9-11 Review
articles critiques
9-11 Research
reviews essays
9-11 Review
sections
Attack & Cover-Up
Means & Motive
Info Warfare
contents
Info Warfare
Trojan horses
dissembling websites
hoax-promoting videos
dissembling books
legal subterfuge
parade of errors
phantom planes
Webfairy's Whatzit
pod-planes
North Tower hit
South Tower hit
bumble planes
Flight 93
fake calls
Pentagon attack
757 maneuvers
eyewitnesses
no debris
crash debris
small impact hole
missing wings
turbofans 101
standing columns
punchout
obstacles
small plane
Boeing 737
Flyover
WTC demolition
seismic spikes
pre-impact explosions
collapse times
diminishing fires
Building 6 explosion
basement bombs
spire to dust
WTC 2 powerdown
mini nukes
pull it
vast conspiracy
divide and conquer
left gatekeepers
Holocaust denial
the Big Tent
intimidation
propaganda
hit parade
conspiracy theory
Denmark
shell game

Dissembling Websites

We show that the September 11, 2001 attack was a carefully engineered inside job similar to previous attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombing. In the aftermath of this attack, as in previous cases, a community of skeptics worked to expose the fraudulence of the official story. However, by 2001, the World Wide Web had become established as one of the principal modes of communication. It immediately became the main arena for the information wars surrounding the attack.

Given how much was invested in the success of the attack, it is only reasonable to expect that elaborate deceptions would be crafted to confuse and discredit the skeptics. A raft of websites have popped up since the attack promoting theories ranging from patently absurd to subtle hoaxes. In some cases websites that had established reputations before the attack were used to inject nonsense into the discourse of 9/11 skeptics.

Here we review just three websites -- a list which just scratches the surface of the broad array of websites that appear to be part of a campaign to discredit the case for official complicity in the attack:

911Review.org

A case in point is 911review.org, which was originally rolled out in late 2003, just as 911Research.wtc7.net was coming into prominence. Our analysis of that site finds that it has the effect of discrediting skepticism of the official account of the attack, whether by design or incompetence.

Another example was Physics911.net (originally Physics911.org) also rolled out in late 2003, with the ostensible goal of providing a Scientific Panel for the Investigation of Nine-Eleven (SPINE). Both 911Review.org and Physics911.net promoted hoaxes like the Pod-Plane and pushed implausible science fiction scenarios like Operation Pearl.

Numerous other sites serving to discredit serious analysis of 9/11/01 lack the sophistication of 911review.org and Physics911.net. Some, such as letsroll911.org, are almost entirely devoted to amplifying the idea, supported by no evidence, that missiles were used in the attack on the Twin Towers. OilEmpire.us was the first site to provide a complete rundown on such sites in mid-2004 -- a time when several new such sites sprang up.

e x c e r p t
title: Bogus 9/11 websites Muddying the waters with easily disproved phony claims
authors: Mark Robinowitz
[T]he 9/11 truth movement has been having long overdue successes in shifting public consciousness many more people now understand that 9/11 was not a surprise attack. This is probably why bogus websites and fake films with easily disproved material have been developed, which distract from the best evidence of complicity. These websites promote the idea that blurry photos with illogical and supported claims should be the basis for 9/11 truth outreach efforts, instead of the issues surrounding the failure of the Air Force to intercept the hijacked planes[.]

WING TV

Lip service to the core facts of the attack is sometimes used in dissembling sites to establish bona fides within segments of the 9/11 Truth Movement. For example, Victor Thorn, on the WingTV website, writes in "9-11 Bottom Line: Explosives in the WTC":

As the 9-11 Truth Movement surges forward and attempts to determine who the guilty parties actually are, we likewise need to step-back for a moment and focus on what constitutes the crux of this matter. In other words, we've been expending so much energy on peripheral issues that we're losing sight of the most damning act of all the explosive demolition of the World Trade Center towers and WTC7. Now this isn't saying that the war games, our military stand-down, Flight 93, or the absence of a Boeing 757 at the Pentagon are unimportant; but in the end, none of these areas of study hold the potential to prove that our government was directly involved in the planning, execution, and cover-up of 9-11 as does the deliberate destruction of the twin towers. We shouldn't be mamby-pambying around any longer with facilitation, negligence, or incompetence; we should be going straight for the throat by proving that these provocateurs engaged in a planned mass murder by placing bombs in these buildings!

This position will sound reasonable to most people who accept that the Twin Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition -- a position supported by evidence provided in The World Trade Center Attack section of this website. However, the article provides no links or references to any other work backing up the allegation of explosive demolition. Elsewhere on the site, Victor Thorn attacks Jim Hoffman for his essay deconstructing the theory that no 757 hit the Pentagon. Hoffman's reply to Thorn's attack provides the links to source articles that are conspicuously absent from the attack piece.

Thorn's attack piece and site also fail to note that Hoffman has assembled some of the most compelling evidence for the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers, such as slideshow talks presented to numerous audiences. Nor does the WingTV site have a single link to wtc7.net or its subdomains, for example. This pattern of omission is a tool used by other dissemblers to appear to support a position while actually undermining it.

ScholarsFor911Truth.org

The website ScholarsFor911Truth.org illustrates, perhaps better than any website, how disinformation both exploits and neutralizes some of the best work of 9/11 Truth researchers and activists. The website presents several potent assets:

  • The scholarly and meticulous work of members Steven Jones and David Griffin.
  • The impressive list of Scholars For 9/11 Truth members, including such distinguished contributors to the 9/11 Truth cause as Kevin Ryan, Don Paul, Andreas Von Buelow, Robert M. Bowman, Kevin Barrett, Ian Woods, and Victoria Ashley.
  • The concept of a group of scholars bringing together their expertise to challenge the government's account -- a first in the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
However, through the energetic spokespersonship of James Fetzer, ScholarsFor911Truth.org exploits these assets to increase its profile and thereby promote the Pentagon no-jetliner theory featured on its "Resources" page.

The association of the junk science typified by the ScholarsFor911Truth.org's resources page with the competent work of Jones and Griffin featured on the home page functions both to advance the former, and discredit the latter through association. In an essay examining ScholarsFor911Truth.org, Jim Hoffman concludes that the website may sabotage the work of Steven Jones.

e x c e r p t
title: ScholarsFor911Truth.org: Muddling the Evidence
authors: Jim Hoffman

... Because of the importance of the flawed ScholarsFor911Truth.org website, that may happen despite the good intentions and excellent credentials of many of the group's members.

In late-2005, people looking into Steven Jones' work would be directed to his paper on the Brigham Young University website. Now, people are directed to ScholarsFor911Truth.org, which mixes the scholarly work of Steven Jones and David Griffin with unscientific, sensationalist, and even offensive material. In the context of the flawed ScholarsFor911Truth.org website, Jones' work will be much easier to dismiss as the product of a group of "conspiracy theorists."

The creator of Flight77.info offers the following incisive critique of ScholarsFor911Truth.org on his blog

e x c e r p t
title: UPDATE 3/24/6
authors: Bronco
i hate sort of beating-up on certain segments of the collective of people who are skeptical about the official version of happened on 9/11... but here i go again: scholars for 9/11 truth: another just provocative web site. how can you tell? among other things, on their home page, they promote the 9/11 music video called 'loose change' that offers up every crack pot pod missile theory in the book. 'loose change' is out there just to provoke people emotionally. its substance is in its appeal to teens and twentysomethings. so why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' aligning themselves with a tin hat munching 9/11 music video? why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' also promoting the no 757 theory? answer: the web site is just provocative. it's using the blanket (AKA 'big tent'; throwing enough shit at the wall) approach to attract more people to the concept that 9/11 was an inside job. then by magic, one of these new people will uncover the proof we need to hang the true conspirators.

what's wrong with this 'scholarly' approach? anyone? anyone ? bueler? bueler?

once bush & co reach the end of their reign - that's the finish line, they win. once those powers-that-be are out of power, people lose interest. we need to get 'em for 9//11 while they're in office if we're going to end this endless war on terrorism.

so the problem with the scholars for 9/11 truth's throw-enough-shit-at-the-wall approach is that they're spinning a new generation of 9/11 skeptics into 9/11 goofballs who are going to spend the next 2 1/2 years looking at the same old pictures of the pentagon going, 'gee, that IS a small hole...' and who will spend endless hours replaying the WTC video trying to see the missile pods.

what does it gain the 9/11 truth movement if everyone is a member - but we're all full of shit reciting misinformation?

[EDITOR'S NOTE: hyperlinks added to excerpt by 911Review.com]

Although the website ScholarsFor911Truth.org had the appearance of speaking for the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, numbering more than 200, the site was actually controlled by James Fetzer. By November of 2006 Fetzer was openly attacking Steven Jones and heavily promoting ideas that nuclear weapons or space beams were used to destroy the Twin Towers. In December of 2006 a majority of the membership of voted to form a new group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, with the website STJ911.org. Fetzer began to migrate to several other domains including 911Scholars.org.

Physics911.net,.ca,.*

Physics911.net (and .ca,.com,.org, and others) appeared in 2003, presenting itself as scientific approach to analysis of the attack. The site, which mixes articles by scientists like Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan with pseudo-scientific articles and wildy speculative scenarios, is anything but scientific.

e x c e r p t
title: Physics911 and The Missing Wings
authors: Michael Green

Dewdney’s seminal misinformation/disinformation essay, “The Missing Wings,” is a pseudo-scientific analysis of the popular meme, “How did a great big plane like a Boeing 757 fit into that tiny little hole?” The essay entirely abandons scientific methodology, which would begin with an examination of how various are the remains of commercial airliner crashes, especially depending upon the type of impact that occurs. Instead, “Wings” offers four possible explanations for the seeming disappearance of the wings, but never the obvious possibility, viz., that most of the wings disintegrated into small pieces upon impact with the fašade. Such an omission is especially odd in light of Dewdney’s statement in the article that “The outermost tier of columns is located just inside the Pentagon wall, a nearly three-foot thick structure of brick, concrete and limestone facing.” As you know, Jim Hoffman has an essay showing the disintegration of a smaller jet crashing into an immovable chunk of reinforced concrete. What we do not know and cannot know is whether what Dewdney calls the three feet of reinforced materials did a similar job on the Pentagon crash; instead Dewdney ignores event the possibility.

Dewdney considers the possibility that the explosion of the fuel tanks shattered the wings, but rejects it because – according to him – the portion of the plane carrying fuel would have entered the building, leaving the fuel-less wings outside. Let us see his application of the scientific method.

3. Could the wings have been entirely fragmented by the explosion of the fuel tanks after the aircraft struck the building?

The fuel tanks of a 757 are located under the fuselage, as well as in the wing roots. The entire fuel storage area of a 757 would easily fit inside the initial entry hole and, consequently, any explosion would have been largely confined to the building’s interior. As we shall see, the wings could not have entered the building, where they might possibly have encountered such a fate.

The wing root is the reinforced portion of the wing that hugs the fuselage, and is the opposite end of the wing tip. The difficulty with Dewdney’s creative idea is that almost the entire volume of both wings of a Boeing 757-200 is filled by the fuel tanks; hence those wings might have been possibly “fragmented by the explosion of the fuel tanks.” Had Dewdney applied the diligence of a high school student writing a term paper, let alone the scientific method, by googling “Boeing 757 ‘fuel tanks’” he would have learned this. See http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff757.pdf

What happened to the big commercial airliner seen by so many eyewitnesses?

The actual Flight 77 (or a duplicate of it) flies over the Pentagon and on toward Reagan International Airport or, possibly, Hollings Air force Base. By this time, flights would still be coming to the nearest airport all over the United States and no one would remark on such a landing. Several witnesses reported this aircraft, as well.

But the extraordinary fact about the “flyover” claim is that there has never been a single eyewitness claim of seeing a massive Boeing 757 flying atop the Pentagon, disconfirming this “hypothesis” if it can be dignified with that term. And think, please, isn’t Dewdney’s claim that “Several witnesses reported this aircraft, as well” a preposterous bluff? Who are these people? What did they see? And how would any of them recognize “this aircraft” as the one that so many others said that they saw crash into the Pentagon?

The Missing Wings, subjected to a point-by-point critique in Missing Logic: A Review of The Missing Wings , is one of several key articles on the Physics911 sites, which dominate the search space around the terms "physics" and "9/11". By transparently making unsupported claims, embracing naive mis-conceptions, and advancing wildy and totally-unsupported scenarios that seem calculated to offend victims of the attack, these articles cast a shadow of discrediting association over the fact-based articles alongside them in Physics911.*.


page last modified: 2010-05-10
Copyright 2004 - 2011,911Review.com / revision 1.08 site last modified: 12/21/2012
Websites that promote unscientific claims, such as theories about fakery of the WTC and Pentagon crashes, often have sophisticated graphic design.
911eyewitness.com sells the 9/11 Eyewitness video which presents transparently absurd claims as science.
TheWebfairy.com has been called 'the fairy godmother' of no-jetliner claims.
InPlaneSite.com sells a sensational video focused on claims of a missile pod on the South Tower plane.
NYCTV.com promotes 9/11 Eyewitness.
Serendipity.com promotes no-plane theories for all four jetliners including ones that the WTC crashes were faked alongside anti-semitism.
Total411.info promotes various no-plane crash-fakery ideas.
physics911.net pretends to take a science-based approach while promoting the Pentagon no-jetliner theory.
WantToKnow.info avoids credible analysis of the destruction of the World Trade Center, like 9-11 Research while promoting no-plane theories and productions such as In Plane Site and Loose Change.
pentagonstrike.co.uk promotes the highly deceptive Pentagon Strike Flash animation.