http://www.oilempire.us/griffin.html

Nearly three years ago, oilempire.us co-sponsored the second public presentation that David Griffin made on 9/11 complicity issues. It is very disappointing to see him embrace Holocaust deniers and other liars promoting "no planes." Meanwhile, the media attack on the 9/11 truth movement focuses only on the "no plane" hoaxes and demolition theories -- not the well documented evidence of suppressed warnings and military wargames on 9/11 simulating actual events. It would be nice to see Mr. Griffin learn from these mistakes, since promoting a mix of real and false claims makes it difficult for most people to differentiate the good from the bad.

http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html

demolition theories NOT needed to prove complicity once the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen was established (which was documented within a few weeks of the events), everything beyond that is merely detail.

the position of oilempire.us is that the towers were intentionally demolished by the Bush administration, but the method of destruction was allowing (and possibly steering) Flight 11 and Flight 175 to crash into the buildings. The sober and fantastical claims for explosives, thermite, and even exotic unconventional weapons are not supported by peer reviewed, independently verifiable investigations and are an enormous distraction from solid evidence. The core of the case for complicity has nothing to do with the collapses.

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

"no plane" hoaxes discredit 9/11 "truth" and distract from evidence of complicity

"No plane at the Pentagon" has been the most popular hoax, and has been promoted the longest (since a few weeks after 9/11).

The eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence disproves the "Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" claims. Hundreds of people saw the plane from numerous vantage points. Photos of the impact zone show how the plane struck the first and second floors of the building. There are photos of plane debris in the wreckage.

Some websites try to make the issue of official complicity dependent on the "no plane" myth (some state there was complicity, others oppose the idea), but this is a red herring tactic. It is a big clue that the media efforts to discredit 9/11 skeptics focus on this claim (the absence of Flight 77) while ignoring evidence proven beyond reasonable doubt. Some probable disinformation efforts promoting hoaxes allegedly proving complicity focus on "no plane" and ignore other claims that actually have solid evidence (why the trillion dollar Air Force did not defend its headquarters).

None of the "no Boeing" theorists have explained why the perpetrators would have risked certain exposure by a bystander capturing video of something that wasn't a Boeing 757. Video footage from nearby surveillance cameras was immediately seized by the FBI. Workers at a nearby hotel did get to see their film (prior to its impoundment) and did not report seeing anything other than a plane hitting the Pentagon. Keeping the film footage secret allows extreme speculation to flourish, which serves the interests of the plotters.

A growing number of 9/11 skeptics have realized the "no 757" story was spread to discredit / distract us. It's a tempting theory in some ways, but if you trace the story back, there's no reality to it. Photoshopped images, claims by anonymous people on the web, a blatant disregard of all of the evidence -- these and more mental gymnastics are necessary to believe "no 757."