5.2.0 (Mis)Representations of best evidence

In the debunking media, claims that are false are examined alongside claims that are true. By debunking the false claims, the true claims will be discredited by association. But in order to justify that assertion that true claims are being debunked, the media must form what appears to be a convincing argument. The target audience of the debunking media is people who have not researched the evidence of 9/11 in any depth or at all. Without knowledge of the precise (true) claims being made, and the evidence that supports those claims, the reader relies on the debunking article to state both the claim and its own rebuttal. Thus, most readers will fail to notice when claims have been subtly changed, or when the evidence cited to support those claims has been distorted or omitted entirely.

Misrepresentations of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis

The controlled demolition hypothesis is most simply represented as a list of features consistent with controlled demolition (but not with 'progressive collapse') that are observed in video footage of the collapses: the sudden onset, the speed, verticality, symmetry, explosiveness, horizontal debris emissions, pulvarisation, shredding, and the molten metal seen coming out the Tower prior to its collapse and found in the rubble of all three buildings. These are all things that would be expected if explosives had been in the buildings, and they are not features associated with 'collapses' of buildings. Indeed, steel skyscrapers have never before or since completely collapsed due to local damage and/or fires.

However, when approaching this subject, the debunking media will often attack the apparent weaknesses of the hypothesis first. Most commonly, the question "How could anyone have gotten explosives into the building?" is the first one asked. This question has nothing to do with the scientific question of what brought the buildings down. If we can show that someone must have then we must deduce that someone did.

Dubious, or misinterpreted, 'evidence' for this claim is discussed as much as the best evidence. For example, seismic records do not support either the controlled demolition hypothesis or the progressive collapse theory, and yet they are often claimed by debunkers to be 'at the center of the hypothesis.' They can thus claim the whole hypothesis is based on a misreading of data.

The official collapse theory (which is really a local collapse theory) is endorsed heavily by the debunking media, often in a condescending tone, as if the 'conspiracy theorists' have misunderstood the official theory. For example, it is often claimed that 'conspiracy theorists say that jet fuel cannot melt steel, therefore the plane impacts could not have caused the collapses'. In fact, this jet-fuel-melts-steel fallacy originated on the day of the attacks and came from 'experts' who were endorsing the official explanation as being the result of plane impacts and fires. The debunking media gleefully points out to its uninformed readers that 'of course it can't, but the steel only buckled' - as if this in any way debunks the controlled demolition hypothesis. It is useful for them to make the 'conspiracy theorists' appear foolish by attributing mistaken claims to them, and making them appear to have not read, or misunderstood, the official theory. By giving a basic description of (one of) the local collapse theory(s), the debunking media can make the scenario seem not only plausible, but inevitable, when in fact the local collapse theory endorsed by NIST is impossible.

Another technique used is appeal to authority: statistics are given about how 'thorough' the NIST investigation was, and 'reputable experts' are paraded in support of the official theory.

By the time the debunking media is through with these attempts to persuade their readers that they are debunking the hypothesis, there is little space left for dealing with the actual collapse features, which are the real center of the hypothesis. When dealing with the best evidence, when they cannot misrepresent it, the debunking media seek to confuse and obfuscate the issues; it is all they have left. Some examples include:

• When discussing the speed of the collapses, the details of the exact time they took to collapse often takes up some discussion. The times range from 8 seconds (less than free-fall speed) to 17 seconds. (Analysis of seismic data from the nearby Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University shows that the north tower collapsed in 12.74 seconds, or 57.7% longer than free fall, and that the duration of the south tower collapse was 10.52 seconds, or 42% longer than free fall. The collapse of WTC7 took just under 7 seconds, or about 11% longer than free fall.) The debate serves as a distraction to the question of how any such speed of collapse is possible, given that the entire structure under the impact point was intact. The Law of Conservation of Momentum appears to have been broken in all three cases.
• Molten metal is a sure sign of extremely high temperatures, and molten metal was found in the rubble of all three buildings. Amazingly, the existence of the molten metal has been debated, despite photographs, eyewitness testimony, and satellite images that showed extreme heat spots for weeks and months after the event. Molten metal was even seen flowing from the side of the South Tower before its collapse. This is said to be aluminium, and not the same as the molten metal in the rubble. When its existence is admitted to, absurd theories such as that 'underground fires' formed a cauldron that melted the steel. The steel has even been analysed by Professor Steven Jones, who found sulphur, indicating the use of the type of explosive used in industry for cutting steel in controlled demolitions: thermate, a variant of thermite. Other trace elements found on the steel also indicate explosives were used.
• The horizontal debris emissions seen in the Twin Towers below the collapse line as the collapse ensued, appear to be demolition squibs. The use of such squibs is characteristic of controlled demolitions of buildings. How can these be explained? The FEMA theory asserted that the floors were falling inside the building a few floors below the visible line of collapse. It was asserted that the crushing floors expelled the air between them and this appeared as horizontal emissions. A problem with this idea is that it only occurred on a few floors, and simultaneously at different heights in the building. However, NIST abandoned this pancaking scenario in favour of their pile-driver theory, making the idea of horizontal debris emissions below the collapse line even more unfathomable. Rebuttals to this claim temporarily switch to the abandoned FEMA theory when trying to make a convincing argument that horizontal emissions are 'to be expected' in a progressive collapse.

The debunking media prefer to exploit uncertainties within the alternative theories, rather than exploring anomalies in the official theory. Although thermate, used in combination with explosives, detonated remotely using a pre-defined explosive sequence, seems the most likely method of controlled demolition, the debunking media often draws attention to mistaken claims such as that 'mini-nukes' were used, or there were 'basement bombs' (alone), or even that it was a 'death-ray from outer space' (Directed Energy Weapon) used. Even when discussing explosives, the debunking media exaggerate how much explosive material would have been required, and overstate the difficulty of getting explosives into the building.

When discussing Building 7, attention is often drawn to an intriguing comment made by WTC owner Larry Silverstein in a PBS documentary. He said that, in a phone conversation with a chief fire officer, they agreed that they should 'pull it'. Some have claimed that he was referring to the building and it was a subtle admission of guilt, while Silverstein himself claims he was referring to pulling the firefighters out of the building. The first interpretation seems unlikely, since such a plan to destroy Building 7 would have had to have been planned in advance - no such discussion would have taken place. Also, given that it was a documentary that could have easily been re-shot after Silverstein realized his embarrassing admission, begs the question - why did he choose that particularly ambiguous phrase. It seems likely that the words were carefully chosen by Silverstein to divert questions about the physical evidence of the collapse of Building 7 towards questions about this comment. Given that the physical evidence for controlled demolition of Building 7 is even more convincing than for the Twin Towers (because it looked exactly like a conventional controlled demolition), this may have been a wise tactic. And judging by the amount of 'air-time' this comment is given, the tactic seems to have worked.

Misrepresentations of the NORAD response

The evidence for a military stand-down or slow-down is primarily based on the observation that the official explanation is completely implausible. This, along with the fact that we have been given three distinct timelines of what happened. Even if we accept the latest story, from the 9/11 Commission, we must accept that lies were told there was a massive cover-up for three years. None of the three timelines are plausible explanations for why the military apparently failed to protect known terrorist targets, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (the 'best defended building on Earth'). The most recent one, which places most of the blame on the FAA, is even less believable than the other two.

However, to see why the official story is so ridiculous, it is necessary to know the details of what happened when and the explanations for why. The 9/11 Commission Report goes to great lengths to make their story seem plausible (even 'exciting') - but systematic omissions and distortions, with carefully constructed lies, can be identified by the alert reader. Professor David Ray Griffin critiques the Commission Report account in his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".

By giving vague descriptions and summaries of what really happened, the debunking media can easily persuade uninformed readers that mistakes and incompetence, in the 'fog of war' is a plausible explanation.

Next Page: Scholars Discussions