9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

Updated: 03/17/2007. Revisions (including expanded commentary) and examples

Updated: 03/14/2007. Substantial revisions and added examples

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

By Arabesque[1]

“In this day and age, we all have to become experts on disinformation.”[2]

Jim Fetzer, Disinformation: The Use of False Information

“One of the telling signs of many disinformation artists (who may or may not be gainfully employed by some ‘shadowy government agency’) is that a lot of their claims are simply too strong to be true…

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers

Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics

Co-author: Matt Sullivan

“In fact, the whole interview with Greg Jenkins was very troublesome to

me because it was so clear that he was seeking to put words in Judy's

mouth and demand an exactitude of answers that she was going to be

unable to provide...”, Dr. James Fetzer during the Dynamic Duo radio

broadcast on 02/06/07 regarding an interview conducted at the National

Press Club on 01/10/07 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 )

Dr. Greg Jenkins Discusses the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis in the Journal of 9/11 Studies Letters Section

"Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers" (Febuary 9, 2007)
Greg Jenkins

“It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers. I will leave the details for later, but suffice it to say that the energy is approximately 4x1014 Joules. If you consider that this amount of energy was pumped into the towers during a time span of roughly 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 4x1013 Watts. This is four times the total power output of the entire earth, including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc... This is with no loss. If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection off aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required would swell to at least thousands of earths worth of power. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionizion energies required to generate such beams would require additional massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies.”

What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

An analysis of contradictions in statements by Building Designer Leslie Robertson

By Arabesque[1]

Update: 03/12/2007

Another Quotation from John Skilling added about the possibility of controlled demolition destroying the World Trade Center buildings in 1993.

Before 9/11

“A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”[2]

(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):

A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood and Reynolds

Frank Legge answers some of the common misunderstandings about thermite and its variants. This information is very important in understanding the thermate evidence discovered by Steven Jones and how it relates to his controlled demolition hypothesis.

Frank Legge [in bold], Jan 11, 2007 (Peer-reviewed Letter)

[Responding to a] paper by Wood and Reynolds, dated December 14, 2006:“The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis”.

[Wood and Reynolds in italics]:

Steven Jones claimed that nano-enhanced thermite or thermate could account for pulverization of the Twin Towers. One difficulty with his hypothesis is that nano-enhanced thermite apparently did not exist in 2001 and only recently has the Department of Defense awarded contracts to prove and develop such a product.

The Heroism of William Rodriguez: Amazing Testimony from Inside the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11

The following is a transcript of William Rodriguez’s presentation at the American Scholars Symposium, June 25, 2006.[1]

Introduction by Alex Jones[2]

Warning: there are some graphic descriptions in the testimony that may be disturbing to some readers.[3] Reader discretion is therefore advised.

Notes and Transcription by Arabesque[4]

Introduction by Alex Jones

William Rodriguez

· Presenting his Testimony to other Countries

· Working at the Trade Center before 9/11

· Late to Work on the Morning of 9/11

· “People thought that it was an earthquake.”

· “She didn’t know.”

· “Willie, do you have the key?”

· “I remember I called my mother”

· “BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!”

· ”Don’t look back!”

· “I’m going to die—this is it.”

· 9/11 Commission Report

· “We owe the truth to the victims, survivors and those affected by 9/11.”

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd:

In 2005, NIST released the results of a 20 million dollar investigation that attempted to explain why the World Trade Center towers completely collapsed.¹

Many blindly point to this report (without reading a word of it) as rock solid proof that the official story is true. I am writing this list In order to help remedy this situation. All of my claims are documented—I am not making this up. Some of these claims may sound too outrageous to be true, but they are. I have provided the footnotes to prove it.

This is for anyone who still takes the NIST report seriously.

I present my top 10 reasons why the 10,000 page NIST report is absurd:

#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.²

9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard for Absurdity

By Arabesque

Revision: July 6, 2007.

Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.

By Arabesque

Updated: 05/02/07 Minor revisions and "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" replaced with "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"

9/11 was a terrorist attack—or was it?

The US administration released several documents that claim that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The NIST report,[1] 9/11 commission report,[2] FEMA report and the EPA report on air quality[3] were made by government scientists and high ranking government officials. Excluding the EPA report, all of these reports are used to claim that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Many assume that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11. Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.