenance and chain of custody are in many cases unknown. A weakness of the 9/11 movement, therefore, is overemphasis on the physical evidence argument, which is a very easy target, instead of emphasizing the huge volume of known and verifiable facts which all point in the direction of US complicity in 9/11 (an excellent work in this respect is Michael C. Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon).
And although Hayes does not explicitly say so in this article, implicit here is the same logically flawed conclusion that other debunkers make. Namely, if they demonstrate that aircraft brought down the WTC towers, they demonstrate by extension that Bush’s 9/11 story is true. This is an absurd claim because even if they prove that planes brought down the towers, this proves only that planes brought down the towers. The other evidence — which is much better — still stands.
The breathtaking dishonesty of Hayes and his ilk lies in their constant barrage against this easy physical-evidence target, while ignoring the colossal volume of excellent circumstantial evidence against the Bush regime. In fact, in my own debates with debunkers, I have found that they actually refuse to address this evidence, claiming that it is not evidence! That is how desperate they are to ignore it.
Let’s consider just a few items. Take the timeline, for instance (David Ray Griffin’s analyses of timeline discrepancies are highly recommended). It never worked from the start, despite the 9/11 Commission’s efforts to tweak it into some sort of workable configuration. For about five years, honest people were pointing at this leaky story and asking questions. Then suddenly this year, the government gives it a major overhaul. Well, excuse me, but if the first, official, Commission-approved timeline was the truth, what is the need for a complete overhaul and major change in the story? Doesn’t Hayes think this is just slightly strange? Why, instead of writing a debunking article, didn’t he expend a little ink and brainwork on this problem? We know the answer: Close scrutiny of the timeline (any version) shows that Bush’s story can’t possibly be true. Their reaction is the same as that of religious authorities in the Middle Ages to the heliocentric theory. They just reject it out of hand because it conflicts with their faith.
The same goes for so much more evidence. Debunkers do not want to talk about the war games that diverted and paralyzed air defenses, and confused air traffic controllers. They don’t want to discuss insider trading, or the connections with oil, drugs, intelligence services, “homeland security” scams, the Israel lobby, the money trail, the network of elites who stood to profit, or a whole slew of other damning evidence. They just dismiss all of this out of hand, claiming it is not evidence.
To sum up, 9/11 debunking thrives on intellectual dishonesty, illogic, and a faith-based mindset. If the 9/11 truth movement wants to address this properly, it must get over its over-dependence on the highly speculative and theoretical physical evidence argument, and instead challenge debunkers with the vast body of known and verifiable facts that point to US complicity.

Rice Farmer said...
Allow me to emphatically agree with the non-endorsement of "Loose Change." I strongly feel this video and its popularity are detrimental to the 9/11 truth movement. Assuming the best of intentions on the part of its makers, the physical evidence approach diverts attention from the excellent evidence presented in "Rubicon," which is exactly what debunkers want. Because Bush cleaned up the crime scenes and destroyed the physical evidence as quickly as possible, the physical evidence approach is by nature highly speculative and even theoretical. This makes it an extremely easy target for debunkers, as everyone can see. Thus the "9/11 baiting" that is used to draw everyone into futile arguments about the towers. Further, many people in the 9/11 truth movement have fallen for the debunkers' non sequitur argument that proving planes brought down the towers also disproves US complicity. In fact, proving that planes brought down the towers proves only that planes brought down the towers. By contrast, debunkers flee from discussion of the evidence presented in "Rubicon." Their astounding claim is that this "is not evidence." And they get away with this because nine of 10 people in the 9/11 truth movement see only the towers and fall victim to this baiting. They foam at the mouth and argue about melting points and simulations, which are easily countered by plausible arguments from the other side. The whole thing is an exercise in futility.
There is probably a basis in legal argumentation for avoiding LC and the physical evidence approach. Mine is based on logic and strategy.

Jeff said...

As I've posted before, my point is this: I've seen "9/11 Truth" be hijacked by speculation, whether valid or not, and the best and hardest evidence for conspiracy neglected.

I know what the collapse of the buildings look like, and I have questions about WTC 7, but we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction.

I'm talking about things like the coincident wargames including the live-fly simulation of hijackings; the al-Qaeda-ISI-CIA triangle and Omar Saeed Shiekh; Ptech; insider trading, Cheney taking on the new role of coordinating a response to terror attacks on US soil in May, 2001; the standing order for shootdowns changing in June 2001, discretion taken away from field commanders and entrusted to the Secretary of Defense (the order was rescinded after 9/11); names like Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh; Atta's drugs and spooks Florida odyssey; the destruction and cover-up of evidence; Jeb Bush's hand in purging flight school records, and on and on - that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That's the kind of stuff I wish I was reading when "9/11 Truth" hits corporate media, but it's not, is it? ...

Do the people arguing the loudest for demolition, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?
[emphasis added]


Jeff said...
Let me ask you this: if it were established that there were explosives planted, what would it prove? How high would it necessarily go? Why couldn't bombs be just as easily ascribed to "al Qaeda"? The WTC was bombed before after all.
A coincident, live-fly simulation of hijacked aircraft has been established. What does that suggest, and how high must it go? Do you recognize the difference in evidentiary value, and their consequences, and why some parties would like us to circle jerk over certain arguments to the neglect of others?


Anonymous said...

"Jeff said...
....we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction."
I think it's important for readers to fully understand what Jeff is saying here. Focus on what is obvious, rather than detailed speculation. This would be far more revealing and damaging to McGuffin Inc.
It's not that the controlled demolition may or may not be true, but by focusing on that, we diminish our case and allow the other side to eventually sweep all commentary to the fringe where it will finally be catalogued with other conspiracy theories, not even worth a footnote in history.
That's what these guys are good at. Charlie Sheen? C'mon. Talk about a McGoof peddling a McGuffin. Hilliard, Jeb B. and friends are having a hoot!


Jeff said...

Hard for buddy sitting in front of television to get his head around her allegations and push for traction on the issue. But it is easy for the average working family to understand things that go boom.

Sure, everyone loves fireworks. But I think this tact is condescending and perilous. Is it valid and just to win someone over with a sexy yet suspect argument? And what happens when it loses its sex appeal?
I'm not going to stop anyone from doing it. I just won't do it.

ewastud said...
The more people obsess about whether or not controlled demolition was involved in the WTC collapse, the more they play into the hands of BushCo by being distracted from inquiring about far more significant issues, such as the relationship among the ISI, the House of Saud, the "black bag" CIA operatives, and the neo-cons infesting the Bush administration. There has been plenty of research and documentation about this compiled by the Cooperative Research website of Paul Thompson and analyzed in the excellent book The War on Truth by Ahmed. Those leads need to be further followed up IMHO.
My education and career has been in architecture and urban planning, and I have found nothing implausible about the planes flying into the WTC explaining their collapse, and I have seen the results first-hand of a steel framed building which collapsed after a fire. Yet, even if there were explosives planted to ensure the towers would collapse in a spectacular fashion to make the event more dramatic, it only leads people to something of a dead end, because they then need to answer how the explosives were planted without being detected and who did it.