Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

September 11th


Other Stuff


Page By Category

September 11th Conspiracies - What Do We Know? - Page 4

Author: Muertos
Added: August 9, 2010
Discuss: Discuss this article

This is page four of the September 11th: What Do We Know? article. If you were linked here by mistake, please refer to page one in this section.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Part 1: World Trade Center Towers--Basic Facts
  3. Part 2: Hijack and Collapse--Cause and Effect
  4. Part 3: Responsibility
  5. Part 4: Peripheral Issues--What's Not Covered Here And Why
  6. Part 5: This Account of What Happened vs. Alternative Theories--Why You Can't Be Agnostic Anymore
  7. Conclusion: What Can We Know?

Part 4: Peripheral Issues--What's Not Covered Here And Why

Pentagon & Shanksville, PA Attacks

For purposes of this document, it is not necessary to analyze the attack on the Pentagon (by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77) or the crash of hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 in order to prove the general factual outline of the September 11 attacks as presented by this document. All available evidence regarding the Pentagon and Shanksville attacks is entirely consistent with what has already been proven in this document regarding the World Trade Center attacks.

Logically, since we have proven that the WTC attacks were deliberate terrorist attacks by Al Qaida, it makes no sense that either the Pentagon attack or Flight 93--each of whom utilized the same modus operandi as the WTC attacks, and exhibit exactly the same evidentiary clues--could have arisen from any other cause. It is illogical that someone would fake one or two other terror attacks simultaneously with two real terrorist attacks that occur in exactly the same way, and there is no evidence to support that theory anyway. Consequently, the Pentagon and Shanksville attacks must also be Al Qaida terrorist strikes--which is exactly what all the evidence indicates.

More on Pentagon attack:

More on Flight 93:

World Trade Center 7

Similarly, the collapse of World Trade Center 7, a 40+ story skyscraper later on the afternoon of September 11, does not need to be proven here in order to prove the general factual outline of the September 11 attacks as presented by this document. All available evidence regarding WTC7 is entirely consistent with what has already been proven here.

WTC7 was severely damaged by debris that struck it when the main WTC towers collapsed. Uncontrolled fires raged inside the building for several hours, and ultimately its structure was weakened to the point where it collapsed. Again, as with Pentagon and Flight 93, it makes no sense that, given the fact we've proven the main WTC towers were felled by terror strikes, WTC7 could have collapsed from any other cause. All of the evidence proves that WTC7 collapsed from this cause--a result which we could predict ahead of time anyway using logic. This is why WTC7 is not relevant to this document, because the proof of the September 11 attacks does not depend on it.

More on WTC7:

Other Hijackers

As stated in the introduction to Part 3, I focused only on Mohammed Atta in the nature of brevity, and to avoid needless repetition. There is evidence similar to Atta's linking all 19 of the hijackers (20 if you count Moussaoui) to Al Qaida as well as placing them on the hijacked planes. It is not necessary to lay out all this evidence for purposes of proving the basic sequence of events and causation of 9/11 presented here; however, if you investigate this evidence, you will discover it is all consistent with the conclusions stated here.

Many people pushing alternative theories will claim "some of the hijackers are still alive." We have dealt with that claim with respect to Mohammed Atta; if you are interested in a more in-depth analysis of that issue with respect to all the hijackers, it's covered here:


Many people advancing alternative theories will attempt to raise questions regarding the accuracy or alleged bias of official investigations into 9/11, along the lines of "the 9/11 Commissioners admitted it was a sham" or "the NIST report was fixed." None of these claims are borne out by evidence, but it is not necessary for this document to examine those issues, since we have shown that what happened on 9/11 can be amply proven without endorsing these investigations.

Discrepancies & Anomalies

For as complex an event as it was, there is surprisingly little we don't know about 9/11, but there are some things. Some of the details of the hijackers' actions in the days before the disaster, for example, are sketchy. There are also gaps and questions in the background of figures such as Mohammed Atta. Much of what we don't know focuses on bureaucratic issues--could the attacks have been recognized and prevented ahead of time? How well did U.S. counterterrorism policy work before 9/11? These are all legitimate questions.

However, they are not relevant to this document, for this reason which must be clearly understood: once you prove something happened, the explanations for all the discrepancies or anomalies, whatever those explanations are, must be consistent with what you have already proven. In other words, once we have proven the basic skeleton of events on 9/11, whatever we don't know about 9/11 can't affect what we have already proven--if it could, we could not have reached those conclusions in the first place.

Example: there is confusion about whether Mohammed Atta went to Prague in April 2001. Although investigators believe he probably didn't, and the man thought to be him was actually somebody else, we don't know for sure. This is an unanswered question. However, because we have proven that Mohammed Atta boarded AA11, hijacked it, and that he was doing so as an agent of Al Qaida, whether he went to Prague in April or not can't alter the proof of that conclusion. Whatever it was he was doing in Prague (or whether he was there at all), it must be consistent with what we already know to be true. That is not an excuse for not bothering to find out whether he did or did not go to Prague, but it is an illustration of why that question is less important than others in the 9/11 event.

Page Navigation: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ]