A Criticism Of "Israel Did 9/11" Conspiracy Theories

First and foremost, rest in peace to the 2,977 Americans that died on that horrible day.






If you look up any 9/11 video, you’ll find a glass display case of a comment section filled with sad people, jokers, and conspiracy loons. Conspiracy theories about 9/11 are not new and accusations float around all over the place.

At first it was Bush, then it turned into “the deep state” then Lucky Larry, and all spiraled around into one final destination - The Jews.

I found an article on wikispooks, some conspiracy website discussing “the spurious connection between jews and foreknowledge of the attack”. This blog post will be to not refute, but criticize this article, since it supposedly is the most incriminating piece of evidence that Israel was behind the attack, at least that I've seen.




Before I begin, I would like to start by saying that this post will be in defense of Israel. I am not fond of Israel’s policies, so this is not a defense to Israel as a whole, only going after libel that they supposedly caused 9/11. This is used as libel against Jews, and this is where the problems arise. So, let’s begin.

(Interesting thing, this article was supposedly written in the interest of Kenneth O’Keefe, who i’m pretty sure is the same guy who made (or helped make) Europa The Last Battle. (fully debunked on holocaustcontroversies)







—




The article begins by talking about how it’s connected to antisemitism and how some guy lost his job for posting the wikispooks article. Duh, because it’s a shitty that happened and nobody wants to hear “i think he did it”. I’m not going to waste too much time on this because it’s irrelevant.




The first topic brought up is Larry Silverstein. You just can’t have a 9/11 conspiracy theory without him. It talks about how he “felt a compelling urge to own them” (so?) and how they were filled with asbestos. I guess this is supposed to concede that Larry bought it for the purpose of destroying it and there’s no way he would’ve rightfully owned them considering the state. There’s really not much of an argument here, and certainly not enough evidence to support that hypothesis.

The whole thing that Larry wasn’t present at the towers on 9/11 is the same old eyewash. A straightforward question to any conspiracy loon - so?

I’m not going to turn my back and say it’s not odd, it is. The article links a video of Silverstein talking about that he had a dermatologist appointment. This isn’t evidence he had foreknowledge though, just a lucky coincidence that apparently the loons can’t comprehend. Remember that almost every person who lived through 9/11 said the same thing - it was a completely normal morning until it wasn’t. So why should I care if the guy had an appointment that day? I had a friend whose dad was laid off of his job in the towers the day before it happened. Did he have foreknowledge?

The author then talks about how Silverstein took out insurance for terrorism. This may seem suspicious to someone whose knowledge of 9/11 comes from articles like these, but it was made clear only 8 years prior that the WTC was a target for terrorists. In February 1993, a bomb went off in the parking garage in a terrorism incident. Frankly, why would Silverstein not care about terrorism?

The article then talks about Silverstein’s kids not being at the tower either. The video where Silverstein talks about his appointment is the source, where says that his kids were on the way to work. The author finds himself in a situation where he just blows things out of proportion. Keep in mind that the first plane struck (at 8:46) before the average work day officially starts, at 9am, so it’s completely understandable that Silverstein’s kids would still be on the way to work.

The article continues the Silverstein rambling, talking about his insurance war. It’s just more useless eyewash that doesn’t prove anything. Onto the next one.




Frank Lowy is now discussed. It is true he owned Westfield America.

Not much else is provided in this part of the article. Just that he loved Israel and also happened to own the mall below the WTC. So?

It also says Lowy was not at the WTC on 9/11. No source is provided for this, so it can be dismissed. But even if it's true, Lowy isn't specified to have a daily routine being present at the towers, so it doesn't matter.

Two other people are discussed, Lewis Eisenberg and Ronald Lauder. I'm just going to ignore this because once again, there's no argument provided regarding both of them.

You can kind of start to see where this article is going - there's no hard evidence, just speculation to get readers thinking. It is a serious waste of time to go through it all, but at least the article seems to get a tad bit more interesting as we go on.




Next it discusses security. 0 sources are provided for any of the information given about Kroll Inc, so once again, we can disregard it.

Next, John O'Neill. He (allegedly) quit his job at the FBI after the the investigation (allegedly) was sabotaged by the Yemeni ambassador, Zionist Barbara Bodine. And guess what? No sources. He was killed on his first day of work on 9/11. I'm not sure what this is supposed to concede, assuming all this is true. Very confusing "evidence" that Israel did 9/11, and it's almost like he's trying to say 9/11 was done for the sole purpose of killing O'Neill. Again, the author is quite incompetent and thinks he can get away with random yakking sessions, so that's that.

He then says that the U.S.S Cole was hit by an Israeli cruise missile. A source is provided, but it leads you to a 404. Considering the quality of the sources up to here, it wouldn't surprise me if he purposely made it a 404 link to make you think it's legitimate. I searched for quite a bit trying to find the source he linked in it's good condition, but nothing. If anyone has it, please send it.




--
Now the talk about airport security is brought up. The author brings up that ICTS International was ran by former Shin Bet Israelis. Again, nothing here of value.

The author then continues with this:

"It is not credible that this company, which ran security at both Boston Logan and Newark airports, was so slipshod as to allow 19 Arabs to board 4 different planes with box-cutters, mace, and even a gun."

This is just personal incredulity, not facts. Airport security mistakes can happen. Also not to mention, the fear of plane-related terrorism was not very common prior to 9/11. Airport security has changed largely since then, and barely any baggages were scanned prior. Only metal detectors.

Also, another thing is that anti-Arab sentiment was not very common prior to 9/11. Only after did Americans become grounded in their own people and start throwing the accusations that all Arabs are terrorists. So, yes, it is very possible that they would make such a mistake.

The next paragraph talks about ICTS's complicity in the shoe bomber incident. Keep in mind the scanners at airports cannot detect all explosives, which is why the shoe rules began. The reason you take off your shoes at airports is thanks to the shoe bomber and the shitty detection systems. An excerpt from Wikipedia's page on Reid:

"As a result of these events, some airlines encouraged passengers departing from an airport in the United States to pass through airport security in socks or bare feet while their shoes are scanned for bombs.[32] In 2006, the TSA started requiring all passengers to remove their shoes for screening.[33] Scanners do not find PETN in shoes or strapped to a person. A chemical test is needed.[34] However, even if the X-ray scanners cannot detect all explosives, it is an effective way to see if the shoe has been altered to hold a bomb.[35]

In 2011, the rules were relaxed to allow children 12 and younger and adults 75 and older to keep their shoes on during security screenings.[36]"

I'm not going to bother talking about the Patriot Act stuff because it's not relevant to the idea that Israel did 9/11.

Now he brings up the underwear bomber. Again, not relevant, and the author keeps stimming on trying to prove ICTS sucks. We can tell just by the fact that 9/11 hijackers passed security that it sucked. Moving on.



Now the "Gomel Chesed Cemetery Incident". This argument is laughable, not because it's a funny joke or ironic statement, but just because of how shit the source is. It cites a link from Rense, a loonie conspiracy cult website discussing the testimony of an (alleged) former IDF officer. The officer isn't named, all we have is what he allegedly heard.

It says that the officer heard a conversation in Hebrew where he made out the words "the Americans will learn what it's like to live with terrorists with the planes hit the twins" or some nonsense like that. See, the problem with this source is how unreliable it is. The witness isn't named and he easily could've been lying. The main claim to fame is "the FBI didn't investigate it". The FBI didn't have much of a reason to investigate it, as they don't know who was speaking and it's not a very clear threat. According to Rense, it says that the FBI claimed they wouldn't be able to do anything on his behalf. Exactly, because what can you do?

The witness isn't named, the suspects aren't named, just testimony from this random guy. Useless source.


--



Now Odigo is brought up. This is a personal favorite "Israel did 9/11" argument because of how bad it is, and goes to show how truly media illiterate antisemites are. A usual case of title skimping.


The author claims Odigo employees received instant messages providing foreknowledge of the attack. This is just false. The threats received on Odigo specifically said "there will be a terrorist attack" (or something along those lines), not specifying when, how, or why.


The author then claims that "its possible other Israelis received the message" without any proof. If anything "isn't credible" it's that only 2 people who were in Israel at the time of the attack reported it, and the other 4000 (which the author claims, not me) supposedly got it and didn't say anything. The author is basically implying every single Israeli is a servant to their deep state and wouldn't come clean about what happened, which is entirely ridiculous.


Also, even if these Israeli nationals did receive a message, it's not like it would help. We already know that the message was vague and the Israelis didn't think much of it until something actually happened. Keep in mind, this is in Israel. Is it really impossible that some random Palestinian nationalist or neo-Nazi decided to troll some Israelis on Odigo with a threat and accidentally did it the day of an actual attack? Those are far more likely than what the author claims.
The author proceeds to say that only 5/4000 Israelis died in the attack, without any evidence whatsoever. I see this get thrown around a lot and it doesn't make any sense.


- No source is provided for this claim
- Work day hasn't even started yet, you cannot expect everyone to be at work prior to their start time.
The Odigo argument is weak and ignorant of other much more likely possibilities. In this situation, you should use Occam's Razor. Simpler explanation is the better one.


The author also says that "Statistically, with no forewarning about 10% (ie 400 of 4000) would have died; a toll as low as 200-300/4000 would not convincingly indicate foreknowledge."


You're telling me that you require a minimum of 1/10 of the dead to be Israeli nationals, that which only made up 12.5% of the total people who worked in the Twin Towers on an average workday (assuming your number of 4000 Israelis is true) to believe that there wasn't foreknowledge? Talk about insanities.


Keep in mind, the first attack happened before the workday even started. Only about 15,000 people were working in the towers at that moment, even less Israeli nationals. The author either doesn't understand basic arithmetic and logic or he's just dumb and knows nothing about 9/11.








Now the author talks about some Israeli company vacating their company a week before the attacks. So? The author doesn't understand coincidences. I also highly doubt it's true, considering once again there's no source.


At this point I believe it's appropriate to keep a counter of claims made without evidence. So far we're up to a nice 3 claims made without sources. I don't have high hopes for the rest of the article.




--




The author brings up an article from the Washington Post which refers to the US Army claiming Mossad has the capabilities to stage a terrorist attack and blame it on the Palestinians. We're back to the same old question.. so? US Forces weren't targeted nor were Palestinians blamed for the attack. 0 relevant argument made here.


The next two paragraphs talk about Israelis arrested for espionage. The author is only exposing his poor abilities to write a an article proving a conspiracy, so this can be disregarded, as it has nothing to do with 9/11. Why the Israelis were spying, who knows. Again, doesn't prove foreknowledge let alone planning.




Now the part I'm sure everyone has been waiting for, the Dancing Israelis.


Food for thought, up to here, the author has implied that Israel and federal agencies worked together to carry out this attack, especially with the cemetery stuff, making the claim that the FBI didn't run an investigation. So all of a sudden, the FBI is highly involved with getting to the bottom of these Israelis, running polygraphs and checks on them? In a perfect world, would they have not just identified them quickly, closed the case and sent them home?


The author goes on to say that they had maps with places on the city highlighted. This is another "so?" moment, because that's not incriminating evidence whatsoever. Apparently they also had $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock (another "so?")


I should add now that maybe this rebuttal seems weak due to my incessant use of "so?" to actual suspicious things. The issue is, he's the one making the accusation that these men had foreknowledge of a terrorist attack. It's on him to prove that these men would go on to use this cash for illicit purposes, not me to prove that they wouldn't. Maybe Paul or whatever just wanted to go buy himself a fancy watch after moving houses. Who knows?


Also, even though this isn't in the article, occasionally CTs will claim that they had plane tickets set for the day after. I'm not even going to bother fact checking this to know it's nonsense. A day after a massive plane-induced terrorist attack and supposedly these people wouldn't guess that the airspaces would be closed? Even Israel had closed it. If anything this would indicate that the Israelis did not have foreknowledge of the attack.


This time, the author does actually cite a source (I know, party at my place tonight!), a Forward article about the situation. They also mention that a dog sniffing tour was brought for this and the dogs detected explosives, yet no mention of it in the only source provided, the Forward article. He then wows you with this compelling piece of evidence:


"According to the Jewish Daily Forward the FBI later determined that at least two of the Israelis were Mossad agents and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems was a Mossad front."


Wow! "The Jewish Daily Forward said". This is like me wanting to cite information from a book in a research project and I just name the book's publisher. Even though he technically did provide a source, it's worthless, therefore I'll chalk up another strike. We're up to 4 now.


Another thing that police found in the Israeli's van was box cutters. I didn't want to mention this until after the UMS claim, because I just want to point out how ridiculous it is to expect people to be shocked from finding box cutters in a van owned by a moving systems company. Really?

The rest of the Dancing Israelis gish gallop has (mostly) been handled at 911myths. I'm too lazy to handle the rest of this, because a lot of it is just a mess of conflicting facts.

Next, the author brings up the infamous mural van. This would refer to a supposed spotting of a truck with a mural painted on it resembling 9/11. The author clearly has not taken any time to research this topic to determine it's validity as an argument.

Some NYPD radio transmissions were published, which the author links in the article, a YouTube video. The following frame in the video has a subtitle and a supposed 'photo' of the truck.

What can we take away from this subtitle? Not much. First off, the caller says "I got a message", which clearly indicates hearsay. (Why couldn't the original spotter call the police himself?) Second "airplane diving into new york city and exploding", so? What a vague way to describe something so obscene and relevant to what was happening on that day. We cannot determine the validity of this truck's existence based on a secondary source going off of hearsay. 

A supposed 'photo' of the truck is shown in the background, although this proves nothing because it's an artist's rendition of what the truck could've looked like. Photoshop. (The video creator says this himself)

The author also cites "Norman Mineta" (citation needed but I was able to find the actual source so i'll give him a pass) as a source for this van's existence, and calls it credible just because it comes from a scholarly report. Shocker, secondary sources, no matter how reliable their origin is, can still be wrong. Can someone explain to him how sources work?

One attention calling part of the video is an officer saying "the van exploded". What's interesting to me is how calm the officer is saying this, normally a van exploding would ensue a massive freakout on police radio chatter. But the officer reporting it is acting like it's an everyday occurrence. 

UNDER CONSTRUCTION