Using 911facts.dk
How do you get the most out of this site?
Truth Movement
Publications
Booking
We are available for booking a lecture or a workshop here.
We are just asking questions
Those who believe that the terror attack on September 11, 2001, in reality was planned by a conspiracy within the American government often defend themselves with the phrase “we are only asking questions”, thus indicating innocence, healthy skepticism and an excuse from coming up with plausible counter-explanations.
However, asking a question without explaining yourself is often in itself an indirect claim, since a question can be subjectively related to the topic and the context in which the question is asked. This is precisely the technique that the conspiracy theorists use.
One example is, “why are there no recognizable plane parts where Flight 93 crashed?” This question contains a number of more or less direct claims.
Let us look at the different claims embedded in the question:
If this form of argumentation, “we are just asking questions”, is to be regarded as objective and acceptable, the opposite must also be the case. In the following – purely to demonstrate the point – we will “just ask questions.” As long as conspiracy theorists are not prepared to present a documented explanation of how the events on September 11, 2001, may be an inside job, it is vice versa not necessary to explain in detail, why it was a terror attack planned and executed by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. In the questions that follow, we have made an extra effort to point out self-contradictions and/or illogical consequences embedded in the many individual claims that flow freely among conspiracy theorists. The questions span six subjects which cover the most frequently debated areas:
- The premise of the claim is that there should be recognizable plane parts at crash sites in general.
- It follows that if there are nno recognizable plane parts, there cannot be a crashed plane.
- Indirectly, the question presumes that there is agreement on the lack of recognizable plane parts at the crash site in question.
- Finally, the question is a legitimization of an alternative explanation, namely that something else happened to Flight 93 than what is otherwise accepted.
If this form of argumentation, “we are just asking questions”, is to be regarded as objective and acceptable, the opposite must also be the case. In the following – purely to demonstrate the point – we will “just ask questions.” As long as conspiracy theorists are not prepared to present a documented explanation of how the events on September 11, 2001, may be an inside job, it is vice versa not necessary to explain in detail, why it was a terror attack planned and executed by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. In the questions that follow, we have made an extra effort to point out self-contradictions and/or illogical consequences embedded in the many individual claims that flow freely among conspiracy theorists. The questions span six subjects which cover the most frequently debated areas:
Flight 93
There are mainly two claims presented: That Flight 93 was abducted or that it was shot down.- If Flight 93 was abducted, why is there a crash site?
- If Flight 93 was shot down, why did it change course and was heading back before it was shot down? (Because it wasn’t both hijacked and then shot down by the same conspiracy?)
- If the population was to be alarmed, why abduct a plane when a suicidal crash would be more violent and visually frightening?
- If the population was to be alarmed, why shoot down the plane instead of letting it hit its target?
- If the population was to be alarmed, why shoot down the plane in a secluded spot, instead of shooting it down where it would be captured live by television cameras?
- A photo, taken shortly after the crash showing a dust cloud is claimed to be faked, but if someone wanted to fake a photo, why settle for a photo of a dust cloud and not fake a photo or a video of a plane crashing from the sky?
The Pentagon
The most popular claim is that no plane hit the Pentagon.- If the Pentagon was hit by anything else than a plane, why are there debris from a plane at the crash site?
- It is claimed that the debris at the crash site is not from a plane but if that is true, why claim it was from a plane, when it would have been just as alarming if it had been a bomb or a missile?
- Why use a missile or anything else than a passenger plane? That would immediately expose who had “sent” it.
- It is claimed that the authorities are hiding the photos of what really hit the Pentagon, but if the attack was an inside job done by powerful people, why haven’t they faked photos of a plane?
- It is claimed that the terrorists could not steer a plane as controlled as needed to hit the Pentagon where it was hit, but also that the planes hitting the Twin Towers were steered in a very controlled manner. How does that work?
The Twin Towers
The most popular claim is that there were explosives in the Twin Towers.- If there were explosives in the Twin Towers, why let planes hit them as well?
- If there were explosives in the Twin Towers with the goal of scaring and killing, why not time the impact of the planes with ignition of the explosives so that everything would be destroyed at the same time, resulting in many more victims?
- Why not blow up the World Trade Center 7 at that time as well?
- It is claimed that the planes were used to ignite the explosives in the Twin Towers, but why place the ignition spot at different levels (the World Trade Center 1 was hit higher up than the World Trade Center 2)?
- It is claimed that the terrorists had poor flying skills, but if that is true, why let them hit predetermined floors at 800 km/h?
- It is claimed that the planes were remotely controlled and that there were no terrorists at all, but if that is true, why not fake clear photos of the claimed terrorists at the airports?
The World Trade Center 7
The most popular claim is that there were explosives in the World Trade Center 7.- As already asked above, why wait seven hours to blow up the building drawing unnecessary attention?
- If the public were to be alarmed, why wait to blow up the building until after it was evacuated?
- It is claimed that there were several types of explosives used to blow up the building, one being the so-called nanothermite. Why use more than one kind, if conventional explosives were sufficient and would be far easier to get hold of than nanothermite?
- Why use nanothermite at all, if using it would be so spectacular that it immediately would expose who the “sender” was?
- If the plan was to lie about the reason for the collapse, namely fire, why not make sure that fires were clearly seen everywhere from the outside, thus avoiding unnecessary attention?
The motive
The most popular claim is that the U.S. Government planned and executed the terror attack as a political excuse to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other reasons to secure oil supplies to the U.S.- If an excuse was needed to start a war against Iraq and Afghanistan, why claim that it were Saudis who hijacked the planes? Should Saudi Arabia not be invaded instead, a country which has a lot more oil?
- If the population were to be alarmed, why plan four attacks at the same time, each of which could go wrong and expose those who planned it? A single attack would be terrifying enough to achieve political support for just about anything.
- If a powerful conspiracy is behind the terror attack, why has it not killed a lot of those conspiracy theorists working to expose the conspiracy, like Steven Jones or Niels Harrit?
- If the motive was to get easy access to oil, why attack Iraq when Iran would be a much better choice? Iran produces twice the oil that Iraq does, is about the same distance from the U.S., and is hated by just about everyone in the West and the Middle East, especially the clerical rulers which were not exactly to the liking of George W. Bush, a confirmed Christian.
The attack
Finally, some blatantly obvious questions, if conspiracy theorists are to be taken literally:- If a terror attack were to be faked, why not fake one that looked like other terror attacks, instead of planning an executing a unique attack that would draw unnecessary attention to itself, raising suspicion every which way?
- If a secret powerful conspiracy was behind the terror attack on September 11, 2001, why was (and is) the conspiracy on one hand so eminently well organized and on the other almost mindlessly sloppy?