No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11 by Elias Davidsson

I read this once and could find nothing objectionable, but i'm an idiot; please weigh in. Mind-blowing, imho- 9 pages, 61 cites


No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11

By Elias Davidsson
10 January 2008 (revised 8 February 2008)

Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names,
deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed
them in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Note, the author
shows that there is no evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes.
Absent such evidence for over six years, the official account of 9/11 must finally be exposed
as a lie.

The US government alleges that nineteen individuals whose names and photographs have
been released by the FBI1 and whom no one has seen since 11 September 2001, had booked
seats on flights AA11, AA77 (American Airlines) UA93 and UA175 (United Airlines) for
that same day, boarded onto those flights, hijacked the aircraft and deliberately crashed these

"Pull it down Larry" video: The ultimate proof the WTC Brought Down By The Controlled Demolition? - 9 minutes showing a lot

A colleague from the Czech-Slovak 911 movement have sent me the link to a new video (whose original intention was to debunk another debunkers video about WTC7)

But in fact it shows much more than just counterarguments against the debunkers video.

It shows that from the North tower were during the "collapse" clearly visibly ejected large chunks of its core - ripped in pieces of size of several floors, weghting probably at least hundreds of tons - to a realy considerable distance. - They were in past notoricaly confused with the perimeter columns - but perimeter columns were much thinner and mounted with much narower distances. The column distance in chunks - they can be seen in the video - compared to the north face 64m reference, is at least 4 meters, while the distance of the perimeter columns was 1m. The beam structure on the video looks like literally fitting in the proportions of the core mount - so the assumption it is the chunks of core, not the perimeter, looks like one very well supported. What force ripped the large core pieces lateraly out of the building? A Gravitation??

Effective Email (Thanks to Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican)

After reading a couple blog posts by Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican (thank you for the insight by the way and I hope you aren't upset I "borrowed" your ideas). I put together this email that I then forwarded to everyone I know friends, family, etc. The response has been phenomenal! People who vehemently argued with me before are now, at least, admitting the official collapse explanation is not adequate. I could not believe the responses I received. One person said, and I quote," It was like someone suddenly turning on a light bulb." I am very encouraged by this and I owe it all to the sharing of ideas and strategies we have utilized on this site. Thanks to everyone, but in particular thank you to Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican. Here is the email and you have my express permission to copy paste cut (as long as it stays within the general theme) or email to anyone you feel inclined to.

"Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Here it is:

This email is slightly more complicated than my usual emails, however, I believe it is pretty striking when viewed in whole.

Where's Your Evidence?

"Where's Your Evidence?"

This statement is an inevitable response given by people who have trouble see the obvious lies and distortions regarding 9/11. Of course none of us have slam-dunk documented evidence that proves exactly what happened. The whole raison d'etre of this movement is to discover the who, how, and why (although the why seems pretty clear at this point). So the next time you encounter this reactionary auto-response a very effective strategy is to simply in return ask them, "where is your evidence that the official story is wholly true." Thus de-activating this ridiculous mental block. I have utilized it several times and at the very least it enables the conversation to focus on what has not been proven rather than what can be proven.

The Explosion Few Noticed

The Explosion Few Noticed
Controlled Demolition is Visually Obvious
November 2007

There have been an increasing number of eye witness reports of explosions within the World Trade Center buildings on September 11th 2001. Most notably William Rodriguez has spoken publicly of explosions in the sub-basements of the towers before any aircraft struck them (1). Many police and firefighters have reported explosions as the towers came down (2). Not to mention all the video taped 'regular people' speaking of explosions. So for what it's worth, I will highlight an explosion that is visually obvious but few have focused on.

The collapse of the North Tower (WTC1) happened after the South Tower's implosion. It was a little different than the first tower to go down. The difference was that it started with a very strong, visually obvious explosion.

The "Official Investigation" Blessed by FEMA and ASCE is a Half-Baked Farce - 9/11 Memory Hole

Reading 9/11 related forums and articles, I frustratingly often encounter comments from supporters of the "official theory" stating that WTC debris was investigated and that no signs of explosives etc were found. They always fail to mention that no GZ access was allowed for investigation (including FEMA), investigators were only able to scrutinize what was taken to the Freshkills site, obviously we do not know what was NOT taken to Freshkills.

Anyway, this reminded me of the very honest, yet damning article (Jan 2002) written by the editor of "Fire Engineering Magazine" Bill Manning, including the "half baked farce" statement. Below are a few of those quotes :

  • To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

What is the status of the "smoking gun" evidence?

Several months have passed since Prof. Jones revealed his startling evidence that supposedly proves some sort of explosives/incendiaries were used in the demolition of the WTC 1,2 and 7. When I first viewed his presentation I was floored because this was the physical evidence we needed. Since then however I have heard little about it. Does anybody know what the status is with that? And what can we do to help speed up the process of getting this information out there and peer-reviewed? any ideas? Take care everyone, keep fighting the good fight

"The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead" - Aristotle

Truth & Reconcilliation

I posted this on Alvin R's blog but thought I'd copy & paste it here too because it states my core beliefs around uncovering the truth about 911:

Truth & Reconciliation

I think it's safe to assume that there are people out there still living who know significant pieces of the real 911 story or people who know more than the pieces. What's their incentive to talk other than having a spiritual conversion (which I believe is possible for anyone and something we ought not discount, John Newton, the captain of many slave ships and author of the song "Amazing Grace" proved that) ?
We have to enact a truth & reconciliation law as South Africa did after apartheid ended. We have to make it clear that revenge is not what we're after but the truth. We have to give serious consideration to granting immunity or limited immunity to persons willing to come forward to tell what they know. If we can't bring institutionalized forgiveness , ( meaning in part, no capital punishment in the harshest of instances) into the process than we are no better than the thugs who pulled off this historic crime.

Evidence, lack of evidence, and what to do now

Item: Jim Fetzer, Steve Jones, etc. Jim's blog of a few days ago went on and on about the evidence, what shows what, etc.:

Comment: I do not believe that there is any viable material evidence from the WTC and that there most likely never will be. Analyses of the dust are interesting, but not definitive. There will never be strong evidence from any of the steel or other rubble because 1) most of it has been destroyed, 2) what is left is not representative, and 3) there has been no credible chain of custody, so we will never be able to make definitive statements based on this kind of evidence.

Item: Flight 93 crash site, the Pentagon:

Comment: Much the same as above. There never will be good physical evidence from these locations because if it has not been destroyed it has been tampered with.

Item: Phone calls from the planes:

Comment: There MAY be some evidence here if we can find the phone records. But these, too, could easily be tampered with.

Item: Atta's luggage, the passport.

Comment: Ditto.

Item: What evidence do we have?

Another straw in the wind

Although I've read extensively on the 911 topic, this was new to me.

I thought I'd share it in case its new to many of you.


9/11 and the Evidence


March 26, 2007

9/11 and the Evidence

By Paul Craig Roberts

Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.

Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks. Griffin is a person who is sensitive to evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. There is no counterpart on the official side of the story who is as fully informed on all aspects of the attacks as Griffin.

Shadow Wolves - can they bring back the dead?

If Osama is still alive he won’t be free for much longer.


Of course he’s dead though, isn’t he?

Another Native American Story


It was all a coincidence? Using Occam's Razor to prove 9/11 truth

It was all a coincidence – Using occam’s razor to prove 9/11 truth.

There are really only two theories regarding the events on 9/11. That there was no complicity outside of al queda or there was complicity outside of al queda. Members of the 9/11 truth community ascribe that there was complicity outside of al queda. There was intelligence agency involvement. How much of that involvement belonged to Pakistani ISI, the CIA, Mossad, Saudi intelligence, British intelligence, the FBI, we can go round and round about (and we do). But the bottom line is that there was some intelligence agency involvement. The second area of complicity is U.S. government officials being involved in some fashion. Whether that was in blocking other officials from stopping the attacks, helping to coordinate the attacks, aiding in setting up the conditions which allowed the attack to be successful (i.e. war games and drills) or other scenarios is something that can’t be concretely determined at this time without further investigation.

archive.org data request

Early Monday morning, after reading the initial blog post (http://911blogger.com/node/6458) I located a list of what raw news files were available via archive.org (posted below) and downloaded as much as possible because it was obvious that this was too good to continue. As the story broke the content was removed. Timestamps indicate the data had been available for a few weeks if not longer.

Every one of these files is "in the wild" and I bet that a few people were able to get all of them. Below I have posted what I was able to download. Please help fill in the missing files or missing links. If you can help, contact me via http://911blogger.com/user/1665/contact and we will arrange a data transfer. The goal is to make this entire archive available via bittorrent. I'll host the trackers on the moon if necessary.