Best Evidence of 9/11 Complicity

a short guide to some of the best evidence

"Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for some data.' The former will win every time."
-- Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006

on this page:

The Archeology of 9/11: unearthing the evidence

Sifting through the volumes of 9/11 evidence is analogous to archeology. Only some of the evidence for the distant ancestors of all living beings has been unearthed and catalogued. However, the fact that the currently known fossil record is incomplete does not prevent science from attempting to determine patterns and draw tentative conclusions about the history of life on Earth, knowing that additional evidence is likely to alter the story as we gain further knowledge. The early days of archeology saw spectacular forgeries "revealed" by unscrupulous advocates of particular theories, which parallels current efforts to distract and discredit 9/11 skeptics with disinformation. It is unlikely that any story of 9/11 is completely true, and hopefully enough of the documentation will be made public in the years to come - and enough whistleblowers step forward - so that historians will be able to more fully explain what happened to the United States of America.

Whatever details future archeologists of truth will unearth are unlikely to discredit the Reichstag Fire paradigm for understanding 9/11 - they merely will add to our understanding of the details of how the "Reichstag" was burned. The real issue is to explain why the attacks were perpetrated.
SMOKING GUN feedback:
Where Was G.W. Bush on the Morning of Sept. 11?
by Cheryl Seal, Monday, June 10, 2002

I don't like to build my case on ruminations and speculations, but on the available best evidence, from which I draw the most likely conclusion, applying the rather unglamorous but time-honored technique called the "scientific method." Formulate a hypothesis based on the evidence, then test that hypothesis (in this case using questions).

To get caught up into the "he said she said" (what Dan Rather said Myers said Bush said etc.) is to get involved in chasing your tail — and everyone else's! History tells us that in a crisis like this, the scramble to cover butts, even when there HASN'T been a conspiracy involved, ususally results in contradictory, every-changing stories. This is true from sorting out who broke the cookie jar in the kitchen to who was caught with their hand in the till at Enron...everyone will scramble to hit on a story that plays well. So, to avoid this quagmire, the best approach is to go with the most concrete evidence and know facts.. Known fact: NORAD called by the FAA because it is the established protocol in such a case (and, as one of my readers suggested, NORAD would probably have known of the planes even before then, based on their radar data). In keeping with protocol, NORAD would have required a response from Bush. Now just applying common sense (another unglamorous habit of mine), here's what you get:

1. If this was indeed a conspiracy involving those in high places, then the details of NORAD's response, which would become a matter of public record, now or in the future, would have been accounted for in advance by the conspirators.

2. When the stakes are as high as the ones involved on 9/11, a conspirator would take NO CHANCES on doing anything that might seem to implicate themselves. By NOT CALLING ANY PLANES, Bush et al would be implicating themselves big time. However, by delaying the call for a scramble and not calling for evacuations, they would easily be able to plead later their decisions were based on not having any idea the danger was of the scope it proved to be. This is, in fact, what the Bush folks have tried to do. If NO PLANES had been called in at all, there are too many "peripheral" people in the chain of communications, from the FAA to NORAD to Bush that would have been outraged and spoken out. A delayed call on the other hand would have been initially seen as "tragic bad luck" and later as too ambiguous to base an accusation on. ....

I feel that people cannot have an entire barrel of facts and red herrings dumped in their laps and expect to sort it all out...the tendency is to throw up their hands in despair, confusion and frustration. Which is just what Bush and Co. would like everyone to do. What I tried to do was to sort through and identify the most tangible facts, then present these, along with all the factual connections between people, places and things, then allow people to ponder it for themselves. I did not set out to "sell" a "conspiracy theory," but if the facts presented happen scream conspiracy, that message will be heard loud and clear. One thing I have learned is that people 1. are generally quicker on the uptake than the media gives them credit for, and 2. generally recognize the truth when they see it plainly presented. That is why the corporate powers that be and their pals in the mainstream media work very hard to avoid presenting important facts plainly and work even harder to disguise the truth.

from Nicholas Levis:

Griffin = 1000 truth movement activists?


Competent research and valid argument > all of us.

Need for justice > all of us.

We must get past leaders and arguments over the plausibility of their various "how" hypotheses, and back to the original, political fight for disclosure around the key questions of what happened and why, official accountability, and just treatment of the the perpetrators and victims of crime.

  • AWOL command-chain reaction suggesting coordinated facilitation or desire for self protection. Everyone should know the names: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, Winfield, Mies, Eberhardt.
  • Air defense response anomaly, false timelines, cover-up and wargames disclosure. Epic "failures" -- followed by promotions and budget increases!
  • Foreknowledge - who knew what, and more importantly: where did it come from? Foreign agencies, financial trail, variety of possible insider deals.
  • Surveillance and obstruction prior - who suppressed information and shut down investigations into the alleged hijackers (patsies or otherwise, it barely matters: another distraction!) and why? Hamburg cell surveillance, Malaysia surveillance, Able Danger, agency recruitment attempts and connections, FBI informants linked to alleged hijackers, Wilshire, Frasca-Bowman-Maltbie, etc. etc.
  • Obstruction after (evidence withholding and destruction, FAA tapes, black boxes, much more), commission cover-ups and omissions. Fraudulence of reports -- as now allowed by the former Commissioners themselves. Use of "confessions" under torture from possible imposters to construct the entire main plot of the 9/11 Com Report.
  • Shanksville crash anomalies (meaning: time of crash change, evidence of shootdown).
  • History of US and other allied-agency links to "al-Qaeda." Use of "al Qaeda" in effecting policy. All that Ali Mohamed / Emad Saleem / Saeed Sheikh stuff.

The above all implicate known names including many officials in differing capacities from negligence through obstruction and facilitation to perpetration. Put some who were not the direct planners under sufficient pressure, the facade cracks and the rest of the story will be exposed.

The bodies of evidence for the above are likeliest to meet probable cause standard for legal action against specific persons, in turn opening up the rest. (Demolitions argument does not do that!)

The following two lead to context and creating plausibility:

  • History of precedents and other criminality by government.
  • Rumsfeld, Cheney, old Bush mob coming back to power, PNAC and perception of imperial decline, CoG planning, intent and preparation to invade Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11.

These will be the focuses when you guys wake up in the real America of today (where "9/11 conspiracy" has become a part of the subcultural mosaic, just another spectacle) and decide being right doesn't matter: Winning justice does. Play to win.

Too late? Maybe. 2009 should be an interesting year.


there is not much "new" 9/11 evidence

2004 was a year with a lot of new revelations about how 9/11 was perpetrated.
is a great summary of this information.

Now that Michael Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" and Paul Thompson's book "The Terror Timeline" are in print, along with some other excellent reports, it is unlikely there will be any new authentic claims of complicity. Virtually all of the claims of "new 9/11 evidence" since the 2004 "election" have either been fake, or real claims that were exposed long ago sandwiched in between nonsense. Simple summaries that are easy to digest and that avoid the BS claims are needed more -- and woven into understanding the broader perspective of the Peak Oil wars. The "research" time for 9/11 truth is over - and the only way forward for the 9/11 truth movement likely to accomplish more than we already have is to separate the real material from the bogus stuff. There has been some authentic new information collected about additional war games on 9/11 (in addition to those identified in "Rubicon") but they do not alter the basic political understanding of "means, motive and opportunity" identified by Ruppert. (There has also been a variety of fake claims about war games posted on the web, easily found through and other search engines, which makes it harder for people to differentiate real evidence from distracting chaff.)

There were two "new" pieces of evidence in summer 2005 - Paul Thompson's new, expanded list of 9/11 war game exercises, and the information about the "Able Danger" military program that was tracking Mohammed Atta before 9/11. The Cooperative Research website is the best compilation of this excellent evidence. Neither of these revelations change the paradigm for understanding 9/11, since the precise number of 9/11 war games does not alter this paradigm, and mainstream sources have already disclosed that several of the hijackers supposedly received training on US military bases.


the difference between Bush lies on Iraq and 9/11
BEYOND BUSH by Michael Ruppert July 1, 2003

There is only one difference between the evidence showing the Bush administration's criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable and based upon government records and official statements and actions shown to be false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable. The difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being seriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing number of elected representatives. That's it.


Considerations for the "Court of Public Opinion"

At West Point the cadets are told that amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. The same is true in litigation, especially civil litigation. Amateurs natter on about "burden of proof," professionals focus on the "theory of the case."
In the terms of modern civil litigation "burden of proof" has been reduced to a technical question which has little practical importance to the outcome of the trial. The main practical importance of issues relating to the burden of proof is in criminal litigation where the defense is often that the state has failed to meet its burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil litigation, this is not a winning strategy. Civil litigation is won or lost on who can persuade the trier of fact - a jury or a judge - that his case is the stronger. Indeed having the burden of proof is often an advantage as it gives a plaintiff the first shot at the minds of the jury. This can be a distinct advantage in practice. The experts agree that the best way to meet the "burden of persuasion" necessary to win a case is to formulate a theory of the case and to plan trial strategy around it.
[emphasis added]


Best 9/11 evidence

Best explanation of why 9/11 was allowed (and assisted)

9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance to make sure it happened) as part of a covert plan to prepare the US empire for Peak Oil. 9/11 provided the excuse for the war to seize the Iraqi oil fields (part of a larger scheme to dominate the remaining oil supplies). 9/11 also enabled passage of the USA Patriot Act and other repressive policies that are part of the long-planned Homeland Security surveillance society. 9/11 was the pretext for the "War on Terror," which its supporters claim is a "war that will not end in our lifetime." The neo-conservatives call this conflict World War IV.


Best documented evidence

The failure to follow standard operating procedures (suppressed warnings, blocked investigations, Bush reading "the Pet Goat" instead of being Commander-in-Chief, the Air Force failure to intercept hijacked jets)

Wargames simulating the actual events at the same time as actual events that seem to have confused the air defenses.

WHERE Flight 77 hit - the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector
WHAT hit the Pentagon - Flight 77, probably electronically hijacked
HOW the air defenses did not protect the Pentagon, even after the towers had been hit
WHO scheduled multiple war game exercises on 9/11, including a "plane into building" scenario
WHY 9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance): Peak Oil and Homeland Security

Put Options that bet on the stock values of American and United airlines in the days before the attacks (betting the prices would drop).

Efforts by FBI management to interfere with FBI investigations into the flight schools.


Best theory of how 9/11 happened

The most likely scenario, which fits the known evidence, is "hijack the hijackers with remote control."i

In this view, the hijackers were allowed to finish their preparations, board the planes, hijack the controls but then remote control technology was used to ensure that the planes not only completed their missions but also did not strike targets that would have caused even more damage. Flight 11, the first hijacked plane, flew over Indian Point nuclear power station, just north of New York City (an attack there would have been much, much worse than 9/11). And if Flight 77 had hit any other part of the Pentagon, thousands of people could have been killed. This hybrid scenario is speculative, but remote control flight technology is commercially available. One of the manufacturers of this equipment is System Planning corporation, whose former director, Dov Zakheim, was a signer of the "PNAC" report stating a New Pearl Harbor would enable their global domination goals. Mr Zakheim was Comptroller of the Pentagon from 2001 through early 2004 (in charge of the money).ng the Hijackers
I've long thought that if we assume a decision had been taken to let it happen, then we should expect that measures were be taken to ensure it happened precisely as desired, and spectacularly so. With so much at stake, nothing would be left to the skill and luck of the 19 hijackers. Flight 77's 270 degree turn to hit the ground floor of the virtually unoccupied side of the Pentagon, while supposedly piloted by the grossly incompetent Hani Hanjour, is the most striking example. The recent report that the WTC black boxes were recovered after all, is suggestive of the same: that the data conflicted somehow with the received fiction. Perhaps the hijackers were themselves hijacked.

from Nicholas Levis,
"Staging 9/11 as an inside job is going to work best (in fact, is likely to work only) if there actually exists an active network of anti-American terrorists who are deeply committed to killing Americans in response to U.S. policy. In other words, those who would blame Qaeda need a (relatively) real Qaeda. A partly-real enemy is much better than an entirely fabricated one.
"The most robust way for insider masterminds to stage 9/11 and get away with it is to arrange for their agents to infiltrate among "real foreign terrorists." Let them come up with their own plots (or plant plots among them), choose a plot that will produce the results desired by the masterminds, and see that through to fruition. At some point, the masterminds and their agents will hijack the plot from the would-be hijackers, to make sure it happens. You won't risk the whole game on the ability of amateurs to get away with it, you will help them along or even replace them (with a remote control hijacking, for example). But it's best to have "real terrorists" in play. They leave a more solid trail of evidence internationally. Cops and agents and academics of two dozen countries can honestly confirm the existence of an al-Qaeda network. That way there is less need to initiate outside observers into the plot and you don't have to hope they are all stupid, as they would have to be to fall for a complete fabrication of "Qaeda." (Qaeda at this point is just a term of convenience for the Islamist extremist networks.)
"The best result would be for a whole bunch of Islamist extremists running around believing that their crew pulled off 9/11 all by themselves (how inspiring for them!). The patsies should believe they actually did it. This was the case with the Reichstag Fire and Marinus van der Lubbe: the patsy believed he had done it."


Best evidence for remote control planes

Some coincidence theorists claim that it was a one-in-five chance that the nearly empty part of the Pentagon was hit, even though the flight maneuvers were world class precision flying and it is impossible to believe that a terrorist intent on causing as much damage as possible would have flown around the Pentagon to ensure that the one area with the fewest victims would be hit.

It is likely, but unprovable, that some form of remote control technology was used to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed part of the Pentagon. Even an expert pilot substituted for flight school dropout and alleged terrorist Hani Hanjour would not have made the amazing flight pattern to minimize casualties on the ground by hitting the nearly empty part of the Pentagon.

The data on the black boxes (supposedly found from all four planes) would refute or confirm the remote control hypothesis, but this information has not been made public. Few 9/11 "truth" activists have focused their attention on this secret data, preferring instead to desire the videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (which would not tell us anything we don't already know).


Best historical precedent

The 1933 Reichstag Fire, which was allowed to happen (the lone arsonist had been overheard boasting that he wanted to burn the building) and given technical assistance (SS goons were in the basement with barrels of fuel while the patsy was upstairs trying to set fires) to make sure it happened.

The 1941 Pearl Harbor attack was allowed to happen to galvanize public opinion to support war, but President Roosevelt did not need to provide technical assistance to the Japanese (they could find Hawaii without any assistance). Pearl Harbor did not involve a "stand down" -- merely a refusal to share critical intelligence with Army and Navy commanders in Hawaii who would have taken defensive measures if they knew the attacks were imminent.

Other historical precedents (similar but not exactly the same) are described at


Best "physical evidence" (for remote control)

Flight 77 was steered into the mostly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon. This fact is accepted by the mainstream media - but it is rarely focused upon. It is strong evidence (but not proof) that some form of remote control was used to ensure that the planes caused enough havoc and destruction for the "shock and awe" but not uncontrollable damage (if Flight 77 had hit any other part of the Pentagon, the recovery would have been far more difficult).


Best areas for further investigation (an unlikely scenario)

Able Danger - military intelligence program that was tracking the hijackers before 9/11. The Center for Cooperative Research has the best public database about this scandal.

The data on the "black boxes" (which were supposedly recovered from all four planes) would refute or confirm the remote control theory.


Best politician who dared to ask inconvenient questions

Many politicians privately know the truths about 9/11, but only one in Congress who dared to raise these concerns was Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia).

In July 2006, McKinney won slightly less than a majority in the Democratic Party primary, and in August was defeated by her Democratic opponent in the runoff primary. These elections were conducted with touchscreen voting machines that can easily be hacked. The election outcome was also influenced by a nasty media barrage smearing McKinney while ignoring the substance of the evidence on the issues she exposed. Both political parties joined forces to ensure she was removed from Congress. One of her final acts was to introduce an impeachment resolution against Bush and Cheney, no other members of the House of Representative chose to support it, although Dennis Kucinich introduced his own impeachment resolution (which no other member supported).


Best questions from 9/11 family members

Best books about 9/11

Crossing the Rubicon: the Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, by Michael Ruppert

The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute, by Paul Thompson

The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism, by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed

The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, by Peter Dale Scott

Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI officials helped enable 9/11 and evaded government investigations, by Kevin Fenton


Best movies about 9/11

911: Press for Truth
2006 documentary about Paul Thompson (author of the Complete 9/11 Timeline) and the "Jersey Girls" (widows who demanded a real investigation, which they did not get). An excellent introduction to how 9/11 was allowed to happen for those not familiar with the evidence.

The Truth and Lies of 9/11
Michael Ruppert's first speech after 9/11, still accurate after all these years.

Denial Stops Here: From 9/11 to Peak Oil and Beyond
Updated presentation from Michael Ruppert (2005), good summary of 9/11 wargames and the context of Peak Oil (a bit choppy in the production, but excellent information that is mandatory viewing for everyone interested in 9/11 truth).

9/11 Citizens Commission (New York City, September 9, 2004)
best single video presentation on 9/11 complicity, from a forum with Cynthia McKinney, John Judge, Michael Ruppert, Indira Singh, Barrie Zwicker, Nicholas Levis, Jenna Orkin and others. Probably the least promoted 9/11 truth video, perhaps because it avoids the "no plane" hoaxes and it is extremely compelling and credible. A similar, much more flawed event called "Confronting the Evidence" was held in New York City on September 11, 2004 which did focus on the hoaxes (a mix of good information and nonsense) and has received much more publicity.

The Great Deception
First video to raise issues of 9/11 complicity - published by Barrie Zwicker in January and February 2002.

The Great Conspiracy: the 9/11 News Special You Never Saw
Barrie Zwicker's 2004 sequel to The Great Deception. It is a full length documentary that updates the earlier work. A very good production (for the most part), but the finale includes Thierry Meyssan's "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax.

The Power of Nightmares
a BBC documentary on the rise of the American neo-conservatives and the rise of the radical Islamists, accepts the official story of 9/11 (supposedly a surprise attack) but otherwise is the best history of the circumstances that led to 9/11.


Best 9/11 truth websites (formerly


Best 9/11 "blog" (web-log)

Rigorous Intuition -
written by Jeff Wells (in Toronto, Canada)


Best research guides

The Complete 9/11 Timeline from the Center for Cooperative Research

From the Wilderness (no longer updated, but the archives are still on-line and required reading for any serious scholar of 9/11)


Best analysis of al-Qaeda's role in 9/11

"Peeling the Onion," written by an intelligence insider on the evening of 9/11/2001 - archived at


Best documentation of Pakistan's involvement in 9/11

The Complete 9/11 Timeline from the Center for Cooperative Research has a good section about Pakistan's roles.
Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration?
The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal
Posted at 2 November 2001
note: "Global Research" promotes the idea that Peak Oil is not real and highlights some of the false claims about 9/11, but this article is excellent

Crossing the Rubicon, chapter 8, Setting up the War: Pakistan’s ISI, America’s Agent for Protecting the Taliban and al Qaeda

Daniel Pearl and the Paymaster of 9/11, by Chaim Kupferberg.


Best 9/11 whistleblowers (most credible)

FBI agents investigating the flight schools and al-Qaeda connected money laundering before 9/11:

Coleen Rowley - - her Congressional campaign website (running as a Democrat in Minnesota), would be interesting to see the hearings that would happen if she is elected and the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in November 2006.

Kenneth Williams

Robert Wright


Sibel Edmonds (FBI translator muzzled for trying to expose foreknowledge)

Published on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 by
The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts
by Sibel Edmonds & Bill Weaver
(a good article profiling some of the whistleblowers)

Indira Singh (Ptech)

[now at] - scroll down for Indira Singh's testimony
Indira Singh's testimony to the 9/11 Citizens Commission, New York City, September 9, 2004

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler, vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California -- a US military facility that one or more of the hijackers reportedly attended during the 1990s.

"Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed in the Oval Office by a conservative supreme court. The economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency.... This guy is a joke. What is sleazy and contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain."

Able Danger officers

more about whistleblowers:

Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, by Michael Ruppert (especially the chapter on the FBI whistleblower)

The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistleblowers, and the Cover-up, by Sander Hicks (profiling Randy Glass and Delmart Vreeland)

Welcome to Terrorland: Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida, by Daniel Hopsicker (only investigation of the Florida flight schools used by some of the 9/11 plotters)


Best 9/11 truth propaganda

Deception Dollars - a satirical spoof of the American dollar bill that promotes websites that discuss 9/11 complicity. Over six million deception dollars were distributed at peace rallies and other events from late 2002 through 2005, and were extremely popular with crowds (many who passed them out in public found it hard to pass them out fast enough). The existence of the Deception Dollar campaign was censored from the media - both mainstream and "alternative" - despite the very public aspect of this effort. Unfortunately, every edition of the Deception Dollar included a couple websites that base their claims on hoaxes (some seem deliberate, others are merely incompetent), so the Deception Dollar list is not an automatic list of a guide to the best evidence. This website ( was removed from the Deception Dollar list after pointing out that some of the claims for 9/11 truth are false. In the summer of 2007 the Dollars include links to the Loose Change no-plane movie and the so-called Scholars for 9/11 Truth -- so the "peak" of effectiveness of this campaign is past.


Best analyses of "left gatekeepers" who pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack

left gatekeepers: the stand down of the liberal, alternative media about 9/11

denial is not a river in Egypt, psychological reluctance to confront the full truth

The Nation supports the official stories of JFK (Warren Commission) and 9/11

Norman Solomon FAIR and the Institute for Public Accuracy, helped lead defense of 9/11 official story in 2002

Chip Berlet Right Woos Left: Chip Berlet defends Bush regime against claims of complicity

Democracy Now 90% of their work is good, but they avoid the most important issues

Noam Chomsky Where Noam will not roam: Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK

Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore and setting up the invasion of Saudi Arabia

Mother Jones defends 9/11 cover-up Commission and denies vote fraud in Ohio

Ward Churchill supports "Blowback" paradigm, misses real story of 9/11 complicity

Counterpunch Alexander Cockburn ridicules investigations into 9/11 complicity and vote fraud

Alternative Radio also avoids deeper understanding

Greg Palast great work on vote fraud but not on Peak Oil or 9/11

Institute for Policy Studies "progressive" party line

Inter Press Service liberal news service that dismissed 9/11 International Inquiry in Toronto (May 2004)

MoveOn Democratic Trojan Horse to control dissent

Larry Bensky Pacifica Radio correspondent


Best smears in the media against 9/11 skepticism

Two of the best (most subtle) smears about 9/11 "truth" were an April 29, 2006 USA Today front page review of Loose Change and Mark Morford's promotion of Loose Change in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 29, 2006. Several USA Today reporters saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon while they were driving to work (their offices are not far from the Pentagon). Therefore, the fact this publication chose to highlight a film claiming Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is not a compliment - presumably USA Today (like other media publications) understands that this is one of the fake claims about complicity. While one of the 9/11 war games is known due (in part) to a USA Today story in 2004, this newspaper does not dare list all of the 9/11 war games that are publicly known nor the implication of the simultaneous exercises that day, especially those that resembled real world events. Morford's articles on 9/11 complicity issues are more subtle still - they seem to support the grassroots efforts to investigate yet steer the reader toward the "no plane" claims, away from the real evidence.


Best smear against this website

The most amusing - and bizarre - smear against was an anonymous posting on the Portland Indymedia bulletin board claiming that the Carlyle Group supposedly funds this website. It is a classic COINTELPRO tactic called "snitch jacketing" - an accusation that a genuine activist is a stooge of the government.


Best hoax: Rumsfeld's "Pentagon missile" hoax was the most important disinformation masquerading as 9/11 truth

purpose: alienate those in DC and discredit the skeptics

State Department "Identifying Misinformation" website: a Rosetta Stone to understand 9/11 disinformation
politics and psychology of disinformation

history of "no planes on 9/11" - hoaxes about all four crashes

Pentagon Truth: 9/11 activists debunk the missile hoax

media focus on the hoaxes, ignore best evidence

fake debate: no plane or no complicity? neither is true

similar sabotage against the JFK Truth Movement

TV Minds Propagandized by Photos - electronic hypnosis

Karl Rove uses fake evidence to discredit real scandals

reverse psychology: "new" Pentagon video released May 16, 2006, hiding images fuels hoaxes - it is bait

the 757-sized hole and photos of Boeing parts

suppressed evidence: Flight 77 black boxes found

Eyewitnesses: hundreds of people saw Flight 77, no one saw a missile or small plane hit the building

photos of Pentagon area for those unfamiliar with Washington, D.C.

jokes hidden in plain sight: Pentagate, In Plane Site, Popular Mechanics

In Plane Site, Pentagon Strike, Loose Change ("no plane" hoax films)

no-plane hoax promoters (some are sincere, some are not)

the "pod" plane (a hoax about the WTC plane crashes, 9/11 "pod people")