9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h essays

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

"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 ..."

-- excerpts from the book's Introduction and Conclusion


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 LetsRoll911.org. 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:

3 Flight 11: No Mayday Calls (Excusing Air Defense Failures)
4 A Second Aircraft Hits the South Tower (Pushing the Pod-Plane Hoax)
5 The Towers Collapse (Concealing the Controlled Demolitions)
6 Flight 77: Shrouded in Mystery (Perpetuating Pentagon Distractions)
7 Flight 93 (Avoiding Flight 93 Shoot-Down Evidence)

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.
[page 47]

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.
[page 69]

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.
[page 88]

In fact, the cores, like the perimeter walls, 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).
[page 92]

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 Scientific American's 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. (AP 11/23/04).
[page 98]

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, saying, "Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."
[page 98]

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 ..
[page 103]

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 buildings collapsed by earthquakes.

Fallacious Arguments

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' thorough destruction.

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

9/11 Revealed provides a mediocre run-down of the failure to scramble jets, disclosing many of the facts enumerated on our pages describing and analyzing 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: Vigilant Guardian. 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, and here 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, Vigilant Guardian.
  • 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, 9/11 Revealed 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.
[page 54]

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.
[page 56]

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.
[page 81]

This long-ago-debunked pod idea is the subject of 911Review.com's page 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 the caption: "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.

Strategic Omissions

The authors continue to push the no-jetliner theory in subtle ways in subsequent chapters, mostly through a series of omissions.

Concealing the Controlled Demolitions

9/11 Revealed appears to be carefully crafted to conceal evidence of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. Most notably, it avoids disclosing any of the many features 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.
[page 37]

This theme pops up several other places in the book, as when they suggest on page 69 such a "safety measure" would be legitimate, 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.
[page 105]

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 www.thechiefengineer.org:

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 was gone: "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.
[page 70]

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.
[page 95]

The scores of photographs and videos 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, some highly misleading. 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. Searching Google for "building 6 explosion" returns the 911Review.com and 911Research pages as the first results.

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.
[page 91]
If the pancake theory makes no sense, 9/11 believers are left with the impact damage theory, in conflict with the buildings' architects.
[page 93]

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 covered earlier.

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.
[page 92]

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 controlled demolitions. These include:

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. 9/11 Revealed 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.
[page 136]

The book does not reproduce images such as these by Steve Riskus, which show fires spanning over 200 feet of distance along the Pentagon's facade.

In place of real photographs, 9/11 Revealed reproduces what is probably the single most effective piece of propaganda in service of of the no-jetliner theory -- a misleading graphic 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.

Hole Denial

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 ...
[page 129]
... one leading skeptic, Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney ...
[page 137]
www.physics911.org features research papers by scientists like A.K Dewdney
[page 250]

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, ...
[page 140]

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 on 9/11/01. They do, however, provide evidence of a campaign to distract skeptics into pursuing red herrings.

Pentagon Crash Plane Parts: The Standard Hoaxes

9/11 Revealed 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. 9/11 Revealed, like many proponents of no-jetliner theories, minimizes this body of evidence by thoroughly misrepresenting it. It states:

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.
[page 143]

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. More important, it fails to acknowledge the number of accounts that specifically refer to 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.
[page 156]

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.

9/11 Revealed 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 2001.

The illustration from page 161 labels the 2001 al Jazeera video capture 2004 US ELECTION and labels the pre-2004 US election video capture 2001.

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 911Review.com or WTC7.net, except to malign it.

911Research as FEMA Co-Conspirator

The book's only mention of 911Research is the crediting of 911Research.com (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. 21 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. 22
[page 107]

21 "Below Ground Zero, Silver and Gold", New York Times, 1 November 2001
22 National Real Estate Investor, 19 November 2001
[page 240]

Compare this excerpt to the page Missing Gold, which has existed in its current form on 911Research since late 2003. The two references cited by 9/11 Revealed for this story are References 1 and 4 from our page. The $950 million figure comes from 911Research, not from reference 22.

Immediately before its plagiarism of 911Research's report of the missing gold, 9/11 Revealed copies most of the passage excerpted from Salon.com on this page.

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.
[page 97]
NIST's investigation ... was funded with a budget of $30 million.
its investigation 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 mopped up.
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.

Brazen Hypocrisy

The page facing 9/11 Revealed's 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 Gulnara Samoilova. 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. Given the 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
global research
[page 250]

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. 911visibility.org, though once active, is no longer maintained. "Global research" is apparently a reference to the website GlobalResearch.ca, 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.

By including 911Truth.org -- 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.


9/11 Revealed 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