The following appendices cover information including Reference Links, an Error Count, Conclusions, an FAQ, Credits and a Fair Use Notice.
Official Reports
This section of the 9/11 Mysteries guide will provide a series of links to government reports that outline the real “official story”. 9/11 Mysteries attempts to sell its viewers a highly incorrect version of the official story which is extremely misleading to viewers. This is what is known as a “straw man argument”.
The 9/11 Commission
9-11 Commission Report
FEMA
FEMA WTC Report Chapter 1
FEMA WTC 1 & 2
FEMA WTC 4,5,6
FEMA WTC 7 Report
National Institute of Standards And Technology
NIST Report Fire & WTC Structural Steel
NIST WTC Public Briefing
NIST WTC Materials Testing Videos and Computer Simulations
NIST WTC Frequently Asked Questions
NIST WTC Report
NIST Part IIC - WTC7
Other Debunking Sources
There are several other sources out there for debunking the myths behind 9/11. I strongly advise that everybody read these.
Other 9/11 Conspiracy Films
Screw Loose Change Blog
Screw Loose Change Film
Loose Change Guide
Loose Change Creators Speak
General Debunking
911myths.com
Debunking 9/11
JREF Forum
9/11 Deniers Speak Out
Popular Mechanics
The following is a tally of errors contained in 9/11 Mysteries.
False information presented as fact: 79
Lies via 3rd party commentator: 4
Assumed accidental mistakes: 38
Appeal to Authority: 4
Incomplete Quotes used to support evidence: 23
Quotes taken out of context to support evidence: 15
Assumptions/Speculation used to support evidence: 62
Anonymous Sources: 1
Sources who disagree with conspiracy theory used to support conspiracy theory: 12
“Straw Man” Arguments: 16
Oversimplifications: 67
Similes or Metaphors taken as literal statements: 22
Omissions from Transcript: 4
Bad Analogies: 6
Contradictions: 18
Total Errors: 371
Please note that other fallacies may have been in the film that were not included in the tally. Numbers are a result of one person’s calculation and may differ slightly from person to person.
After extensive study into the film “9/11 Mysteries” using both official government resources and non-official resources from credible and respected websites, it is clear that 9/11 Mysteries is not a fact-based film.
The movie has a tendency to blatantly lie, to use questions as evidence, to mine quotes, to ignore context and to misrepresent experts who do not agree with its conclusions. The film contains a total of 370 errors relating to logic and fact.
In appendix B, these errors are numbered according to the following.
“False information presented as fact”
Information that is provably false presented by 9/11 Mysteries as fact. This tally includes the outright lies from 9/11 Mysteries.
“Lies via 3rd party commentator”
Similar to “false information presented as fact”, however this tally counts the outright lies presented in 9/11 Mysteries that are being spoken by someone else on behalf of the film, such as Rick Siegel.
“Assumed accidental mistakes”
Sections of 9/11 Mysteries that contain false information. In this case, however, the tally includes instances where the author of this guide feels that 9/11 Mysteries did not know the information was false.
“Appeal to Authority”
Sections of 9/11 Mysteries that consist on basing the truth-value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. For example, Steven Jones.
“Incomplete Quotes used to support evidence”
Quotes contained in 9/11 Mysteries that have critical sections edited out in the middle of the testimony, or at the beginning or end.
“Quotes taken out of context to support evidence”
Quotes that have been misinterpreted to support the evidence contained in 9/11 Mysteries.
“Assumptions/Speculation used to support evidence”
Sections of 9/11 Mysteries that base their conclusions on pure speculation such as the constant asking of questions without providing supporting evidence. Also includes sections of 9/11 Mysteries that base a conclusion on an assumption.
“Sources who disagree with CT used to support CT”
Cases where 9/11 Mysteries uses official story supporters in expert fields to support the conspiracy theory, despite the experts disagreement with the conspiracy theory.
“Straw Man” Arguments”
Sections of 9/11 Mysteries that present a misrepresentation of the official story’s position, refutes it, and pretend that the actual position has been refuted.
The rest are self explanatory and do not require definition.
For these reasons, it is highly advisable that anyone who is looking for information regarding the events of 9/11 steers well clear of this film.
I have received a lot of questions about “Screw 9/11 Mysteries” and the 9/11 Mysteries Viewer’s Guide. I will attempt to answer the most common and the most basic ones here. All answers provided by “The Doc”.
Question
Why is it such a big deal that “Brad” lied about “literally not sleeping for an entire week” at the beginning of the film? You addressing it is just a personal attack. I mean... you should stick to the real issues.
I get this one a lot.
This is not a personal attack. Conspiracy theorists often say I am attacking Brad and avoiding the real issues. This is not the case. Of course, the irony there is that simply saying, “You attacked Brad, you're avoiding the real issues” is avoiding the real issues. As of April 2007, the only direct attempt to debate anything else in “Screw 9/11 Mysteries” was made by Dylan Avery. Dylan claimed that tests conducted on the Twin Towers concluded the towers could withstand a 600 mph airliner impact. This has been disproved, as shown in section 2.2.4 of this viewer’s guide. Dylan was proven wrong, as usual.
The truth is, I think Brad is a nice guy. He posts on my blog and on JREF from time to time. The fact remains, though, that he lied to his audience. I took on everything in the movie - from thermite and pyroclastic surges right down to the introduction. We were lied to within one minute of the film opening.
I am well aware that this is an insignificant part of the documentary. Nevertheless, I felt that even the most insignificant portions of the movie deserved attention. You lie - you are called out. Sorry Brad, but you lied. This "sleep deprivation" issue makes up for roughly 1/200th of the movie - if not closer to 1/400th. It is just as insignificant in my rebuttal as it was to Brad when he said it.
This segment will not be removed from the film, paper, or the website. The following are comments from members of the James Randi Educational Forum. Some valid comments are made, and I feel I should post them in this guide on their behalf.
Chipmunk Stew - JREF
“I like the sleep deprivation thing. It's funny. And it highlights right from the beginning that the makers of this film have a habit of engaging in hyperbole, an inappropriate rhetorical device in the context of a supposedly fact-based documentary.”
SLOB - JREF
The "Sleep Deprivation" segment is not only funny, its absolutely neccessary. It doesnt just point out the bleeding obvious, Brad was exaggerating when he said he "literarely" (does he even know what using that word means?) didnt sleep for a week. It also points out three rethorical tricks: First Brad uses it as a way of trying to set a mood, 'we work hard for you!', "Us truthers are hard working honest guys"
Secondly he is trying to place an indicator of just how much serious work he has put into this crap - to cast higher credibility to his conclusions later on: "This is good solid work people. I checked, checked and checked again. I didnt even sleep for a week".
Third he uses it to try to impose on the audience a feeling of just how much material is out there ("It took me a week - without any sleep just to find it!" - but hidden from them.
By highlighting this, Doc not only points out its a lie. He also helps the audience realise that tricks are used against it and as such not at all insignificant. Never underestimate the power of propagandic rethoric - even when used unknowingly.
So in summary, I am not basing an entire rebuttal upon how much sleep Brad got. I was just pointing out an obvious lie. If you think that this was the only lie in the film - think again.
Question
Will you be debunking any other movies, websites, fact sheets etc? Specifically 9/11 Mysteries Part 2?
At this current stage (April 2007), I have no plans to debunk 9/11 Mysteries Part 2. This is simply because I have not seen the movie yet, and I have no idea what evidence the film will present. In fact, I’m not even sure if it is still being developed. However, if 9/11 Mysteries uses the same methods as 9/11 Mysteries Part 1, I will be creating “Screw 9/11 Mysteries 2”, with an accompanying viewer’s guide.
I will be examining other 9/11 truth presentations up until the release of 9/11 Mysteries Part 2.
Question
Were you paid to do this?
No.
In fact, this project has cost me money. Web server rental and domain name rental are not free.
Question
Who are LashL, Orphia Nay and Jake?
When I made this guide, I was lucky enough to have two members of the JREF forums assist me with proof-reading and fact checking of the guide. Thanks to Orphia and Lash, this guide was cleansed of several grammatical, spelling and style errors. Their volunteered hours of tireless reading and correcting turned this guide from a bunch of facts clumped together into a properly formatted paper. LashL’s posts at JREF also greatly assisted me with source-gathering relating to Larry Silverstein’s insurance cases. Thank you Lash and Orphia.
Jake built the 911mysteriesguide.com website design. He volunteered his free time and expertise to create the site and I am greatly thankful to him for doing so. Jake also created the “Tilting Tower” animation shown in “Screw 9/11 Mysteries” using Macromedia Flash.
Question
Wasn’t “Screw 9/11 Mysteries” enough? Why the 131 pages of rebuttal that followed?
I created “Screw 9/11 Mysteries” while working under serious time constraints. As a result, I could not say everything that I wanted to say, and I could not provide more than one source for many of my rebuttals. This guide was developed after further research and without a limit on sources and text.
However, I still find that the video format is better at getting certain points across more effectively. Accordingly, I have included a few links to specific sections of “Screw 9/11 Mysteries” throughout this guide.
Question
Where can I get more information about the author, the guide and related items?
Please see the “Preface” of the 9/11 Mysteries Viewer’s Guide”.
Author:
Shane – The Doc
Editors:
LashL
Orphia Nay
Web Design:
Jake
Special Thanks:
Mark Roberts
Mark Iradian
Herman G. Dolder – Construction Engineer
Pat and James – Screw Loose Change
Bell – JREF Forums
OMGTurt1es – JREF Forums
http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com
FAIR USE NOTICE: While this document consists of significant amounts of original content, in order to explore and advance understanding of the events surrounding 9/11, it has been necessary to reference some material that is copyrighted.
Such use falls under the 'fair use' provisions set out in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Equivalent provisions exist in EU, Australian, and Canadian law. Thus, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information, specifically for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.