Like all things 9/11, this video is going
to stir a lot of emotions in a lot of people,
and it’s going be controversial no matter
how well I present what I have to say – and
so, with this in mind, I want to begin with
a few caveats. The first is that the purpose
of this video isn’t to debunk all 9/11 conspiracies,
but rather, it’s to debunk just a few of
what I personally found to be the most compelling
arguments, before doing adequate research.
The second is that I’m going to assume that
you accept independent reputable sources,
and that you don’t think that just about
every major establishment is part of the conspiracy.
If you think the planes were holograms, for
example, then just leave a dislike, an angry
comment, and move along. The third is that
there’s no way that I can sufficiently cover
every aspect of every argument within this
short video, and so please just bear that
in mind. The fourth is that no matter which
conspiracy arguments I take on, in the mind
of a conspiracy theorist, they’re going
to be the wrong ones, and I’m going to be
accused of not taking on the ‘real arguments’.
Well, in pre-emptive response to this, just
let me know which arguments you’d like me
to take on within a second video – but provide
resources. And I mean real resources, not
documentaries or conspiracy blogs, but the
resources that these documentaries and conspiracy
blogs reference. And my final caveat is that
my sincere condolences go out everyone affected
by the events of 9/11. Researching for this
video has been emotional, and I’m deeply
sorry for your loss. So, with all of that
said, let’s get on with it – this, is
Nine 9/11 Conspiracy Arguments – Debunked.
Now just before we begin, I want to quickly
remind you of the official story (which is
one that I accept). On September 11, 2001,
four U.S commercial airliners were hijacked
by 19 Islamic terrorists, who then proceeded
to crash two of the planes into the North
and South towers of the World Trade Centre.
Unfortunately, within hours, both towers collapsed,
causing significant structural damage and
fires to surrounding structures, including
building 7, which also subsequently collapsed.
The third plane was crashed into the United
States Department of Defence (the Pentagon),
and the fourth plane was crashed into a field
in Pennsylvania, likely due its passengers
heroically overcoming the hijackers. It’s
one of the most traumatising events in American
history, and it’s become the motherload
of conspiracies… Anyhow, with that said,
let’s begin. Number 1: 9/11 was a pretext
for the War on Terror. “The Americans would
not have been able to invade Iraq or Afghanistan
if it wasn’t for 9 /11!” At the heart
of most 9/11 conspiracies is the accusation
that the events of 9/11 were either condoned
by the United States government, or carried
out by the government as a false flag operation,
as a pretext for launching the War on Terror.
And one of the biggest arguments for this
narrative is that without 9/11 the United
States would not have been able to invade
the Middle East. Now first of, it simply has
to be said that even if this were the case,
it would not prove the conspiracy… This
is just as absurd as asserting that because
‘the United States would not have been able
to invade Japan if it wasn’t for Pearl Harbour,
the events of Pearl Harbour must’ve been
an inside job. Oh, yeah, that’s right…
such conspiracies do exist… Furthermore,
and to hit this from another angle, the United
States could’ve easily justified the War
on Terror through other, cheaper, and far
less risky means. Rather than relying on the
silence of hundreds, if not thousands of ordinary
people, causing over 10 billion dollars in
damage, and making it look like the terrorists
were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt rather than
Iraq and Afghanistan, they could’ve, for
example, simply allowed the Iraqi forces who
had been shooting at their planes for over
a year to actually hit a few… Number 2:
None of the supposed hijackers boarded the
planes. Needless to say, if this assertion
is true, then the official story is false,
because without hijackers you can’t have
hijacked planes, and without hijacked planes
you can’t have hijacked planes crashing
into buildings. Indeed, if this assertion
is true, then it’s damning… but as it
turns out, it’s not… it’s simply false.
There’s tons of evidence proving that the
hijackers boarded the planes. For example,
and to emphasis just a handful of this evidence,
we have passport documentations of the hijackers
entering America; documentations of four of
them attending flight schools “His attitude
was so bad that one of the instructors that
flew with him just said that he wasn't going
to fly with him anymore... so that was the
end of that”; recordings of them accidentally
broadcasting from the cockpit to Air Traffic
Control “Nobody move, everything will be
okay. If you try to make any moves, you will
injure yourself and the airplane. Just stay
quiet”; phone calls from the courageous
passengers “I only have a minute. I’m
on United 93 and it’s been hijacked by terrorists
and they have a bomb […] I just wanted to
say that I love you, and that I’m going
to miss you”; and forensic remains of some
of the terrorists… The hijackers existed,
and they did board those planes. Number 3:
Neither jet fuel nor office fires are hot
enough to melt steel. One of the most popular
arguments for the assertion that Building
7 was a controlled demolition is that the
melting point of steel is 2,700 degrees, and
that since jet fuel only burns at 1,500 degrees,
it’s not possible that fires could’ve
caused the buildings to collapse – and this
is especially the case for Building 7. The
problem with this argument, however, is that
no official body has ever asserted that any
of the buildings collapsed due to melted steel…
rather, and in congruence with experts, they’ve
asserted that much lower temperatures caused
the steel to lose its structural strength,
which lead to imbalances, and eventually total
collapse. To quote retired New York Deputy
Fire Chief, Vincent Dunn, who’s the author
of the book, The Collapse of Burning Buildings:
A Guide to Fireground Safety, “I have never
seen melted steel in a building fire, but
I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and
sagging steel. What happens is that the steel
tries to expand at both ends, but when it
can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding
concrete cracks.”Or, as Purgatory Iron Works
puts it: “This is a piece of half-inch thick
steel (A36 structural steel) designed for
structures. This is a 250lb anvil […] Do
you see how structural steel is supporting
this anvil?” “Okay, there. Now, in my
furnace I have an identical piece of half-inch
thick steel, just like this, and it’s going
to be around 1,800 degrees, just 300 more
than jet fuel, when it comes out […] Watch
this, I’m going to take my pinkie finger
… my pinkie finger! Half inch, solid steel,
check it out, it’s a frickin noodle! Your
argument is invalid. Get over it. Find a job!”
Number 4: Building 7 could not have collapsed
due to fire. “Never in history have steel
framed buildings collapsed from a fire. It’s
just never happened before.” Another one
of the most popular arguments for the assertion
that Building 7 was a controlled demolition
is the fact that at the time not a single
steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed
from fires alone. Not one. Building 7 was
the first, and for a long time, the only.
What’s more, is that on June 14, 2017, London’s
Grenfell Tower was entirely engulfed in intense
fires for over 24 hours, and yet it didn’t
remotely collapse. This, needless to say,
ignited a resurgence of support for the assertion
that Building 7 must’ve been brought down
by demolition. But here’s this thing, Grenfell
Tower was not a steel framed building… it
was concrete… and hence, comparing it to
Building 7 is like saying that this glass
cup won’t smash when I drop it because this
plastic cup doesn’t smash when I drop it…
they may serve the same purpose, but they’re
not comparable in this context. Furthermore,
and to lay this assertion to rest, in January,
2017, a steel framed building in Iran, called
Plasco Building, caught fire, and just like
Building 7, it collapsed. And hence, Building
7 is no longer the only steel framed skyscraper
to collapse due to fire. Number 5: Building
7 collapsed at freefall. In a nutshell, this
argument asserts that because building 7 collapsed
at freefall it therefore must’ve been the
result of a controlled demolition. I mean,
Plasco Building may have collapsed due to
fires, but it didn’t collapse at freefall.
Now in my opinion, this is a convincing argument
until you understand two things: the first
is that Building 7, like the Twin Towers,
was a tube-framed construction, which means
that most of its support beams were on the
perimeter to allow for more open floor space;
and the second is that most conspiracy videos
disingenuously only show the freefall part
of the collapse, and not the 8 seconds beforehand.
The reason for this is, in my opinion, is
because with the addition of the 8 seconds,
the videos reflect exactly what NIST concluded.
An internal failure caused the building’s
internal structure to collapse vertically,
and then from east to west, which then left
the hollowed-out exoskeleton to collapse at
freefall under its own weight. It looks like
a demolition, I agree, but it’s not. Now
if you’re interested in a much more in-depth
refutation of this assertion, then you can
find in the description a link to a video
created by Edward Current. It’s very informative,
excellently executed, and absolutely worth
checking out. Number 6: The BBC prematurely
reported the collapse of Building 7. “The
BBC reported that building 7 collapsed a full
15 minutes or so before it actually did!”
The proponents of this argument assert that
the only way that the BBC could’ve reported
the premature collapse of Building 7 is if
they were part of the conspiracy; is if they
already knew it was going to come down before
it did. The problem, however, is that news
networks make mistakes like this all the time.
For example, shortly after the Boston Marathon
Bombings, several news networks prematurely
reported that an arrest had been made… now
does this mean that the news networks were
in on a Boston Marathon conspiracy? Of course
not, they’re human, and they made a pretty
big mistake. Furthermore, as someone who’s
worked in advertising, I can tell you that
news networks succeed by having provocative
titles, clickbait images, and by publishing
information before their competition, and
so they’re naturally prone to make mistakes
and report things prematurely. Couple this
with the fact that the events of 9/11 were
extremely chaotic and confusing, and that
tons of people, including firefighters, were
explicitly stating that the building was bulging
and it was going to collapse, it’s easy
to understand such a mistake. “You see where
all the white smoke is? You see this thing
leaning like this? It's definitely coming
down. There's no way to stop it, because you
have to go up in there to put it out, and
it's already… the structural integrity is
not there in the building.” Number 7: No
Jews were killed in the attacks because they
were forewarned. Now this assertion originated
in the Middle East almost immediately after
the attacks, but it didn’t receive world-wide
attention until August, 2010, when the Iranian
President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publically
stated that no “Zionists were killed in
the attacks since one day earlier they were
told not go to their workplace”, and that
the attack deliberately “created and prepared
public opinion so that everyone considered
an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq.” Now
again, if this assertion is true, then it’s
extremely suspicious, but, again, it’s not,
and because of this it’s one of the most
contemptible and outright insulting conspiracy
arguments I’ve ever heard. In actuality,
the number of Jews who died within the attacks
is estimated to be between 270 and 400, a
number that closely reflects the percentage
of Jews working in the area at that time.
This assertion is simply a despicable lie.
Anyhow, for the next three arguments, I’ve
got a guest who knows a great deal about 9/11
– here’s Secular TeeJay: Fire and foremost,
thanks for having me on your phenomenal channel
Stephen. Let me introduce myself to your audience.
I am TeeJay from the YouTube channel Secular
TeeJay, who embarrassingly used to believe
the claims made by the 9/11 Truth movement.
I have produced two videos debunking Truther’s
most compelling claims, which at my dismay,
persuaded me to believe the theories. You
can check the videos out after watching this
video – all links will be in the description
area below. Since I have covered the controlled
demolition claims in one video, I will address
the particular deceptive methods used by the
Truth movement, in an effort to expose the
dishonesty, misdirection, and outright propagandistic
tactics used by the truth movement.. Quote
mining is a common tactic used by the truth
movement. Quote mining is a term used to describe
people who dig up any quote which may support
their case while leaving out quotes which
hurt it. As we can see, quote mining is similar
to confirmation bias: which is the cognitive
bias of seeking out confirming evidence, while
leaving out disconfirming evidence. Here is
an example of Truther’s quote mining firefighters:
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South
Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that
you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise
and a popping noise made everyone stop. We
all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
There was an explosion and the whole top leaned
toward us and started coming down. It is clearly
stated that the popping sounds were the result
of rivets popping and not bombs. If a large
bolt would snap, logically it should result
in a loud popping sound. It’s not unreasonable
to assume he didn’t know how the building
was built at the time of the interview so
he leaned toward something he knew. Interestingly,
NIST said that most of the failures were at
the bolts and other connections as the floors
collapsed. Explosives don’t usually make
a “high pitch popping noise.” Firemen’s
quotes are routinely taken out of context.
The most prevalent examples are of firemen
saying they heard explosions. I have little
doubt they did, as an acre of concrete, steel
and office furniture should make an explosive
sound when it crashes down onto another. Steel
bolts snapping can make an explosive sound
all by themselves. A video Filmed by Jules
and GedeonNaudet is shown on just about every
conspiracy web site which shows a few firemen
discussing what they heard and saw. We made
it outside, we made it about… we made it
at least two blocks, and we saw it fall. Boom,
boom, boom, boom. Floor by floor, it started
popping out. It was as if they had detonated.
Yes! As if they had planned to take down a
building. Boom, boom, boom, boom. In the context
of reading it off a conspiracy site this may
sound like damming evidence. They are saying
“detonated” and “they had planned to
take down a building”. They even say “Boom”
to describe the sound. But if you hear the
other things they’re saying, their body
language and context outside the conspiracy
theory setting, something else emerges. Before
or after every description is “As if”.
“As if they had planned to take down a building”.
“It was as if … as if they had detonated”.
It was as if they had detonated. Yes! As if
they had planned to take down a building.
Boom, boom, boom, boom. They also use body
language to show it was the sound of the floors
crashing into one another. “Floor by floor
it started popping out! As he said “boom”
and moves his hand down, this could be interpreted
to account for the pancake theory. But the
real evidence isn’t so much examining the
video as examining the actions taken, or not
taken, by the NYC Fire Department after the
event. The NYC Fire Department hasn’t rallied
its members to force an investigation into
the possible U.S. government murder of over
300 of its members. Some sites offer an explanation
of this saying there was a gag order placed
on the Fire Department. The only place you
will find this on is on conspiracy theory
sites. No mention from the main stream press
about the hundreds if not thousands of firemen
on the scene not being allowed to talk. It’s
patently absurd. The last claim made by truthers,
is why is there a small hole in the Pentagon
if a commercial airliner hit it? Two holes
were visible in the Pentagon immediately after
the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the
building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide
hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring.
So how does a plane 125 feet wide fit into
a 16-foot hole? According to Popular Mechanics,
when American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's
exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately
75 ft. wide, according to the American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Pentagon Building
Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed
about 20 minutes after impact. “not identified
by name, but identified as being dead, and
there are a number of casualties, but the
FBI has secured the site the uhm…” But
ASCE based its measurements of the original
hole on the number of first-floor support
columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer
simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn't
the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in.
wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like
outline of itself into a reinforced concrete
building, rendering this baseless assertion
patently absurd. The tidy hole in Ring C was
12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it
was made by the jet's landing gear, not by
the fuselage.Cheers TeeJay, I really appreciate
it. Anyhow, to recap, in my opinion, 9/11
conspiracy theories are the manifestation
of massive trauma, frustration, confirmation
bias, scientific illiteracy, deliberate deception,
and laziness… look, don’t get wrong, I
don’t trust the United States government,
and I recognise that the War on Terror was
largely a failure, but, to paraphrase Sam
Harris, I’m simply not convinced that a
government that couldn’t hide a semen-stained
dress somehow orchestrated the most profound
and complicated conspiracy of all time. A
conspiracy that necessarily included the participation
of hundreds, if not thousands of ordinary
people (people in the military, emergency
services, local citizens, and family members
of those who died), just to justify a war
in Iraq and Afghanistan (not Saudi Arabia
and Egypt, which is where the Hijackers were
from), when there were far easier and way
less riskier ways to achieve this. The conspiracy
is just not plausible, and the evidence is
simply not there. Anyhow, for more on this
topic, be sure to check out Secular TeeJay’s
wonderful content, and as always, thank you
kindly for the view, and an extra special
thank you to my awesome patrons! And on that
note, this month’s patron of the month is
Makayla Isom - you’ve won Free Will, by
Sam Harris. Congrats, and I hope you enjoy
the read! Anyhow, I’m going to leave you
with a highly-relevant clip from another fantastic
YouTuber called Captain Disillusioned, who,
if you haven’t checked out, you really ought
to! Enjoy! “Listen to me. The power to tell
real from fake doesn’t come from being a
world expert or mistrusting everything you
see. It comes from an honest willingness to
change your opinions and beliefs based on
new facts. So learn to enjoy being wrong.
The world might start making more sense. You
won’t feel quite as unstuck with the rest
of humanity – your words won’t cause needless
pain to people who suffered real tragedies
– and the words of others won’t sway you
into believing myths over truth. You’ll
be able to… love with your heart, and use
your head for everything else.”
