I did the first 14 for someone on youtube once, no sense in it going to waste, I suppose. It should be red with the 40 reasons in front of you for reference:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
1. AWOL chain of command
a) This is how the government functions, not all officials are available for all activities or decision making all the time. The notion they "found an excuse" is severely loaded and postulates they knew about the attacks in advance and uses that to prove they knew about the attacks in advance. Such circular logic is a severe flaw in reasoning.
b) Presumably none of these men knew who would be in charge. The confusion was considerable, and expected: an unprecedented attack with an unfamiliar and unforeseen pattern, from multitude of angles, from out of the blue and they didn't manage to establish a proper hierarchy. There was too little time and too much confusion.
The concern 1 is therefore demonstrated as severely flawed. There is enough here to criticize the government, but far too little to prove any deliberate wrongdoing.
2. Air defense failures
a) Outright lie, standard procedure was followed.
b) That's probably because the failures of each agency was their own. Not that there has been proven at all that there even was an operational failure at any point, the agencies followed plans and those plans were inadequate for the situation. That's planning failure, not operational failure.
c) There is absolutely no evidence of an air defense stand down.
The concern 2 is based on a lie and a gross misrepresentation of the situation. As such, the remainder of the list should be called into question for validity.
3. Pentagon strike
Prior to 9/11, flights originating from US were not seen as a potential threat, therefore Flight 77 striking the Pentagon was far from impossible. There was no response from the nearby airbase because it didn't have any airplanes on fight alert, as is the normal operation. It had combat ready fighters, which means they can deploy in 24 hours. Obviously 80 minutes is far less than that time. The maneuver described as acrobatic was in fact a simple spiral dive, aimed at the side that was the easiest to hit (which also happened to be the renovated side), and the maneuver was executed in a manner consistent with a rookie pilot. These concerns are based on outright lies.
The concern 3 is based on extremely poor research and lies. Obviously this pattern throws a blanket of doubt over the reminder of the document.
4. Wargames
a) Outright lie, or a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Parts of 9/11 were part of various drills, but there was no war game simulating multiple hijackings and deliberate crashing of planes into buildings. All three examples given are lies. In fact, a scenario about a deliberate crashing was proposed (but not trained), but was considered "too unrealistic". The facts stand directly against the claim.
b) They ignored the issue, because it is not grounded in fact, obviously.
The concern 4 is based on outright lies. A pattern is already emerging in the document.
5. Flight 93
It crashed on 10:03:11, the seismic report was inaccurate in it's timing, the experts at the seismic laboratory agree with this assertion. A vast majority of the plane was found in one spot, with some minor debris scattering around because of the force of the crash. There was no 'trail of debris' for miles, but only some minor pieces that were only found downwind and in the direction the plane was flying. If the plane was shot down, major pieces would be found in the other direction, none were found.
The concern 5 is based on very poor research of the topic, coupled with ignorance of what happens when the plane is shot down. It doesn't contain any outright lies, which is an improvement from before, but it still places severe doubt about the validity of the research.
6. Possible smoking guns
Yes, the phones worked, even at 30,000 feet, though that is irrelevant. Cellphone calls from the flights were made from a lower altitude, where they worked much better, though they were shown to work poorly on 9/11. A vast majority of calls were made from air phones, only two or three calls were made through cell phones. Four hijackings were attempted, about 4500 flights were eventually diverted. There is nothing suspicious here.
The concern 6 is based on poor research, and provides absolutely no point which could lead to doubt about the official story. This is rather significant, since it is presented as the 6th top reason. Any other reasons should be even less significant as this one.
7. Demolition hypothesis
WTC 7 was destroyed due to unusually severe fires, which raged throughout the day, and could not be fought. In September 2008, NIST presented a comprehensive study explaining the collapse. This might have been a legitimate concern until then, but has since been discredited. In contrast, the collapse mechanism for the two towers was known for years, and required absolutely no explosives. The studies were never disputed from an engineering perspective, hence they could be judged as accurate.
The concern 7 is based on lies by omission. Not only there are reliable studies showing no explosives were present, but there is also absolutely no evidence showing there were explosives (the evidence discussed in the points presented was refuted a long time ago).
8. What did the officials know, when did they know it?
a) Lie, no such warnings were made. There were a few unspecific warnings, much less than would be needed to prevent the attacks.
b) No such individuals were named by anyone. This is significant, since names were mentioned in earlier points. This point is in all likelihood a complete fabrication.
c) Only one individual received such a warning, and the threat was completely unconnected to 9/11.
The concern 8 is again based on lies and poor research.
9. Able danger, surveillance of hijackers
a) This clearly demonstrates that US security was not ignoring them, it was doing it's job, yet it didn't do it well enough. If anything, this is evidence against any complicity, surely they would ensure their own agents were not watched, so that any plot would remain hidden.
b) FBI asset would not mean an agent, but someone who gives out information to the FBI. Though somewhat suspicious, this is in no way indicative of any complicity.
Point 9 is the first factually true point, yet it's implication are highly unreasonable, given the evidence. It doesn't prove anything in itself, and the sorrounding evidence points strongly against the conclusions.
10. Obstructions of investigations
Much like point 9, this is again based on sloppy research and poor interpretation of evidence. There are multiple institutional reasons why the FBI behaved as it did without requiring complicity (the whole thing is too long to reproduce here). There is, however, absolutely no evidence presented that would show obstruction of investigations.
Point 10 is based on poor research and not grounded in fact.
11. Insider trading
a) The operative word is 'allegedly', the ones profiting were thoroughly investigated and found not to be connected to the 9/11. The put options, though spiking in the days leading to the attacks, went much higher several times earlier in the year. These stocks were falling, and people were making money from that. Nothing unexpected or unusual.
b) These claims too were investigated and the notion "suspicious" is simply wrong.
c) See point b)
Point 11 is based on poor research and not grounded in fact.
12. Who were the perpetrators
a) Not at all. Like with the recent plane crash in Iran, a surprising amount of vulnerable material might survive - including personal documents. The presumption made here is that the hijackers wanted to keep their identities secret - this is in direct contrast to the MO of Al-Queda, and it would in fact be expected from them to want to reveal their identities once the attacks were completed.
b) This is, at best, a matter of personal opinion, if that much. Obviously the last claim is a lie, they weren't ignored in the official investigations, if official accounts show them to have doubles, have traveled, etc.
c) Presumably any such claims, if they ever were indeed made, related to both the hijackers and those planning the attacks. A few were indeed apprehended, like Mossaui. The story cited comes from an unnamed source however, and it may not be credible. It is notable that it is dated as September 13th, 2001, two days after the attacks, with nothing newer available. As such the claims it makes can be discounted.
Point 12 is based on poor research and not grounded in fact.
13. Who is Osama?
a) A group of experts, involving those investigating visual and audio evidence. The "most important video" is proven to be genuine, only extremely poor research 'showed' it to be fake. No alternative translation was made, hence it cannot be claimed to be fraudulent.
b) No on both counts. The claims were made by one newspaper, citing an unnamed source, and were denied by all involved. The fact this is not pointed out is a major flaw in research.
c) This is a loaded question, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere he was allowed to escape.
d) This is based on a lie, and there is absolutely no evidence they ever served the CIA.
Point 13 is based on extremely poor research and unfounded allegations and not grounded in fact.
14. Signs of a systematic cover-up
a) This claim was made in one book, and it's description is so dubius as to border on impossible. It is a lie, nothing more.
b) No evidence of this claim is presented.
c) see point b)
d) see point c)
Concern 14 is based on poor research and not grounded in fact.
McHrozni
