The best (least worst) case for the 9/11 truth claims

[Robin]

We are often accused of attacking easy target when we criticise 9/11 truthers. But the fact is they are all easy targets, it's just that some of the sillier ones are more entertaining.

I thought that I would bring together the things the more persistent players in the 9/11 truth movement would regard as their best case and see how it looks. These have been gleaned mainly from the ironically titled Beyond Misinformation.

The first is, of course, WTC 7 which the 9/11 truth folk seem to regard as vessel which will carry all their hopes and aspirations. Prove that 7 is a demolition, they say, then all the others will start to fall in place - WTC 1 and 2, the Pentagon, Flight 93, JFK and so on and so forth.

For a best case it seems remarkably weak, its basically

WTC 7

- It fell at freefall acceleration for 2-3 seconds
- It fell symmetrically
- Some people reported hearing explosions
- Steel frame buildings don't collapse due to fire.
- The Hulsey Report
- It collapsed suddenly
- No one expected it to collapse.
- A lot of people expected it to collapse.
- "Sulphidation" of steel in rubble.

WTC 1 and 2

- They collapsed vertically, with sudden onset of collapse.
- Collapsed at near freefall acceleration
- Debris fell almost entirely into the footprint
- Explosive ejections outward with most debris falling well outside the footprint
- They collapsed through the alleged "path of least resistance"
- "Dustification"
- Bodies of victims pulverised and some remains found scattered widely on roofs of buildings
- Lots of people reported explosions at various times
- The simple collapse model allegedly shows the buildings would not collapse
- "Missing jolt"
- Molten material seen pouring from one particular corner of WTC 2
- Molten metal reported in the rubble for up to months after the collapse.
- Nano thermite allegedly detected in dust.
- High heat

The first thing to notice is that some of these things are contradictory. If debris was not forced outward during the initial collapse of the top part, where did they expect it to go? Straight down? Through the alleged "path of most resistance"?

Or the way that the collapse of WTC 7 was an unexpected event that lots of people expected. Of course they expected it because they were experienced emergency responders who had made careful inspections, both externally and internally, of the extent of the fire and the damage. So it was not expected and there is nothing sinister about the fact that it was expected.

But the main thing is that all of this is better explained by the damage and fires caused by the impact of commercial airlines, flown in at high speed and at an angle calculated to create the most damage or, in the case of WTC 7 damage caused by extensive fires and by the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

None of the truthers are willing to be anything but vague about the kind of setup of explosives and/or thermite would fit the observational evidence we have of the event. And no one will explain how explosives and or thermite can keep metal molten and cause high temperatures in the ground for months afterwards. However the raging fires in the rubble and the compressed combustible material from hundreds of collapsed floors can easily explain this. Neither would explain molten steel, so whether this was a fiendish conspiracy or not, the molten metal was not steel.

Obviously we could go into detail on any of these claims but this has been done again and again over the years. Most of it more than it needed to be. A single paper in an open access chemistry journal would never be considered adequate evidence for anything. No need to debunk it.

Even the "best case" for the 9/11 truth movement is unbelievably flimsy after 20 years.

 

[Robin]

I am imagining a situation where someone at my workplace gives one of those WTC 7 lectures that AE911Truth encourage people to give and what my response might be.

1. Showing evidence that fires were extensive and unfought over 8 hours.
2. Showing evidence that damage to the building from the collapse of WTC 1 was extensive.
3. Demonstrating why 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration measured at the roofline does not equate to 8 floors of zero resistance, or any zero resistance.
4. Demonstrating that we would expect a large, tall and massive building to collapse in the more or less symmetrical manner we observe.
5. Showing that the collapse does not really resemble a controlled demolition (ie that unlike a CD it becomes increasingly unstable over a number of hours and that you would expect the explosion sounds to be clearly and unmistakably audible in the videos.
6. Showing how WTC 7 differs from other building fires that might at first glance, seem comparable.
7. Show that the AE911Truth folk and the signatories represent only a tiny proportion of all engineers.


Anything else? I wouldn't get qualified to talk on the Hulsey report but I could point out that the engineers of America and of the world have not found it convincing.

 

[JSanderO]

The average person... truther or not... has little to no technical knowledge of civil engineering, physics, structures. Their only frame of references are "explosions" and planned building demolitions.
The collapse of the WTC buildings can be explained by basic physics and engineering... something, that average John Doe doesn't have. Ask average John Doe to explain how a plane flies. He can't.

Your understanding is limited by your technical training/background and the limits/accuracy of your observations.

The runaway progressive collapse were the result of sufficient mass that was "freed" from the structure...falling on parts of the structure not designed for those loads (slabs).

 

[Oystein]

... I wouldn't get qualified to talk on the Hulsey report but I could point out that the engineers of America and of the world have not found it convincing.

FTFY.

Hulsey and his assistants have not published it anywhere that relevant academic or professional engineers look to. He had said all along that the report would spawn several (perhaps four) papers in good American engineering journals.Then walked that back, realizing he'd stand no chance to pass peer review in America and so said he'd go for European journals - but years went by with no publication whatsoever. Also no book from any science publisher. As far as the engineering profession and science are concerned, the Hulsey report barely exists.
Because of this you would be quite wrong to claim that "the engineers of America and of the world" would have found it anything. They never read it.

That said, it doesn't take any deep engineering knowledge to deconstruct the report to shambles. He spells out three objectives - and delivers on none of them.

But that, and what you list there as things you'd do, at this point in time is throwing precious effort at a worthless cause. All that suffices to shoot down all the "engineering" truthers is a few simple, obvious truisms:

1. Fires are a major hazard to all sorts of buildings and structures - always have been, always will be.
2. Those fires were HUGE: five, six or more foors involved, no firefighting, very large areas affected on each floor -> So many opportunities for things to go really bad
3. It is pretty damned difficult to erect a building with 95% air in it, so people canuse it and enjoy being it, 50 or 100 stories high agains the relentless pull of gravity, such that it remains standing at all. Gravity is a real hazard to tall buildings, especially when things go really bad (see number 2.) It is entirely unsurprising that damaged buildings can and will collapse. It's why the science of structural engineering exists in the first place.
4. No one has any real experience with fire and collapses on that order of magnitude - you just don't know what can happen and how it might look.
5. Same with big, fast planes crashing into buildings: No one has seen that before, done that before, and so you can't trust your imagination to tell you what's possible and what's impossible.
6. "Anomalies" happen all the time, everywhere, if only you look long and hard enough at things. Try it! Have someone film an hour of you doing mundane things, from multiple angles, and invite a whole community of paranoid weirdos to review the footage for a year: They WILL find dozens of "anomalies"!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

We are often accused of attacking easy target when we criticise 9/11 truthers. But the fact is they are all easy targets, it's just that some of the sillier ones are more entertaining.

I thought that I would bring together the things the more persistent players in the 9/11 truth movement would regard as their best case and see how it looks. These have been gleaned mainly from the ironically titled Beyond Misinformation.

The first is, of course, WTC 7 which the 9/11 truth folk seem to regard as vessel which will carry all their hopes and aspirations. Prove that 7 is a demolition, they say, then all the others will start to fall in place - WTC 1 and 2, the Pentagon, Flight 93, JFK and so on and so forth.

For a best case it seems remarkably weak, its basically

WTC 7

- It fell at freefall acceleration for 2-3 seconds
- It fell symmetrically
- Some people reported hearing explosions
- Steel frame buildings don't collapse due to fire.
- The Hulsey Report
- It collapsed suddenly
- No one expected it to collapse.
- A lot of people expected it to collapse.
- "Sulphidation" of steel in rubble.

WTC 1 and 2

- They collapsed vertically, with sudden onset of collapse.
- Collapsed at near freefall acceleration
- Debris fell almost entirely into the footprint
- Explosive ejections outward with most debris falling well outside the footprint
- They collapsed through the alleged "path of least resistance"
- "Dustification"
- Bodies of victims pulverised and some remains found scattered widely on roofs of buildings
- Lots of people reported explosions at various times
- The simple collapse model allegedly shows the buildings would not collapse
- "Missing jolt"
- Molten material seen pouring from one particular corner of WTC 2
- Molten metal reported in the rubble for up to months after the collapse.
- Nano thermite allegedly detected in dust.
- High heat

The first thing to notice is that some of these things are contradictory. If debris was not forced outward during the initial collapse of the top part, where did they expect it to go? Straight down? Through the alleged "path of most resistance"?

Or the way that the collapse of WTC 7 was an unexpected event that lots of people expected. Of course they expected it because they were experienced emergency responders who had made careful inspections, both externally and internally, of the extent of the fire and the damage. So it was not expected and there is nothing sinister about the fact that it was expected.

But the main thing is that all of this is better explained by the damage and fires caused by the impact of commercial airlines, flown in at high speed and at an angle calculated to create the most damage or, in the case of WTC 7 damage caused by extensive fires and by the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

None of the truthers are willing to be anything but vague about the kind of setup of explosives and/or thermite would fit the observational evidence we have of the event. And no one will explain how explosives and or thermite can keep metal molten and cause high temperatures in the ground for months afterwards. However the raging fires in the rubble and the compressed combustible material from hundreds of collapsed floors can easily explain this. Neither would explain molten steel, so whether this was a fiendish conspiracy or not, the molten metal was not steel.

Obviously we could go into detail on any of these claims but this has been done again and again over the years. Most of it more than it needed to be. A single paper in an open access chemistry journal would never be considered adequate evidence for anything. No need to debunk it.

Even the "best case" for the 9/11 truth movement is unbelievably flimsy after 20 years.

The point is there is no case what so ever for 9/11Truth movement Claims, 6010, and 7018 welding rods have an outer Flux Coating of Iron Powder Coating of iron Microspheres that were separated from fly Ash, they also have aluminum Carbon and clay on the rods.
There was never any basis for the Fraudulent Claims of 9/11Truth ever, it was simple Fraud and Grifting and Russian Disinformation, by people seeking to make money off the Gullibility of others.
Not one sample of dust contained an eyeball Microspheres early on that and the other evidence clued me in early that Dr. Steven Earl Jones was a fraud. The money Alex Jones received from Venezuelian Citgo durring the early movement, convinced me Russian Disinformation was involved as did my contact and debunking Dr. Jerome Corsi's WND Story and 500 page book which he never published.
It was all grift and Anti American Propaganda from the start, mixed in with Stupidity from the Bush administration invasion of Iraq.
There is no case or no reason to believe there ever was a case.

 

[Robin]

As I said before, I don't think there is even the necessity to refute the "nano-thermite" paper. It is a single paper in an open access chemistry journal.

However the fact that the lead author was a Pentagon no-planer and proudly appeared on Alex Jones's show pretty much sinks it. Just recently he talked about how Larry Silverstein had said "pull it" and how he thought that this was good evidence for a false flag operation. The man really is a crank.

Actually the "Larry Silverstein said 'pull it'" thing is also in the AE911Truth "Beyond Misinformation". That surely has to be amongst the stupidest pieces of 9/11 truther "evidence".

 

[Axxman300]

You have to remember that 9-11 Truth did gain traction until 2006, as the internet, and what we now call Social Media evolved. On 9/14/2001 I stopped into the small town bookstore where I used to attend a monthly UFO discussion group to get caught up. The owner immediately rattled off a list false claims about the attack, and the media reaction. He gave me a list of them from a fax he'd received from a Chem-Trail guy out of Sacramento. The bottom line, just three days after the attack, was that the conspiracy crowd was already hard at work using the spaghetti principle, tossing out claims to see what would stick.

Mind you, they were still searching Ground-Zero for survivors at this time, and nobody had all the answers other than Al Qaeda had hijacked four jetliners to crash into buildings.

The was a special-edition 9-11 issue of Time Magazine which to date remains an amazing work to journalism. Time laid out 90% of the intelligence failure issues, and the problems with the USAF's inability to get planes in the air, and in the right place. Even ten years afterword, Truthers will run with a story claiming it's new information, but was covered back in 2001 in this Time Magazine edition.

In 2002, we got The Big Lie by Thierry Meyssan which would be the first 911-CT book. Though it was quickly shot down, it got the ball rolling. Starting in 2005, Loose Change launched on Youtube, and the game was on. The story of 911-Truth is the story of the evolution of the internet, and social media as a platform allowing even the biggest morons (no-planers) an outlet for their buffoonery. It is worthwhile to dig into this forum's 911 archives to read the old debates back when the guys on the CT side had technical backgrounds, and could argue legitimate engineering issues. Eventually those guys have given up, most seeing the light, and few just choosing to hangout on CT-friendly message boards.

What offends me, aside from the blatant moronology, is that 9-11 Truth drowned out legitimate questions, and serious issues surrounding the attacks, and the collapses of the WTC buildings.

Those issues are:

The Intelligence Failures - CIA and FBI's inability to cooperate. Why did both the CIA and FBI have separate Bin Laden/Al Qaeda desks which never communicated with their in-house counter-terrorism desks? To what extent did our "special" relationship with the Saudis blind both our FBI, and Customs departments? Do these blind-spots still exist today?

The Building Issues - The NIST reports for WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 suggest corners were cut during construction which contributed to their individual collapses. What's the story behind these short-cuts? How many were zoning-changes made during the construction of the WTC complex, and how many of these changes were made simply to save money? To what extent did the mafia-run company behind the spray-on fire-proofing play into the collapse? How many other buildings in Manhattan, and other NYC boroughs have this same vintage fire-proofing that have yet to be addressed?

I know, it's not as sexy as a missile dressed up like a 767, or holograms, or micro-nukes, but they seem like serious questions to me.

 

[theprestige]

Robin, why are you rehashing stuff a decade old? The conspiracy theorists are nothing these days. All the serious debunkers have moved on, their work done.

Of all the trouble in the world, why are you still hung up on the settled narrative of 9/11?

 

[Robin]

Robin, why are you rehashing stuff a decade old? The conspiracy theorists are nothing these days. All the serious debunkers have moved on, their work done.

Of all the trouble in the world, why are you still hung up on the settled narrative of 9/11?

The question of evolution was settled decades ago.

So why did Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and others feel it was necessary to attack the Intelligent Design movement?

Why did so many people feel it necessary to read those books?

 

[Robin]

I would also point out that only last year the truthers came very close to having this stuff presented as a serious position by a very highly regarded documentary maker in a globally streamed documentary on a major streaming service.

 

[Robin]

As for the serious debunkers having "moved on", that just isn't true. Popular Mechanics published an update in September 2022.

 

[MBDK]

As for the serious debunkers having "moved on", that just isn't true. Popular Mechanics published an update in September 2022.

I'm on your side, Robin. Besides, sometimes we all need to brush up on past lessons, for reasons as varied as strengthening your knowledge, looking for something you may have missed, trying to rekindle a passion you previously had, to sharing new information (e.g., Pop Mex update), etc.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I'm on your side, Robin. Besides, sometimes we all need to brush up on past lessons, for reasons as varied as strengthening your knowledge, looking for something you may have missed, trying to rekindle a passion you previously had, to sharing new information (e.g., Pop Mex update), etc.

Yes but for 9/11/2001 there never was and never will be a case for the Truther Arguments.

 

[Allen773]

To what extent did our "special" relationship with the Saudis blind both our FBI, and Customs departments? Do these blind-spots still exist today?

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — The Saudi student who fatally shot three sailors at a U.S. naval base in Florida hosted a dinner party earlier in the week where he and three others watched videos of mass shootings, a U.S. official told The Associated Press

The official who spoke Saturday said one of the three students who attended the dinner party hosted by the attacker recorded video outside the classroom building while the shooting was taking place. Two other Saudi students watched from a car, the official said

https://apnews.com/article/al-state...te-wire-navy-75a8adc71422596a54052540fabb7230



Also:

Musaed al Jarrah, then the Saudi Embassy’s director of Islamic Affairs, was said in the 2012 (FBI)report to have “tasked” Thumairy – a diplomat at the Los Angeles consulate and imam at the nearby King Fahd mosque – and Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi spy, with aiding the future hijackers.

Further, the report notes Jarrah was close to Prince Bandar and later worked for him in Saudi Arabia at the National Security Ministry.

None of that was known, or confirmed, in January 2010 when one FBI report stated, “It has been uncovered that Musaed al Jarrah may have played a leadership role in the overall coordination of logistics support for 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar…Al-Jarrah oversaw the handling of the hijackers through his subordinates Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar Ahmed al-Bayoumi and by personal contact with the hijackers on numerous occasions.”

and:

Osama Basnan, a former Saudi embassy employee whose wife received thousands of dollars in monthly payments from the wife of Prince Bandar, was “a known associate of the hijackers in Southern California” according to the 2021 report. “In 1992, Basnan hosted a party for blind Sheik Omar Rahman in Washington, D.C. prior to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing…After Rahman was jailed [for conspiracy in the bombing] Rahman dispatched a messenger to Basnan to instruct him not to contact Rahman in jail.”

“Basnan was living in the same [San Diego] apartment complex on 9/11/01 where al-Bayoumi and the hijackers had resided and al-Bayoumi’s mail was being forwarded to Basnan’s apartment. Basnan harbors anti-American sentiments and espouses pro-UBL opinions,” the 2021 report says.

and:

On an unspecified date in 2001 Basnan “asked BLANK specific questions about how Anthrax and Small Pox are transmitted and what affects infection has on the human body. On BLANK 2001, Basnan asked BLANK specific questions about how Small Pox infection advances through the human body. Basnan BLANK was true that just prior to dying a Small Pox victim suffers extreme abdominal pain. On BLANK 2001, BLANK Basnan’s wife, Majeda Dweikat, in possession of a book title ‘Chemical and Biological Weapons: Anthrax and Sarin.’ The book was in Basnan’s residence. BLANK Dweikat had tabbed a section of the book that showed the skin coming off a body.” A paragraph after that is redacted.

The 2021 report about those other offices “associated” with the Saudi Embassy “documents the extensive ties to the Saudi Arabian government as well as extensive ties to terrorism – specifically AQ [al Qaeda]. AQ members were employed within these organizations and utilized funding for terrorism support and used the offices for cover for movement of personnel.”

The Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences of America (IIASA), Fairfax, VA, is a U.S subsidiary of Imam Mohammed bin Saud University in Saudi Arabia. The 2021 report says the Saudi Embassy “was known to finance the IIASA and its primary administrators and teachers were Saudi Arabian diplomats. The IIASA was one of the many pieces of Saudi proselytizing activity in the U.S.”

IIASA’s president was Prince Bandar.

https://www.floridabulldog.org/2022...-provided-support-network-for-9-11-hijackers/


From the JASTA-enabled lawsuit against KSA:

For years prior to and on September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia established, owned, operated and controlled a series of state-run "charity" organizations, namely

• the Muslim World League (MWL),
• the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO),
• the Rabita Trust,
• the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY),
• the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF),
• the al Haramain Islamic Foundation (AHIF),
• the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SHC),
• the Saudi Joint Relief Committee for Kosovo and Albania (SJRC), and
• the Saudi Red Crescent (SRC),

and these organizations are referred to hereinafter as "Saudi Arabia's charity organizations" and, as further described herein, each of these organizations

(i) were so closely related to Saudi Arabia that they must be considered as part of Saudi Arabia, and/or

(ii) were government agents of Saudi Arabia and/or (iii) were alter-egos of Saudi Arabia, because Saudi Arabia:

established, controlled, operated and regulated each organization through its King, Council of Ministers, the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, the Council of Senior Ulema, Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, other Ministries and bodies and Saudi Arabia's Embassies throughout the world;

maintained significant, repeated and extensive control of the day-to-day operations of each organization; provided each organization with virtually all of its funding and determined how its funds were distributed;

established guidelines, plans and policies that each organization was required to follow; appointed Saudi Arabia officials and employees to the lead positions within each organization; staffed each organization with Saudi Arabia's officials and employees; hired, fired and directed each organization's officers and employees;

required each organization to obtain its approval for ordinary business decisions, including purchases, the locations of its operations and offices, banking, budgeting and grant decisions; used each organization's personnel and property as its own; ignored the separate legal status, if any, of each organization; treated each organization as a part of Saudi Arabia;

used each organization to perform its core governmental functions, including foreign affairs and the advancement of Saudi Arabia's state religion of Wahhabism throughout the world;

and operated, controlled and used each organization in such a manner that it would work a fraud or injustice to regard the organization as a legal entity separate from Saudi Arabia.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...bde86720f/1490040171270/Ashton-v-KSA-2017.pdf (pages 138-139 of the PDF).



This is where the 9/11 Truthers should have been focusing their efforts all along.

 

[The Atheist]

Robin, why are you rehashing stuff a decade old? The conspiracy theorists are nothing these days.

It's still there, it's just been overshadowed by the plandemic/5G/antivax deepstate child-murdering election-stealing groomer conspiracies.

And you may as well ask why people still believe a single word of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, despite it being known to be fabricated for 100 years.

 

[Brainster]

- They collapsed through the alleged "path of least resistance"

Actually the claim is that they collapsed through the path of greatest resistance. Here's Richard Gage's response to NIST:

There was the symmetrical, near-free-fall speed of collapse, through the path of greatest resistance – with 40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load – straight down into its own footprint.

 

[Robin]

Actually the claim is that they collapsed through the path of greatest resistance. Here's Richard Gage's response to NIST:

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant to type.

 

[bknight]

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant to type.

The aspect of the response was that the floors were designed to withstand the load applied to them as each floor collapsed. The static design was indeed more than the static loads applied to each floor. The building stood and even withstood an airplane crashing into it, for awhile. I don't know the dynamic design load if one was ever studied but I'm quite sure that each floor was not designed to withstand the dynamic loads that the collapsing applied. The buildings collapsed.

 

[Robin]

I notice that the AE911Twoof folks are now saying that no engineer that they have presented their "evidence" to have disagreed with their findings.

Donations must be slowing down.

 

[Oystein]

I notice that the AE911Twoof folks are now saying that no engineer that they have presented their "evidence" to have disagreed with their findings.

Donations must be slowing down.

I think they have locked themselves tightly into their bubble.
It has been my impression for some years now that they have all but stopped reaching out to the unbelievers (i.e. the overwhelming majority) among the professionals and are aiming their message, both in terms of content and messaging platform, towards the already proselytized and the general nutty All-CTs-go crowd.

In the olden days, Gage would tour university towns and other cities, they would do billboard advertising, they went to professional conferences and set up booth or introduced resolutions, they even took to the streets. They ran paid ads on Facebook. They would target engineers with mailings, they got the occasional paper or op-ed into this journal or that magazine. All these vectors stood a chance at capturing people not previously exposed to 911T nuttery, and some of those were engineering/architecture specific.
In recent years: Not so much. I guess the Covid lockdowns didn't help, but it started to go downhill well before 2020.

As a result, their old Petition is drawing fewer new A&E than ever, their Facebook page is losing followers slowly but constantly, and 911T has all but disappeared from the academic discourse (where it was never more than marginal; now not even that).

I suggest that recruiting fresh disciples costs more than those new recruits then end up donating; that it is more efficient to coerce the already convinced and already-donors to donate more, and more. For example, the "ReThink911" campaign of 2013 cost, as best as can be know by us outsiders, something like $300,000, but won them no more than 30,000 new believers, possibly less. It should be a safe bet that less than 10% of those who sign up a free statement of support will also give money. It has been my experience through the years that donation drives net $50 on per donor on average, or slightly less. So 3,000 recruits donating $50, that's $150,000 in new donations as a result of investing $300,000 - a net loss of 150,000. That project was a desaster for AE911T.
Far more difficult to estimate the money effect of investing $316,000 into the Hulsey study. But surely there was an expectation initially that Hulsey would publish some papers in real engineering journals - that never happened and never will, his study report basically exists exclusively in the closed, tiny lala-bubble of 911Twoof. I do not see how it could have generated returns of more than the $316k investment.

So now today, "Project Due Diligence" - which, as far as I have perceived, so far, is a few of the most faithful AE911T members inviting few handfuls of mostly also faithful colleagues to smallish seminar rooms for a prepared PowerPoint. I'd guess these presentations don't cost much, and that the audience gives enough to cover the costs.
But nothing comes of this.

I don't think anyone here asked for the most recent IRS Form 990?

 

[JSanderO]

911Truth "evidence" is not convincing to the reality based or the scientific community. They act as a cult or a religion with devoted followers who do not question their faith. On the other hand the non CD explanations are logical, consistent with the observations/evidence and are supported by rational people.
It's OK to question the conventional explanations... but an alternate needs to be supported by the observations and evidence.

The outcome was that the US began military operations in the ME, believing that terrorists were coming from the region and intent on doing mischief in the West. And several miscreants were captured attempting just that in the 90s. OBL made it clear that the US was satan and a legitimate target for terrorist style attacks. No way could his group prevail on a "traditional" battlefield. Their approach was more or less PR and making the public fearful and suffer blaming the western policies for this.
Of course the West's only interest in the ME was petroleum and gas to fuel their economies... and deny the revenues from their "enemies".
Sure there exists corruption in the West, within government and the private sector. Petro resources were seen as a strategic need in the West... and they were. They would have to be purchased or appropriated... Shady deals have been made concerning petro resources for perhaps a hundred years or so. Cutting off the petro supply was/is a means to hobbling the West. Why would the US be allies with a repressive regime such as Saudi Arabia? One reason only... they are an oil exporting country. This is the truth. I don't think it's denied either. Of course it sounds (and is) exploitative and no different from the resource "robbing" that has gone on for ages by the West as they "pillaged" the rest of the world.
I don't doubt that at least some of the motivation of the terrorists was to try to end the West's petro extraction and "entitlement" to foreign resources.

 

[Robin]

Their new trick is a membership drive on the basis that they are an organisation to help survivors and families of survivors.

As I said, money must be drying up.

I hope no-one falls for this scam.