Revealed OR Concealed?
A Critical Review of 9/11 Revealed
by Victoria Ashley and Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, November 6, 2005
11/04/05: 911Research publishes Version 0.9 of this critique
11/06/05: 911Research publishes Version 1.0 of this critique
-- excerpts from the book's Introduction and Conclusion
"It is entirely possible that Al-Qaeda conducted the attacks
without outside help, and that the blunders that contributed
to their terrible success were just that -- blunders, as
the Kean Commission's Report concludes."
"... any single piece of evidence can be explained away
(eg. as a coincidence) ..."
"... there is no irrefutable smoking gun ..."
9/11 Revealed is impressively packaged.
It has 253 pages with scores of color photographs,
and sophisticated graphic design.
The writing is dramatic.
It has a broad scope, and appears to cover most of the
challenges to the official story of the 9/11/01 attack.
The book pretends to speak for the 9/11 Truth Movement.
It is written in the third person, and presents most
challenges as things that "9/11 skeptics"
or "Nine/Eleven skeptics" say.
The undiscerning reader is likely to think that the book
represents the work of the community of
serious independent investigators working
to expose the truth about the attack.
Finding that the book fails to make a strong case
that the attack was the work of insiders,
the reader may conclude, incorrectly,
that investigators have failed to make a compelling case.
In essence 9/11 Revealed
is a slick package designed to sell the numerous hoaxes
that have long been used to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement
as nothing but a bunch of loony conspiracy theorists
lacking the critical thinking skills necessary to correctly evaluate evidence.
Who would write such a book?
Other books purporting to expose the attack as the work of insiders
are also marred by errors, but the skillful way in which
9/11 Revealed embeds red herrings and hoaxes within
a tapestry of seemingly professional reporting suggests
an explanation other than incompetence.
Packaging Poison Pills
A reader who opens the book to a random page
and begins reading will not readily see that the book
is an attempt to discredit challenges to the official story
by misrepresenting them as irrational and ill-conceived.
It is far more subtle than productions like the video
In Plane Site or the website
The professional design, abundant references,
and sober-sounding style of writing
create the illusion of serious reporting.
But the book is anything but that.
Rather, it uses an appearance of journalism in order to insert
numerous poison pills --
ludicrous ideas whose purpose is to discredit challenges
to the official story.
These include, in some form, almost every major hoax that has plagued
the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Thus the book, while appearing reasonable on the surface,
is peppered with nonsense.
Most of the poison pills are covered in the later sections of this essay,
five of which cover the five chapters in Part 2: The Events
which takes up most of the book:
In this section we enumerate a smattering of
loony ideas, fallacious arguments, and simple errors
not covered in later sections.
Even apart from the larger omissions and deceptions
that characterize the book as a whole,
these points have the effect of undermining
any valid points that the book might make.
Equating Scrambles With Interceptions
The FAA says there were 67 interceptions
in the period September 2000 to June 2001.
This statement is obviously a reference to the statement by
NORAD spokesman Maj. Douglas Martin,
referenced here, that
"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets
or diverted combat air patrols 462 times,
almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles
from September 2000 to June 2001."
The authors conflate scrambles (launching fighters)
with interceptions (catching up to the aircraft in distress),
which are two entirely different things.
Demolition as a Legitimate Precaution
The book introduces the idea of that the Twin Towers
might have been brought down through controlled demolition
with the following gem:
Later we consider the evidence that the towers collapsed
as a result of demolition charges,
perhaps legitimately put in place as a precaution against
a catastrophic sideways fall onto neighboring Manhattan.
Steel Into Concrete
Page 88 is the only page in the book's body that shows any
images of the Towers coming down.
The small photographs all show the South Tower
in the first moments of its destruction.
These are easier to reconcile with the idea of gravity-collapse
if one imagines that the Tower's structure was concrete.
The first caption states:
The solid concrete core takes up the majority of the space.
In fact, the
were 100% steel-framed,
and the cores' footprints occupied 27 percent of the towers' footprints,
not a majority.
Exaggerating the 1975 Fire
Chapter 5 gives a wildly inaccurate description of the
1975 fire in the North Tower:
On 23 February 1975, the design had been put to the test:
an intense fire that broke out on the 11th floor
of the World Trade Center.
The fire subsequently spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th floors,
but this fire did not cause failure of the floor trusses
(nor any other major structural feature).
In fact, the fire was confined primarily to the 11th floor,
its spread to other floors apparently limited to cable shafts
in the Tower's core.
The book cites only an unnamed "news report at the time,"
though accurate reports from one and two days after the incident,
such as from the New York Times,
are easy to find.
Setting Up the Melted Steel Straw Man
One of the most successful and dishonest tactics
employed by apologists for the official collapse theory
is to accuse its detractors of mis-stating that theory.
All variants of that theory endorsed by official reports
blame heat-induced weakening -- not melting -- of the structural steel.
By insinuating that all challenges to the theory are based
on misinterpretations of it as blaming steel-melting-fires,
attack pieces such as
Popular Mechanics' and
paint skeptics as ignorant or disingenuous.
9/11 Revealed gives such attacks fresh ammunition
with the following statement.
... a laboratory director [Kevin Ryan] was fired in late 2004
after he wrote a letter to a NIST official
challenging its melting steel explanation of the WTC towers' collapse.
Unlike 9/11 Revealed, Ryan did not equate
the official explanation with the melting of steel.
Deceptively Quoting Bill Manning
In the following excerpt, the book quotes half of a paragraph from
Bill Manning's article
$elling Out the Investigation:
Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed
as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires,
"Respected members of the fire protection engineering community
are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory
The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition
of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."
The authors omit Manning's next sentence:
Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking
the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns
directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time.
Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced,
this could remain just unexplored theory.
By truncating the excerpt from Manning and prefacing the quote
with their interpretation, the authors mislead the reader into thinking
that Manning endorsed the theory of demolition,
when his omitted statement makes it clear that he suggested
that the Towers' construction was to blame.
Undermining Key Points With Blatant Falsehoods
The fact that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever
totally collapsed due to fires before or since 9/11/01
is a persuasive argument undermining the government's explanation
of the events of that day, particularly in regard to WTC 7.
The book effectively vitiates the argument by
grossly overstating it.
A steel-framed building had never collapsed before this day, ever ..
This statement is not qualified as referring only to collapses
due to fire.
In fact, there have been thousands of cases of steel-framed high-rise
collapsed by earthquakes.
The book is peppered with transparently fallacious arguments.
One example is its suggestion, on page 115,
that the aircraft that crashed into
the Twin Towers should have been reconstructed in the way that
Flight 800 was after crashing in the Atlantic Ocean,
as if the debris were comparable.
In fact, most of Flight 800 survived in large pieces,
while the high-speed building crashes on 9/11/01
apparently shredded or liquified most of those jetliners,
and any remains were further degraded by the Towers'
Another example is the two paragraphs the book spends, on page 119,
questioning how the the alleged hijackers of Flight 77 smuggled
box-cutters onto the plane
(in pre-9/11/01 security that didn't prohibit them),
noting "there was no sign of the notorious box-cutters."
Excusing Air Defense Failures
provides a mediocre run-down of the failure to scramble jets,
disclosing many of the facts enumerated on our pages
the multiple failures in air defense.
Poison pills like
confusing scrambles with interceptions
will allow the critical reader to dismiss any valid points made.
Hiding Multiple War Games
The book mentions only a single war game exercise:
It makes no mention evidence of as many as four other exercises
also coincidentally planned for the time-frame of 9/11/01.
These are well documented on websites cited by the book, such as
such as FromTheWilderness.com,
on 911Research, from which the book apparently lifted so much
material without credit.
- Operation Northern Vigilance:
This apparently had the effect of removing air defense resources
away from the northeast corridor into northwest Canada.
- Operation Vigilant Warrior:
This may have been a counterpart for the exercise they mention,
- The National Reconnaissance Office Plane Crash Drill:
This exercise, simulating a plane crashing into the NRO's headquarters,
disabled one of the office's functions --
that of monitoring airborne objects --
while the attack unfolded.
- The Tripod II Biowarfare Exercise:
This had the effect of deploying FEMA to Manhattan in advance of the attack.
By mentioning only one exercise,
makes the war game issue seem easily explainable as a coincidence.
War Games as an Excuse
Conducting a combined anti-hijacking exercise on the symbolic date of 9/11
(the USA's emergency telephone number for all rescue services)
would appeal to the military mind,
not Al-Qaeda, for whom it has no meaning.
The fact that the date is significant in the U.S.
is evidence that the attack was the work of insiders
rather than Islamic fundamentalists.
But instead of noting this in relation to the planning of the attack,
the book uses it to suggest that the scheduling of the war game exercise
on 9/11 was not a suspicious coincidence.
The NORAD exercise Vigilant Guardian provides some sort of explanation
for the failure of the FAA to alert the US military.
Rather than pointing out that apologists for the official theory
could use the war game
as an excuse for the military response failures,
the authors themselves excuse the failures.
Pushing the Pod-Plane Hoax
Most of Chapter 4, entitled
A Second Aircraft Hits the South Tower
is devoted to promoting the nonsensical claim that the
South Tower was hit by something other than Flight 175 --
a mysterious plane equipped with a pod.
The centerpiece of this hoax is the tired assertion
that a pod was mounted under the jetliner that hit the South Tower:
A millisecond before the impact with the South Tower,
something like a blast flame appears at the nose
of the attacking airliner, which seems to have some kind
of bulbous housing attached beneath its fuselage
just aft of the engines.
This long-ago-debunked pod idea is the subject of
ERROR: A Pod Was Attached to the South Tower Plane.
Look Ma, No Resolution
Page 82 reproduces three video frames which the authors assert show
the "bulbous housing on the underside of the attacking plane"
and "the pod".
It reproduces a fourth photo at a fraction of the size with
"this hazy grab taken from the east shows no pod below the fuselage,"
failing to note the extremely poor resolution of the frames
they claim show the "pod."
This illustration on page 82 shows three grainy video frames --
two from the Fairbanks footage, and one likely Photoshopped --
to assert that the plane had a "pod".
If It's Orange, It Must Be Napalm
Page 84 juxtaposes a photograph of an orange fireball
from a battlefield napalm explosion next to two photographs
of the South Tower crash fireball,
with the following caption:
Here is napalm being deployed by the US Air Force.
Some 9/11 skeptics say a drone plane was loaded with napalm
to create a news spectacular.
The authors do not question this conclusion,
and fail to note that the combustion of nearly all aerosolized
hydrocarbons produced orange fireballs.
The authors continue to push the no-jetliner theory in subtle ways
in subsequent chapters, mostly through a series of omissions.
- They fail to note Nicholas DeMasi's account of the recovery
of three of the four
at Ground Zero.
- They fail to mention reports of the
identification of passenger remains
at Ground Zero.
- They emphasize that authorities have not verified the identities
of the crashed planes by documenting part numbers from plane wreckage,
but fail to acknowledge that the same authorities have successfully
resisted calls for the release of any shred of evidence from the crime,
a few exceptions.
Concealing the Controlled Demolitions
appears to be carefully crafted to conceal evidence
of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
Most notably, it avoids disclosing any of the
of the Towers' destruction that indicate controlled demolition.
However, the authors don't stop at that.
They contextualize the question of demolition as incidental
to how the attack was engineered,
and cast it as something that only experts can understand.
Demolition as Incidental
Long before getting to its very cursory and tepid questioning
of the official collapse explanations in Chapter 5,
the authors begin minimizing the importance of the possibility
of controlled demolition of the Towers in Chapter 2,
named Alternative Scenarios.
After a lengthy description of Operation Northwoods,
and a run down of
LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and
MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) scenarios,
the authors relegate the idea of controlled demolition of
the Twin Towers to a short list of "add-ons"
that are compatible with LIHOP or MIHOP,
and immediately add:
If this comes to light it can be explained as a safety measure
to bring them straight down, avoiding a truly disastrous side-ways fall.
This theme pops up several other places in the book,
as when they suggest on page 69 such a "safety measure" would be
and in an illustration in Chapter 5 with the following caption.
The fires in the Twin Towers posed a serious menace to
the prestigious corporate properties that clustered
around their feet, most of them banks with access to expensive litigators.
With the exception of some collateral damage in the immediate area,
the collapse of the towers saved the corporate neighbors' properties
from being hit by toppling towers, and the New York Port Authority
from major liability suits.
The illustration does double duty:
it underscores the idea of a legitimate explanation
for rigging the Towers with explosives,
and it asserts that fires could have toppled the Towers.
The Basement Bombs Distraction
The book amplifies the story that powerful explosions in the
basements coincided with the impacts of the jetliners.
It relates as if undisputed fact an obscure story from
a now defunct website
Mike Pecararo was an engineer working with an colleague
in the lowest basement of the North Tower when the attack happened.
They were told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until
the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however,
the room they were in began to fill with a white smoke.
The two decided to ascend the stairs to a small machine-shop,
but according to Mike, "There was nothing there but rubble ...
We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press? Gone!"
The two made their way to the parking garage but found that too
"There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor,
and you can't see anything," Mike said.
They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby.
As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were
astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed
about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil"
and lying on the floor.
Having been through the 1993 bombing, Mike recalled seeing
similar things happen to the building's structure.
He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.
There appears to be no credible corroboration of this report --
although it is repeated hundreds of times in the echo chamber
of websites dutifully repeating hoaxes that masquerade as
9/11 truth exposure --
yet it occupies the first few pages of the book in which the
topic of controlled demolition is broached.
This story serves to distract from actual evidence of
the controlled demolitions of the towers, which
started 56 and 102 minutes later, and
80 and 95 floors higher than the alleged basement explosions
related in this story.
Avoiding the Visual Evidence
Despite having an abundance of color photographs,
the book displays no images of the explosive destruction of the
Twin Towers, save 3 small images of the South Tower less than
two seconds into its destruction.
This photograph shows the North Tower about 6.5 seconds
into its destruction.
The entire book contains only three photographs showing
the South Tower coming down, and none of the North Tower.
All three images are small, and all show early moments of the event,
before the explosiveness is fully evident.
Instead of disclosing the smoking-gun evidence indicating
controlled demolition, the book leads the reader to believe
that no such evidence exists.
The essential evidence needed to identify the cause of the collapse
and intensity of the fire was lost.
The scores of
of the Towers' destruction are hard physical evidence
which can be used to prove the thesis of controlled demolition
on the basis of quantitative measurements.
The authors act as though these bodies of evidence
don't exist, failing to even provide a reference to where the
readers might find this visual evidence.
Amplifying Arguments From Authority
The portion of the book that questions the official explanation
of the collapses of the Twin Towers as impact- and fire-induced
consists of a few pages dominated by quotations of experts,
It notes the
initial candid reaction and later retraction
of Van Romero, but fails to report the rewards he received.
It states that
"the ongoing controversy flared up again"
when Kevin Ryan was fired,
as if no serious challenges to the official story were raised
by anyone other than Ryan since Romero's initial statement.
The book's reliance on experts in questioning the WTC building collapses,
combined with its avoidance of photographs of the Twin Towers exploding,
reinforces the notion that the question of whether the buildings
were demolished is beyond the grasp of ordinary people.
911Research argues that the opposite is true:
that only common sense and high school physics are
required to conclude that the the Towers did not self-destruct,
but were systematically destroyed.
This position is encapsulated in the title of Hoffman's interview
Your Eyes Don't Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the WTC Collapses
Belaboring the Building 6 Explosion Hoax
Chapter 5 is sprinkled with a more generous helping of
poison pills than the rest of the book,
apparently to assure that critical readers won't take
the possibility of controlled demolition seriously.
An example the authors' insertion of the Building 6 explosion myth on Page 90.
The idea that WTC Building 6 was cratered by an explosion,
debunked by 911Research starting in mid-2003,
may have started as an innocent error.
The impressive hole in Building 6 suggests an explosion to
some people who fail to appreciate
the kinetic energy and non-uniform distribution
of thousands of tons of steel falling from the adjacent North Tower.
However, a detailed review of the evidence from the attack,
such as the continuous TV coverage, and the
hundreds of oral histories,
rules out the theory that the building suffered a giant explosion.
This illustration on page 90 tells the reader what to see
in an image without very good resolution.
Many better images of the damage to Building 6 can be found
in 911Research's archive of
Ground Zero photographs.
The idea that a rising cloud of dust shows such an explosion
has long been conclusively debunked:
Analysis disproving the authors' interpretation of the
damage to Building 6 is not difficult to find.
Google for "building 6 explosion"
returns the 911Review.com and 911Research pages as the
Muddling the Damage+Fire Collapse Theory
The authors present the "pancake theory"
(where fires caused the floors to collapse)
and the "impact damage theory"
(where damage from the jet impacts caused to columns to fail)
as two separate and mutually-exclusive theories
advanced to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers.
The pancake theory arose when the instant media wisdom --
that damage to the structures had caused the collapses --
had to be abandoned.
If the pancake theory makes no sense,
9/11 believers are left with the impact damage theory,
in conflict with the buildings' architects.
In fact, every theory endorsed by an official government report,
and most media reports,
have blamed a combination of crash impacts and fire damage
for the total collapses.
By blatantly mis-stating the entirety of official explanations,
the authors invite wholesale dismissal,
not only of their own disingenuous treatment of the collapse question,
but also challenges by sincere skeptics,
for whom they pretend to speak.
Another example of the authors' setting up skeptics for attack
by misrepresenting their challenges to the official theories
is their trotting out of the
melted steel straw man
Still another example is their attribution to
"Nine/Eleven skeptics" a paper by an anonymous individual
attacking a straw man.
Nine/Eleven skeptics have calculated that the entire 10,000
gallons of jet fuel from the aircraft, injected into one floor
of the World Trade Center, and burned with perfect efficiency,
would have raised the temperature of the floor to 536ºF
(280ºC) at the most.
Aside from making the assumption that the heat was uniformly
distributed throughout a floor,
including the concrete slabs that would resist heating,
the point of the paper is basically irrelevant because
the official theories primarily blame the burning of office contents
for elevating temperatures of steelwork,
saying that the jet fuel fires acted mainly as an ignition source.
Avoiding Comparisons to Controlled Demolitions
For the many pages 9/11 Revealed
spends describing alleged controversies among experts
attempting to explain the collapses,
and details of the cleanup operation,
it gives no space at all to one of the most damning observations
about the fate of the Twin Towers:
that their destruction showed many characteristics observed
in controlled demolitions and never observed outside of
The fact that the destruction of the Twin Towers shares these
characteristics with standard controlled demolitions
creates a strong prima facie case for controlled demolition
being the cause of their destruction.
The few ways in which the Towers' destruction differs
from standard demolitions actually makes the case for
the Towers' demolition stronger:
- The more thorough extent of the Towers' destruction
required more energy (more explosives) to achieve.
- The top-down sequence of the Towers' destruction
required more energy, since there was less mass above the
collapse zones to crush them.
The observation that the Towers' destruction showed many features
unique to controlled demolitions
has been promininently featured by this website --
one of the most visible of the sites challenging the official story --
and by renowned theologian David Ray Griffin.
Morgan and Henshall, while pretending to question the official
collapse theory, chose to devote not even one paragraph
to this persuasive point,
which goes to the heart of the crimes of 9/11/01.
Perpetuating Pentagon Distractions
The Pentagon "no-plane" hoax has been the most successful
tool used to discredit the broad range of challenges
to the official story.
Hoffman commented on its use in his essay
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics.
devotes most of Chapter 6 to repeating a series of
tired and fallacious arguments about the Pentagon attack
that revolve around the no-jetliner theory.
Deceptive Use of Photographs
The book has no photos showing the extent of fires following
the Pentagon crash, and states:
... assuming [the fireball] was an inefficient combustion,
there should still have been hundreds, if not thousands,
of gallons of burning kerosene in front of the Pentagon,
of which there is little sign.
The book does not reproduce images such as these by
which show fires spanning over 200 feet of distance along the
In place of real photographs,
reproduces what is probably the single most effective piece
of propaganda in service of of the no-jetliner theory --
by "Silent but Deadly"
that subtly reinforces people's misconceptions about the solidity of aircraft.
Far from being stainless steel slugs as the "simulation" implies,
aircraft such as jetliners are lightweight and fragile,
skinned with aluminum less than 2 millimeters thick.
The tradition of radically mischaracterizing the dimensions of the
impact hole in the Pentagon's facade
extends back to at least early 2002,
when Thierry Meyssan promoted the Pentagon missile strike theory
in his worldwide-marketed books, translated into 25 languages.
Many missile theorists have since claimed that the hole in the
facade was 18 feet across or less,
displaying a photograph by James Ingersol,
in which foam spray obscures the 90-foot-expanse of breached walls
on the first floor.
Morgan and Henshall continue the tradition,
with a caption for the same photograph reading:
The lawn is unmarked, and there appears to be no blow-back debris
from the wings, tail-plane or rear fuselage.
How did a 116-tonne 757 disappear into the Pentagon through
a double-window-width cavity? What happened to the engines?
There is no sign of one to the right of the hole and no hole
for it to have passed through.
The following debunking of 9/11 Revealed's recycled claims
regarding the lawn, debris, and hole have been on 911Review.com
since late 2004.
A. K. Dewdney, Again and Again
The book repeatedly praises "leading skeptic" A. K. Dewdney:
... AK Dewdney, a Canadian academic and long time
Scientific American contributor ...
... one leading skeptic, Scientific American columnist
A. K. Dewdney ...
www.physics911.org features research papers by scientists like A.K Dewdney
The book fails to provide the more accurate description of Dewdney
as a former writer for the magazine's mathematical amusements column.
Dewdney is one of the only "9/11 skeptics" mentioned in the book,
another being "researcher Karl Schwarz" on page 143.
Dewdney is cited in the Pentagon chapter to support the point that
"not nearly enough heat was generated to turn the tail into vapor."
This is a straw-man argument, because there was more than enough
debris in front of the facade to account for the vertical tail section.
The Pentagon's CCTV Frames: Stale Bait
The book misleadingly states that
"the Pentagon released to the Associated Press"
five frames from a Pentagon CCTV camera,
when in fact they were leaked by an anonymous source.
It briefly mentions that
"some skeptics think they are completely faked,"
citing one of several
clear signs of forgery.
However, the page that reproduces three of the frames
does not question their authenticity.
The captions include the following:
The only explanation for this white smoke (apart from an air vortex)
is that it is a rocket engine trail from a guided missile.
The missile conclusion is supported by evidence in the second image, ...
Given the lack of a credible source of the frames
and the evidence they were edited,
they don't support any conclusions about what attacked the Pentagon
They do, however, provide evidence of a campaign to distract
skeptics into pursuing red herrings.
Pentagon Crash Plane Parts: The Standard Hoaxes
uses a common deception to assert that engine parts photographed
at the Pentagon do not match those of a 757,
by showing a photograph of an intact engine in which only the
fan is visible, implying that all the engine rotors have
the same diameter as the fan.
In fact, the high-pressure compressor and turbine rotors in
such an engine match the one in the photo,
as explained in 911Review.com's page
ERROR: Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757.
Pentagon Eyewitnesses: The Standard Misrepresentations
The Pentagon no-jetliner theories are contradicted by
an extensive body of eyewitness accounts.
like many proponents of no-jetliner theories,
minimizes this body of evidence by thoroughly misrepresenting it.
Those who confirm the official story are in the majority,
but many are quoted indirectly or in short snatches,
and it is not clear that they positively identify a passenger jet.
Compare this statement with this
analysis of the eyewitness statements.
The authors employ one of the most common techniques used
to misrepresent and discredit the eyewitnesses:
cherry-picking accounts and excerpts of accounts
while hiding the larger body of evidence.
It quotes Lon Raines saying
"I was convinced it was a missile.
It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane."
But it fails to note that neither he nor any other witness
reported seeing a missile,
or that few people have heard a jetliner flying a few feet
overhead at 400 mph.
it fails to acknowledge the number of accounts that specifically
sighting a jetliner
consistent with a Boeing 757 and American Airlines Flight 77.
Dishonestly, the authors quote Mike Walter saying that it
"was like a cruise missile with wings" (on page 144),
while ignoring the context of his statement,
which is obvious from the full quotation:
I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet,
an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought,
'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'
I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings.
It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.
A Critical Omission
The book provides considerable detail on the
location of the Pentagon strike.
However, it omits any mention that the attack was, in effect,
a surgical strike whose victims inside the building
were mostly employees of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).
This is a vital point, because it suggests a possible motive
of the Pentagon attack: to eliminate a team of investigative experts
who were not part of the inside job.
Avoiding Flight 93 Shoot-Down Evidence
The book devotes its ten-page Chapter 7 to Flight 93,
only to avoid the three strongest pieces of evidence
that the jetliner was shot down.
It sandwiches shoot-down theories between two hoaxes:
the so-called Cleveland airport mystery,
and the suggestion that no plane crashed where Flight 93
plunged into the ground in Shanksville.
The Cleveland Airport Mystery Hoax
The book devotes an entire subchapter to amplifying the
alleged Cleveland airport mystery,
which is nothing more than one of many instances of
confusion on the day of the attack.
Hiding the Real Evidence
The conclusive evidence that Flight 93 was shot down
at 10:03 is all but invisible in the book.
That evidence includes the following.
the one-ton engine part lying 1.2 miles from the crash site.
Press reports described the engine part as being 200 yards
or "more than 1/2 mile" from the primary debris field.
By radically mis-stating the one piece of shoot-down evidence
it discloses, the book discredits the point.
The No-Jetliner Hoax, Case 4
Since the denial of jetliners has been so successful in
marginalizing the 9/11 Truth Movement in the cases of the
the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, why not use the same strategy
for Flight 93?
Like many of the book's poison pills, this one is inserted
on the sly, in the form of captions of small crash-site images.
One such caption reads, "Is this really where Flight 93 crashed?
Where is the wreckage?"
For some background on the idea that Flight 93 didn't crash
in Shanksville, see the
Flight 93 Crash Debris
section of Hoffman's recent essay on Morgan Reynolds.
Burying the Bin Laden Confession Hoax
One irrefutable smoking gun showing the fraudulence of the official story
is the "confession video" released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001
to "prove" that Osama bin Laden was behind the attack.
In the video, a man we were told is bin Laden supposedly
claims responsibility for the attack.
However, a comparison of this video to
earlier videos of bin Laden shows that
the confessor in the video cannot be bin Laden
because he has a different facial structure.
buries this smoking gun by mislabeling images of bin laden
and his impostors.
Page 161 reproduces three images alleged to be of bin Laden,
one from an early 2001 al Jazeera video showing the real bin Laden (left),
one from the confession video (middle),
and one from a video run days before the 2004 US election (right).
Both the confession and US election videos show men with noses
much squatter than the real bin Laden's.
However, the book switches the labels for the
2004 US election video and the 2001 al Jazeera video.
The result is that the odd man out becomes the one labeled
2004 US ELECTION,
subtly telling the reader that the man labeled
DEC 2001 (the confessor) is the real bin Laden,
since he more closely matches the man labeled
The illustration from page 161 labels the 2001 al Jazeera video capture
2004 US ELECTION
and labels the pre-2004 US election video capture
Maligning and Plagiarising 911Research
A suspiciously large amount of material in the book appears
to have been taken from the 9-11 Research website
without crediting it.
In several cases
9/11 Revealed contains specific language and numbers
uniquely reported by 911Research.
Yet the the book does not credit 911Research,
nor its companion websites
except to malign it.
911Research as FEMA Co-Conspirator
The book's only mention of 911Research is the crediting
(the backup mirror for the primary site, 911Research.wtc7.net)
in the credit for an image showing an engine piece near Ground Zero.
As the following scan from the book shows,
that image sits next to a photo from FEMA's WTC
Building Performance Study.
This illustration on page 114 pairs 911research.com with FEMA
and is the only reference in the book to 911Research,
the undisclosed source of much of the book's material.
The illustration is situated in a span of
about eight pages whose apparent purpose is to undermine
the accounts of Flights 11 and 175 crashing into the Twin Towers.
Insinuating that FEMA covered up the crashes of different aircraft
by destroying and planting evidence,
the authors imply that 911Research is part of the cover-up.
Credit for the image of the jetliner engine part actually
belongs to the Naudet Brothers, since the
frame is extracted from their documentary.
Gold Heist Story Heist
One of the more egregious examples of the book's appropriation
without credit of 911Research's reporting
is its paragraph covering the discrepancy between
the value of precious metals reportedly stored
under the World Trade Center
and the value reported recovered after the attack.
9/11 Revealed copies this image, along with the
gist of 911Research's original reporting,
without crediting 911Research.
Some $230 million worth of gold was discovered in a lorry
in a tunnel under the Center in November 2001.
We have seen no reports of other caches being found.
However, Comex was reported to have at least $950 million
worth of gold stored in its vault under the Center,
and the fate of that haul remains unknown.
21 "Below Ground Zero, Silver and Gold", New York Times,
1 November 2001
22 National Real Estate Investor, 19 November 2001
Compare this excerpt to the page
which has existed in its current form on 911Research since
The two references cited by
for this story are References 1 and 4 from our page.
The $950 million figure comes from 911Research, not from
Immediately before its plagiarism of 911Research's
report of the missing gold,
copies most of the passage excerpted from Salon.com on
NIST Analysis, Compliments of 911Research
9/11 Revealed's description of NIST's investigation
appears to have been copied almost verbatim from 911Research,
again without credit.
Compare its excerpts (with line breaks added) to excerpts from
911Research's page on NIST as of April 4, 2005
(about four months before 9/11 Revealed was published).
Although it was funded with a budget of $30 million
it worked on the premise of the official story, namely,
that the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 resulted
from the impacts of scheduled airliners.
In its 7 May 2003 news release on the progress of its
investigation, it seemed clear that the agency had been
hampered in its investigation by a lack of access to evidence.
NIST's investigation ... was funded with a budget of $30 million.
is being conducted strictly within the confines of the official story --
that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 resulted
from the jetliner impacts.
In its May 7, 2003 News Release on the progress of its investigation,
there is clear evidence that the agency has been
hampered in its investigation by a lack of access to evidence.
The book does not provide any references for its two paragraphs on NIST.
The previous paragraph, about FEMA, also borrows language
from 911Research's NIST page.
FEMA eventually allocated a mere $600,000 to fund the only investigation
of the building collapses that functioned before the site had been
This contrasts with the $600,000 allocated by FEMA to fund the only
investigation of the building collapses that functioned before
the site had been mopped up.
The page facing
copyright page is graced with one of the most dramatic
images from the attack:
a photograph taken from within 1000 feet from the South Tower's base
about two seconds into the Tower's explosive destruction.
9/11 Revealed uses this image, which shows the South Tower
about 2 seconds after the downward movement of its top started,
for dramatic effect.
The book contains no images of the North Tower's destruction or
of the South Tower's after this moment.
The image is not credited.
The same image is reproduced on page 88 with a caption ending in
"Copyright: Amy Sancetta".
In fact, the photograph was taken by
The authors do not credit Samoilova anywhere in their book.
Samoilova risked her life to take the photograph
and was exposed to the toxic dust cloud that reached her position
within fifteen seconds.
composition of the dust cloud,
which was up to
four percent asbestos,
Samoilova qualifies a one of the victims described in the dedication.
Yet the book avoids the subject of the
health and environmental catastrophe
produced by the Towers' destruction,
and lacks even the most cursory treatment
of the human cost of the attack.
The hypocrisy of the dedication is that the two groups it mentions --
victims of the events of 11 September 2001 and
activists of the 9/11 Truth Movement --
are the two groups most maligned by the book's
plagiarism, omissions, misdirection, and hoax-mongering.
Wrapping Itself in the 9/11 Truth Flag
On the last page of its bibliography,
9/11 Revealed lists exactly five websites as follows:
www.physics911.org features research papers by scientists like A.K Dewdney
This list sandwiches three serious 9/11 truth websites
between two that feature hoaxes.
Physics911.org promotes science fiction like Operation Pearl,
the Pentagon no-jetliner-crash theory, and a long list of hoax websites.
though once active, is no longer maintained.
"Global research" is apparently a reference to the website
the authors chose not to name directly.
This omission will vastly reduce the number of the book's readers
who go on to visit the Global Research site,
since ".ca" is not a domain suffix familiar to most Americans.
a website that represents a variety
of mainstream views among the 9/11 Truth Movement,
the authors reinforce the impression that they are speaking
for the Movement.
However, one will be hard-pressed to find any advocacy
of the many hoaxes promoted in this book
on the pages of 911Truth.org, GlobalResearch.ca, or 911visibility.org.
In contrast to these sites, 911Dossier.co.uk --
a site associated with author Henshall --
promotes many of the nonsensical theories advanced in the book.
is a kind of print version of the website 911Dossier.co.uk:
a site that does not scream "Disinformation!"
but nonetheless promotes numerous hoaxes and deflects attention
away from evidence that proves official complicity in the attack.
Readers who have not researched the attack will probably overlook
the book's critical omissions,
such as its avoidance of the direct evidence
of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.
Also, such readers may be unaware that the very hoaxes promoted by the book
have long been used to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement.
While pretending to reveal,
the book subtly reinforces the official story in numerous ways.
It states up front that the official story may be true,
and then pretends to expose problems in it
while surreptitiously undermining those criticisms
with numerous hoaxes, poison pills, straw man arguments,
and strategically avoided evidence.
Copyright (c) 911Research.WTC7.net 2005