Every September since the infamous date known simply as 9/11, I watch one of the sober, respectful documentaries of that terrorist attack in order to renew my solidarity with those who are against Muslim terrorism and to remind myself of the conflict that we are still in. This year the documentary that I chose to watch is called, ‘102 Minutes that Changed America.’ It is an accurate, decent presentation of this grave subject, notwithstanding some of the exclamations by shocked New Yorkers that are broadcast.
In September of 2011 a friend of mine forwarded me a link to a documentary called, ‘9/11 Truth Documentary—Grave Implications.’ I watched it, though very uneasily. It is a sensationalistic presentation of 9/11, and it is done in that way in order to forward some farfetched theories. When a documentary of a somber event is done in a tasteless, callous spirit, one should begin to doubt its truth claims because the spirit of a thing usually reveals the nature of its letter.
The insensitive spirit of this documentary is obvious from its beginning. Either my friend was not struck by the insensitivity or he was not bothered by it. That is what I thought at the time. The truth is, he probably was struck by the insensitivity of the presentation and he probably was bothered by it, but was nevertheless drawn in to accept the truth claims therein because the film is seductive in character. I wanted to help my friend figure out how to spot seduction that posed for science in order to spare him from believing lies, not only about 9/11, but about any event that might be cast in a seductive hue in order to deceive. So I watched the whole documentary with my finger ready to hit the pause button and with my pen in hand. When I was done I had a detailed list of the faults that are made in this film. Then I sent my friend the corrective document that I had so assiduously prepared. In the spirit of a ‘9/11 truther,’ he brushed aside my concerns with as much care as a carpenter would brush the dust off his pants. What he did not do is try to refute my concerns about all the faults that I had found.
‘Truthers’ are like charismatic churchgoers (in fact my friend is both.) They have decided, even against much forthcoming evidence, that there are things going on that are as exorbitant as their wildest dreams or more nefarious than their worst nightmares. Cryptic goings on are the meat and drink they must consume in order to fill the spaces in their souls where facts and truth should occupy. You might say that they do not like to learn unless there is some secret code or door to a ‘truth’ that would scandalize even the most sacrilegious persons among us. They follow in the train of the Gnostics who came on the scene to give us their speculations in the place of what Jesus and the apostles had given out as Gospel Truth. These ‘9/11 truthers,’ in my opinion, see the real truth of a matter as too mundane for their exotic minds to absorb. It has become a regular thing for them to refuse the straightforward explanation in favor of the sensationalist speculation. ‘Fun’ is their idol, and they cannot have any fun with facts. Where facts fail to satisfy, fairy tales will have to do. If you probe the lives of such people, you will usually find that they don’t have a lot going on. Because they too rarely admit facts and truth, they are always hungry. Fairy tales are like cotton candy in their mouth, always dissolving and never getting to their belly. They like the taste but the vacuum remains. And so they are ever eating but never being filled.
Not all ‘truthers’ are truthers for life; and there is no good reason for anyone to ever become one. My critique did not suit my friend’s taste. Much of what I say in this critique will apply to other 9/11 documentaries of the conspiratorial variety, as well as conspiracy theories in general. The faults that I found are listed according to the minutes and seconds at which I found them. Allow for these to be off just a bit in case the video post you watch is not exactly in sync with where I watched the video from.
The critique of ‘9/11 Truth Documentary—Grave Implications’
The command to ‘test all things’ requires us to approach every proposition, not with a neutral spirit, as if we have no lies to expect from the fallen, sinful world, but with a suspicious spirit, for the world is crawling with liars. We are commanded to test all things. To obey this command, we must listen with the possibility of lies in mind. What is that but a suspicious approach? You don’t test just after you’re done listening. No, it is even natural to do it while you listen. To some degree, we all listen critically by nature. The command to test all things is given because we must be especially diligent to do it always and well, and because we will be confronted with philosophies and maneuvers that are engineered to get us listening uncritically.
This documentary on that horrible event called 9/11 posits that explosives were used to help bring down the World Trade Center towers ten years ago. Its not so indirect accusation is that government officials, including then President Bush, were involved in the supposed conspiracy to do the evil deed.
That is quite a testament to how old Scripture truth applies to this new world we live in: “The Lord knoweth how…to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities” (2 Peter 2.9, 10.)
The men who cobbled this documentary together are the kind of men spoken of in these two inspired verses. If the government and dignities of Peter’s day are spoken of as being worthy of his honor, then, by application, government and dignities of our day are worthy of our honor. The ministering spirits are our guide: “Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord” (verse 11.) The angels, greater, mightier, and not to mention, sinless, do not hurl railing accusations at dignitaries, no matter how evil. How much less ought corrupted man to do so? I’m not saying that leaders ought never to be accused, charged, or even deposed. Maybe that could be done when proof is brought to bear. Maybe it could be done with the support of proof, and in a decent, orderly, firm fashion. But what is a railing accusation? It is a scurrilous accusation: an accusation that is coarse, obscene, or vulgar, which is the kind of accusation that you find being leveled in this documentary. Even if proof were brought to bear in favor of the accusations made (which is not the case), the spirit of this documentary would self-condemn it. The men who fashioned this documentary are railing accusers. The first hint that they are is in how this documentary begins.
The makers of ‘Grave Implications’ do walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness. This is clear from the outset. The upbeat music the documentary begins with is not a suitable spirit for documenting the tragedy of 9/11. Thousands of persons were murdered in that terrorist strike. To play upbeat music in concert with dramatic replays of the towers being plowed into and disintegrating is the work of unclean, lust-filled men. They take the images of this tragic event; then they marry these with music, and the result is a party atmosphere. Pity I did not have my popcorn and beer ready for the show! The music that is used tends to produce an urge to tap one’s toes. Is that appropriate? This effect is so insidious that I was toe-tapping without realizing it! Then my conscience woke up and reproved me. Intentional or not, the party spirit that is generated coaxes the viewer to accept what is said through the medium of pleasure, not fact. Regardless, these ‘9/11 truthers’ treat tragedy resulting in mass murder with as much casual disregard as Wimber treats of the sacred trinity. Did I prejudge this documentary? No, I predicted this atmosphere. Conspiracy theorist material is commonly disrespectful of tragic events and the lives most closely affected by tragedy. That is its chief mark. With nothing more to go on than the inappropriate, unseasonable, unwarranted, and therefore indecent, spirit this documentary begins with, should we not be suspicious of the content that will follow? Where disrespect is, might we not expect to find lying and cheating as well? The spirit this documentary starts with is enough, all by itself, to compel me to cast doubt on the whole. It is enough to justify my ignorance of all that follows. But I watched the whole thing in order to test what you’ve come to believe concerning 9/11, and to test my own opinion too.
The music they continue with is sensationalistic. This draws us into an emotional acceptance of what is said, kind of like what Christian radio does near the end of its broadcast in order to get sinners to accept Christ in spite of him not being properly preached. We are coaxed into an acceptance, not of fact, but of party, and this, through the emotions, not the mind.
Explosions testified to do not mean that detonations have taken place. Flash fires begun by impacting jet fuel will result in all kinds of combustible material exploding. Therefore some will testify to explosions.
At 5.15 m. one man speaks of the building going down, level by level, as if by detonation. But this man who supposedly ‘testifies’ doesn’t even mean that he thought it was by detonation. He’s using a simile. It’s like me saying that this crow that swept passed my head seemed like a pterodactyl as it went by. I don’t mean to convey that it was a pterodactyl any more than this man meant that the implosion was by detonation. This man’s ‘testimony’ is not a testimony at all. The poor soul just described an event by the use of a simile, and some opportunist labeled ‘testimony’ to what he said.
A newsman speculates on whether or not a bomb was used. What does that prove?
At 6.00 m. a fireman says he heard a loud boom. But what he thought caused that boom is never specified. His words, too, are opportunistically used.
At 6.30 m. a fireman says that he wasn’t expecting to see the damage he saw in the lobby, like the bodies, etc. So what? Does this prove he was intimating that demolitions were used? And does this prove that, as a matter of fact, they were used? An airliner full of jet fuel hits a skyscraper, and there’s supposed to be no fallout or damage on the lower levels? What kind of reasoning is this?
At 6.35 m. a fireman says that the lobby was ‘as though a bomb had exploded there.’ Again, a simile used as if it were testimony. He doesn’t mean by this remark that a bomb went off any more than a person means a freight train mowed down his house by the remark that the tornado sounded like one.
At 6.55 m. a fireman says that he heard a huge explosion. When is not specified. For all we know he means the sound of the plane hitting the tower.
These firemen are being used as testifiers to something they never testified to. They are speaking their hearts out on the awful hell on earth they just went through, and their anguish-filled words are used to convince people of something these firemen never even testified to. My guess is that they would deny assent to the conclusions their words are made to come to in this documentary.
At 7.25 m. some firemen do admit that they think bombs were in the building. Does that make it true?
At 7.50 m. one man says everything was reduced to dust, the desks, etc. So what? What does this prove? This man is not claiming that this means bombs were used. He says nothing about that.
At 8.30 m. a man says a bomb went off a second before the plane hit. When you look at some of the footage of this event, you will notice that the impact and the sound do not agree to the second. That’s not just due to the audio feed. This anomaly is a norm where large noises interact with a cityscape. You can experience this downtown when loud motorcycles go by. Loud noises interact with city acoustics in such a way that hearing does not always coincide in time with what caused the loud noises. What this man says does not surprise me at all. It should be entirely expected once we are familiar with this phenomenon. But this argument of mine may answer only to testimonies that an explosion happened after the plane hit, not before. Okay, but sights, not just sounds, cause us to misinterpret when things happen. When you look at a building from a certain angle, it will appear as though it’s being hit a second sooner or later than when it is actually hit. That’s just the reality of physics. I’m not talking about the speed barrier here; I’m speaking about how our senses are affected by noises and sights in a skyscraper scene. And consider this: we are supposed to believe that the plot to detonate was so perfect that the detonation came to within a second of when the plane hit the building. Given all the variables, like the uncertainty of time involved in the hijackers taking over the plane, the uncertainty of time involved in setting new bearings, the speed and angle of the aircraft coming at the building, then we will agree, will we not, that detonation could not be so accurately preset as to coincide so closely with the time the planes hit? Therefore, someone with a clear sight of the building would have had to be ready to activate the bomb at the point of impact. But even then, given the angle and speed of the approaching aircraft, what are the odds that this man would come to within a second of the hit? The odds are that he would have been late, not early. That is the common mistake that is made when targets have to be led. But back to my main point: it is common to be a second off your estimation of when a noise occurred in the city. This is the answer to what the man says regarding an explosion happening ‘before the plane hit.’ The plane hitting the building was the explosion. Furthermore, supposing that a bomb went off just before the plane hit the building, why didn’t the other bombs go off at that time? you know, all the other bombs that are said to have gone off later as the buildings were coming down? You know that some time passed between the hit (when one alleged bomb is supposed to have gone off) and the implosion (when the other bombs are alleged to have gone off.) You see, these conspiracy theorists are so eager to prove that bombs were used that they grasp after every word that might be used to construe the allegation; but in doing so, they do not even realize that their hasty construing argues against the very thing they wish to prove: that all the bombs were precisely rigged to go off at such a time and in such a way that demolitions experts must have set the whole thing up for disaster. When a building is brought down by experts, however, what do they do, set off one bomb, and then wait for an hour or a half-hour later to set the rest off? No, that’s not how they do it. They set them to go off in very close proximity of time; they all go off within seconds, or even milliseconds of each other.
This same man testifies that there was a bomb in the basement. He says he heard other bombs go off later. A towering inferno can answer for all of this. There’s nothing remarkable about that. Things blow up without the means of bombs. A simple Molotov cocktail goes off like a bomb. And these buildings contained many more substances to explode by fire than what a Molotov cocktail contains! All you need is gas, fire, soap, and impact to make an explosion. And what if there was a bomb in the basement? Would this mean that government officials were in on it?
At 15 m. the MIT man speaks of reconstruction that should have taken place, like what was done with the remains of TWA 800. Now how would that be done, given the rubble that the buildings were reduced to? Are you going to reconstruct rubble? And never mind rubble, what about dust? Are you going to reconstruct dust? Lots of rubble and dust, you know, when detonations have taken place! TWA 800 was not reduced to dust and rubble. The pictures show that the large pieces of its frame were recovered and pasted back together. That was not possible to do with the towers, as anyone who has seen the horrible spectacle will testify to. And in what direction would this reconstruction go in? Would it be done vertically or horizontally? Where would this be done? How many people would it take? How much time? How much money? How many geniuses? The thing would have been more impossible to do than to reconstruct a mountain of shredded paper. Also, if bombs will reduce buildings to rubble, while fire and compaction alone will not, why did TWA 800 have such large pieces left of it? It was bombed, was it not? Your conspiracy theorists certainly think so! And there were both fire and compaction to assist in that tragedy, n’est-ce pas? Why such large pieces left, then?
At 16.11 the following words come on the screen: ‘Evidence Had to be Retreived.’ That’s not my spelling error, but theirs. I won’t make much of this, but errors in spelling simple words, especially when these words make up one of the main parts of a power point presentation, should be viewed, if not as a red flag, then at least as a warning light. It speaks of carelessness, or of work produced by unschooled people, be they schooled at MIT or elsewhere.
At 22.19 m. the same MIT man speaks of ‘Pyroclastic Flow.’ Then the words come on the screen, as if anyone knows what Pyroclastic Flow means. The words are presented like this to make the MIT man appear scholarly. And he needs it after that reconstruction gaffe! Anyway, the smoke, dust, and debris that flowed horizontally may be explained, at least in part, and maybe fully, by the streets between tall buildings acting as a funnel. He intimates that heat would be necessary to reduce contents in the building to powder (I think he must mean the contents pertaining to lower floors where no principal inferno was.) But could objects and effects not be reduced to powder by crushing pressure alone? You can reduce a cinder block to dust by a few blows with a hammer, you know. What do you think the weight of these searing buildings could do, even to desks and filing cabinets? They don’t make desks and filing cabinets like they used to, you know. Tap a few of these on the side the next time you’re in a store. And this searing heat descended as the building came down, which answers for heat existing at lower levels. Also, what he fails to mention is that when the jet fuel exploded on impact, fireballs were plunged down elevator shafts. Lots of heat to lower levels from that! Lots of heat to cause structural damage then! No need of bombs to bring buildings down when a fact like that be considered! He says that evacuation drills happened just prior to 9/11. What would this go to prove? This is precisely what you would not expect if a conspiracy to explode the buildings were in order!
At 28 m. we are shown that blasts seem to be shooting out the sides of one of the buildings on its way down. These blast-like shots occur just below the oncoming crush, floor by floor. Could these blasts be happening, not because of explosives, but on account of mere pressure from above? This is logical; it is just another phenomenon of physics. You do not need detonation for debris to be blown out the sides of a building as it comes down. Weight, speed, air, and gravity will take care of that. This physics lesson could be shown by a simple child’s experiment at home.
At 33.41 m. it is said that someone was told that one of the towers was going to collapse just before it did collapse. The person who stated as much would be one of your conspirators, then. Why not arrest him? Then this whole plot would be uncovered and solved. Truly, it would not be a remarkable thing if someone said the building was going to fall just before it did fall. The sights and the sounds at ground zero would compel exactly that sort of prophecy from someone or other. Probably many people were speculating and fearing that this would occur. That someone said it would happen just before it did happen proves nothing at all. It’s quite predictable that such a thing would have been said at that time.
Threats were made against the towers before the towers were attacked. Does this prove, that because some officials were aware of this, that therefore officials were in on the attack? If someone threatened to break your window, does this mean that everyone who heard the rumor was in on the window getting broken?
At 40.25 US intelligence is reported as speaking of ‘something out there’ before 9/11 happened. So what? Should the powers-that-be cry wolf every time a threat like ‘something out there’ has come in to headquarters? Mayor Willie Brown received news advising him to be cautious of air travel; but the call ‘didn’t come in an alarming fashion.’ That’s all the warning that is warranted when ‘something may be out there’ Oh, but some officials changed their flight plans just when ‘something out there’ was looming. Is there any connexion here? Threats are directed to the USA regularly. Officials cancel flights regularly. If every threat were reported to the public, first there would be panic, then anger, and then indifference. This is why threats of uncertain origin and destination are not generally made known, not because the government wants its citizens to die in burning towers. At 39.04 m. an article by CBS news comes up regarding Ashcroft flying by leased jet instead of by commercial airline. No data is provided here concerning why or when this occurred, only speculation and insinuation.
At 39.14 m. it is said that on September 10th some top Pentagon officials cancelled travel plans for next morning, ‘apparently’ because of security concerns. That word ‘apparently’ worries me. It speaks of someone’s conjecture, nothing more. And again, officials cancel flight plans regularly, even daily. Just because some of them did this on the 10th means nothing. How many officials cancelled flight plans on the 2nd, on the 3rd, or on December 25th, for that matter? Probably the numbers are similar to cancellations on September 10th, because officials do this sort of thing every day.
At 47.12, then President Bush is quoted as saying, “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful; so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people; and neither do we.” Supposing that this audio is not altered, it is clear from the gist of sentence one that his meaning in sentence two is of similar intention. He does not mean in sentence two that he and his government never stop thinking of ways of harming their own people; he means that the USA is up to the task of meeting every contrivance and assault. Pouncing on an official’s misspoken words to prove an evil allegation is precisely the sin of speaking evil of dignities.
In this documentary bits of truth are made to kiss carefully selected bits of error in order to convince us that government officials are guilty of mass murdering their citizens.
Let’s turn now to Adam Clarke’s commentary on 2 Peter 2.11: “Verse 11. Whereas angels, &c. This is a difficult verse, but the meaning seems to be this: The holy angels, who are represented as bringing an account of the actions of the fallen angels before the Lord in judgment, simply state the facts without exaggeration, and without permitting any thing of a bitter, reviling, or railing spirit, to enter into their accusations. See Zecariah 3:1, and Jude 1:9; to the former of which St. Peter evidently alludes. But these persons, not only speak of the actions of men which they conceive to be wrong, but do it with untrue colourings, and the greatest malevolence. Michael, the archangel, treated a damned spirit with courtesy; he only said, The Lord rebuke thee, Satan! but these treat the rulers of God’s appointment with disrespect and calumny.”
I believe that the holy angels may be reporting on men here, not their fallen counterparts. But the drift, in Pierrardian terminology, is apropos. Railing, reviling, exaggeration, false colorings—these are the sins that unite certain men of the 21st century with the ones that are spoken of by Peter from the 1st. The guilty parties referred to by Peter have for their modern equals the makers of ‘Grave Implications.’ They are fellows of a single feather, weaves of the same cloth, and unless these latter fellows repent, refuse for the same Gehenna. The grave implication of being guilty of a reviling accusation may be a sorry end.