Keep Scrolling for continue reading for more stories

How Trump Lied About 9/11 And Made It About Himself


“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.” – Plato (427-347 BCE).

In the aftermath of the tragedy that was 9/11, a tapestry of heart-wrenching narratives, personal accounts, and shared memories depicts a nation grappling with profound loss. Yet, among these tales, some versions stand out as stark outliers, reflecting not just factual inaccuracy but potentially pointing to a more aberrant mindset.

Central to this divergence is Donald Trump. From his initial reactions about his own building’s stature on that catastrophic day to claims of witnessing people leaping from the World Trade Center towers, Trump’s narrations have consistently deviated from the norm.

But these stories did not stand still. With time, the nature and tone of Trump’s recounting evolved, extending to audacious assertions about Muslims in New Jersey cheering during the tragedy and exaggerated claims of personally funding and dispatching large contingents of workers to Ground Zero.

Such deviations in narratives, as reflected in Trump’s accounts, serve as a reminder of the profound implications of public storytelling. When memory, especially one as collective and significant as 9/11, is distorted, it can reshape perceptions and history. Through this examination of Trump’s varying 9/11 stories, we aim to delineate truth from fiction and reaffirm the importance of authentic historical narration.

Trump’s First-hand Account

The devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, were a traumatic experience for the American public. Yet, for then-businessman Donald Trump, this tragic day seems to have served as a stage for some of his most audacious claims. In an era characterized by misinformation, these assertions warrant meticulous examination.

As reported by CNN, Trump asserted that on the day of the attacks, he saw people jumping out of the Twin Towers. The geography of Manhattan itself calls this into question. Trump’s residence at the time was Trump Tower, located in Midtown Manhattan. The World Trade Center site, where the towers fell, is situated in Lower Manhattan, making it geographically implausible for anyone, including Trump, to have witnessed such a heart-wrenching detail from several miles away without the aid of television or other media.

But geographical challenges aren’t the sole issue with this claim. The emotional weight of the tragedy itself poses another question: Why would Trump assert such a deeply distressing and personal experience on a public platform? The answer may lie in his recurring strategy of capturing public attention. In a sea of shared grief and disbelief, such a vivid and personal account naturally garners more attention.

Parallel to this was another claim that emerged shortly after the attacks. As detailed by the Mirror, Trump made the boastful assertion that, due to the tragic loss of the Twin Towers, his 40 Wall Street property had become the tallest in Manhattan. The timing and nature of this claim once again show a pattern: Trump’s penchant for turning significant public events, even those mired in grief, into an opportunity for self-promotion.

Of course, these are not isolated instances. Throughout his life, especially during his presidency, Trump’s relationship with the truth has often been questioned. In the span of four years, The Washington Post recorded a staggering 30,573 untruths spoken by Trump. That equates to an average of 21 false or misleading claims every single day of his presidency, with the frequency of these untruths accelerating as his tenure progressed.

It’s essential to see Trump’s 9/11 claims in light of this larger pattern. As with many of his falsehoods or exaggerations, the intention behind them often seems aimed at bolstering his image. In the world of Trump, a tragedy as monumental as 9/11 becomes an avenue for self-aggrandizing tales, regardless of their factual basis.

While Trump’s accounts of 9/11 have ranged from witnessing jumpers to property boasts, it is the consistency of his pattern that’s revealing. Each of these tales seems meticulously crafted to either thrust him into the epicenter of events or to frame situations in a way that portrays him advantageously.

The New York Times, in its detailed fact-checking, scrutinized Trump’s claim about spending “a lot of time” with 9/11 responders. The aim here isn’t merely to dispute whether Trump did spend time at Ground Zero. Instead, it’s to understand the pattern of Trump’s claims: the tendency to place himself at the center of significant events, often at the expense of truth.

Conclusively, in scrutinizing Trump’s firsthand account of 9/11 and its aftermath, a consistent theme emerges. Trump’s declarations, whether rooted in fact or fiction, are almost invariably angled to amplify his presence, position, or prestige. When viewed against the backdrop of tens of thousands of recorded untruths, these claims on 9/11 urge readers to approach them with both empathy for the tragedy’s real victims and a critical, discerning eye.

Trump’s Observations on the World Trade Center

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the World Trade Center’s tragic demise and the stories of those affected filled the headlines. Yet among these stories, one particular narrative was unique – that of Donald Trump and his observations on the World Trade Center.

Soon after the towers’ collapse, as a fog of disbelief hovered over the nation, a certain claim emerged from Trump that caught many off guard. As reported by the Mirror, Trump made a striking statement regarding his 40 Wall Street property. Instead of expressing pure condolences or focusing solely on the nation’s loss, Trump remarked that due to the tragedy, his building had now become the tallest in Manhattan. Such a declaration, amid the nation’s shared sorrow, seemed oddly out of place and gave the impression of an attempt to redirect the spotlight.

Diving deeper into Trump’s relationship with the World Trade Center, it becomes evident that his interactions with the iconic towers long predate the 2001 attacks. Before the completion of the North Tower in 1972, Trump was already an emerging figure in New York’s real estate scene. Given the competitiveness of Manhattan’s skyline, the rise of the Twin Towers undoubtedly posed symbolic architectural challenges to Trump’s ambitions.

Yet, post the 9/11 attacks, Trump’s views on the World Trade Center seemed to oscillate. On one end, Trump has been recorded in the Rolling Stone as sharing that he never considered the Twin Towers to be an attractive piece of architecture. He described them as “monolithic” and not particularly eye-catching. Contrastingly, the same man who once critiqued the towers’ aesthetics would later position himself in the heart of the tragedy, claiming as reported by CNN, to have witnessed people jumping from the towers on the day of the attacks.

When evaluating these statements, it’s beneficial to understand them within the larger context of Trump’s history of documented falsehoods. According to a comprehensive analysis by The Washington Post, Trump made an astonishing 30,573 false or misleading claims over four years. Given such a profound frequency of inaccuracies, it raises eyebrows when Trump positions himself as a first-hand witness to the heart-wrenching scenes of 9/11. It begs the question: Are these observations genuine memories or are they part of a pattern to consistently remain at the epicenter of discussions?

Furthermore, The New York Times has consistently spotlighted the discrepancies in Trump’s various accounts over the years. From his proximity to Ground Zero on the day of the attacks to his involvement in the aftermath, many of his tales appear to be in conflict with established facts.

But why would Trump, a man of significant influence and means, make such assertions? The answer might lie in his approach to media and public attention. Trump, as many publications have documented, has a penchant for crafting narratives that often place him at the heart of events. Whether it’s his buildings, his experiences, or his personal observations, the intention often seems to be to drive the conversation back to himself.

Trump’s Claim about Muslims Cheering on 9/11

September 11, 2001, remains an indelible scar on the American psyche. In the midst of national anguish, unity was essential. Yet, amidst the genuine outpouring of solidarity and shared grief, some narratives threatened to stoke division. One such controversial claim was Donald Trump’s assertion that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated as the Twin Towers crumbled.

In a political climate ripe for sensationalism, Trump’s 2015 proclamation at an Alabama rally was especially striking: “I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.” Such a divisive statement was bound to elicit strong reactions, prompting many to question its veracity.

News organizations raced against time, scouring archives for any evidence that might corroborate Trump’s statement. Leading broadcasters like ABC News reported that exhaustive searches bore no fruit. There was no video footage, no reliable documentary proof to support Trump’s claims. Quite the opposite, numerous officials, including the mayor of Jersey City, categorically denied any such incident. The police department too echoed these sentiments, reporting no knowledge of celebratory gatherings after the attacks.

Yet, if we assume Trump knew he was propagating falsehoods, what could have been his motive?

A deliberate fabrication, especially of this magnitude, often seeks to serve a larger purpose. The act of misleading becomes a tool, a means to an end. By asserting that Muslims celebrated the tragedy, Trump might have been targeting a particular voter base, playing on their pre-existing prejudices and fears. Such a narrative caters to an audience that may already harbor suspicions or negative perceptions of Muslims.

Moreover, this claim was made during the initial stages of Trump’s presidential campaign, a time when crafting a strong, attention-grabbing narrative was paramount. Amidst the cacophony of campaign promises and political debates, a sensational claim could ensure continued media focus and a place in public discourse. Even as outlets attempted to debunk the narrative, the sheer act of repetition, of continually addressing the falsehood, inadvertently gave it more airtime, cementing its place in the public’s mind.

Given the broader context of Trump’s propensity for making false or misleading statements, as detailed by The Washington Post’s comprehensive analysis, this particular claim about 9/11 could be seen as a continuation of a pattern rather than an aberration. And while many of his claims might have been off-the-cuff or spontaneous, the potential ramifications of this one were significant.

In painting a vivid picture of Muslims celebrating an act of terror against America, Trump risked further alienating an already marginalized community. Post 9/11, the American Muslim community faced an upswing in hate crimes, distrust, and prejudice. Narratives like the one Trump presented, even if discredited, have a lasting impact, intensifying suspicion and fostering discord.

In essence, while it’s imperative to understand the potential motivations behind such calculated untruths, it’s equally crucial to recognize their lasting harm. Assertions like Trump’s about Muslims on 9/11 not only disrupt the immediate political landscape but also sow seeds of mistrust and division that can linger for generations. They underscore the profound responsibility held by public figures and the media in shaping narratives that influence society’s fabric.

Discrepancy in Trump’s Ground Zero Workers Claim

September 11, 2001, not only marked a dark day in American history, but the aftermath also showcased stories of hope, resilience, and unyielding spirit. Countless individuals from all walks of life joined hands in Ground Zero’s recovery efforts. Among the narratives emerging from this post-tragedy era was Donald Trump’s claim regarding his involvement. However, like a mirage that dissolves upon closer inspection, Trump’s assertion about his role and the number of workers he sent to Ground Zero has come under scrutiny.

In the throes of the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump voiced an audacious claim: “Everyone who helped clear the rubble – and I was there, and I watched, and I helped a little bit – but I want to tell you: those people were amazing,” Trump said. “Clearing the rubble. Trying to find additional lives. You didn’t know what was going to come down on all of us – and they handled it.”

Trump’s declaration of having been present at Ground Zero and having aided, even if modestly, might have been an attempt to align himself with the heroes of 9/11. But what raises eyebrows is the vagueness that clouds his claim. How did he assist? Which organization or agency did he work with? Details remained conspicuously absent.

Further, Trump asserted in various instances that he sent a significant number of his workers to assist in the cleanup operations. On one occasion, he touted the figure to be more than 100 workers, while on another, it escalated to 200. Yet, despite these bold claims, there’s a conspicuous lack of corroborative evidence or firsthand accounts from these supposed workers. The inherent inconsistency in numbers and lack of verification prompts critical evaluation.

The aftermath of 9/11 was a period of national grief, but also one of unity. Many notable figures, including celebrities and entrepreneurs, stepped forward to assist in any capacity they could. Trump, as a high-profile real estate magnate in New York, making such a claim seems in line with the image of a civic-minded business leader. But the absence of concrete proof turns this assertion into a potentially self-serving narrative.

So, why would Trump, with his expansive empire and bustling public life, feel the need to weave such a narrative, especially if we operate on the assumption that he was not forthright?

In the realm of politics, narratives are powerful. They shape perceptions, build images, and foster connections. For Trump, portraying himself as a hands-on, compassionate figure involved in Ground Zero recovery would strengthen his image as a patriotic American, deeply rooted in the country’s fabric and its most challenging moments. It’s a storyline that resonates, a testament to leadership during adversity.

However, when public figures weave stories, especially ones tied to sensitive events like 9/11, they tread on delicate ground. While a genuine act of service would be laudable, a fabricated or exaggerated claim could be seen as capitalizing on a tragedy for political gains. Such actions could be perceived as exploiting the collective memory of a nation for personal advancement.

While the nation rallied together post-9/11, it’s paramount that the stories emerging from this period are accurate and respectful of the memory of those lost. Trump’s claims about his involvement and the discrepancy in the number of workers he allegedly dispatched to Ground Zero serves as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with public narratives. It underscores the need for vigilance in discerning fact from fiction, ensuring that the legacy of 9/11 remains untainted by personal agendas.

Analysis of Trump’s Accounts Over the Years

The aftermath of 9/11 was marked by tales of heroism, anguish, and resilience. Amidst the collective memories of a grieving nation, Donald Trump’s ever-changing accounts over the years have woven a convoluted web, raising significant questions about his credibility.

When attempting to dissect Trump’s various accounts, one cannot ignore the initial response he gave on the day of the tragedy. On September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers fell, Trump made a radio appearance where he remarked about his own building, 40 Wall Street, now becoming the tallest in downtown Manhattan. Many found this claim not just factually inaccurate but also tone-deaf given the monumental loss the nation was grappling with.

Fast forward to the 2016 Presidential campaign, and his narratives took a more self-aggrandizing turn. During one rally, he confidently declared, “I think I have the tallest building in downtown Manhattan.” While such a claim was promptly discredited, it hinted at a pattern – Trump’s tendency to shift the narrative spotlight onto himself, regardless of the broader context.

His accounts did not stop at architectural rankings. They waded into deeper, more sensitive waters. Trump’s claim that he witnessed people jump from the World Trade Center from his apartment, which was over four miles away, defies logic. The human eye’s ability to discern detail from such a distance is limited. Yet, he doubled down on this assertion, employing emotional language that painted a grim picture, all while placing him as an ‘eyewitness’ to the horror.

Furthermore, Trump’s narrative that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated as the towers fell has been a point of contention. Despite extensive media coverage of the day’s events and thorough investigations, there is no verified evidence supporting this claim. Still, Trump persisted with this narrative, perhaps aiming to stoke divisive sentiments for political mileage.

The trajectory of Trump’s tales over the years morphs with the setting’s demands. While addressing large crowds, his narratives became grander, the stakes heightened. Speaking to smaller groups or in interviews, the same stories would take on subtler tones. This adaptability, while characteristic of seasoned politicians, in Trump’s case, became an exercise in sifting fact from fiction.

Over the course of his presidency, a detailed analysis reveals that his accounts concerning 9/11 have inflated in frequency, grandiosity, and emotional charge. The deviations are not minor. They span across the spectrum, from the number of Ground Zero workers he claimed to have employed post the attack, to his own whereabouts and actions on the day.

One begs the question: to what end? Politicians, historically, have tailored their stories to resonate with their base, evoking emotions ranging from fear to pride. In Trump’s case, the ever-changing 9/11 accounts appear to be more than just casual inaccuracies. They seem calculated, aimed at crafting an image – a man deeply intertwined with one of America’s darkest days, not as a passive observer, but as an active participant, a savior even.

However, the inconsistencies in his tales run the risk of trivializing the event’s gravity. They divert attention from the genuine acts of heroism and sacrifice to a maze of unsubstantiated claims. They undermine public trust, making discernment a challenge.

In conclusion, Donald Trump’s ever-evolving accounts surrounding 9/11 form a narrative tapestry, rich in emotion but frayed with inconsistencies. As public figures bear the weight of history and memory, the responsibility to maintain factual integrity is paramount. Trump’s 9/11 stories serve as a stark reminder of this responsibility and the potential repercussions of its neglect. They underscore the importance of scrutinizing public narratives, ensuring they honor truth and the collective memory they claim to represent.


“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil,” once remarked Plato, a sentiment echoing more profoundly as we unpack the tales spun around 9/11. The mosaic of memories from that tragic day offers a glimpse into the soul of America. But, like a distorted mirror, some of these memories misrepresent reality, casting long and concerning shadows.

Central to this distorted panorama stands Donald Trump, whose initial reactions to 9/11 veered towards a self-centric discourse about the stature of his building. As the years went on, these memories evolved. From dubious claims about witnessing people leaping off the World Trade Center towers to the contentious assertions about Muslims in New Jersey openly cheering, Trump’s narrative presented a different, sometimes discordant, view of events.

It’s not just the nature of these claims that raises eyebrows but their evolution over time. The metamorphosis of Trump’s tales, such as the increasingly exaggerated numbers concerning his funding and dispatch of workers to Ground Zero, becomes particularly perplexing. The fluidity with which these accounts change not only challenges factual consistency but, as Plato might suggest, casts doubt upon the very soul from which they emanate.

The narratives of 9/11 bear a heavy weight; they hold within them the pain, the loss, the resilience, and the unity of a nation. When one distorts such memories, it isn’t just history that gets rewritten. The very perception of that tragic day, and the lessons we draw from it, shift. With over 30,000 false or misleading claims documented over a span of four years by a renowned publication, the integrity of Trump’s 9/11 narratives naturally comes under scrutiny.

In wrapping up our examination, it is vital to understand the profound implications of these public recountings. Stories shape our collective consciousness; they influence our understanding of events, and guide future generations. When one manipulates these stories, especially ones as significant as 9/11, it doesn’t merely alter facts—it reshapes how a nation remembers and learns from its past. As we move forward, it’s essential to differentiate between authentic narrations and those clouded by personal interests or an aberrant perspective. For in truth, as Plato emphasized, lies the safeguarding of the soul.