94

Donald Trump claims he was at ground zero on 9-11 helping out. Was he?

I was down there also, but I'm not considering myself a first responder," Trump said. "But I was down there. I spent a lot of time down there with you."

And also:

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,

Simd
  • 2,781
  • 4
  • 15
  • 18

5 Answers5

169

"I was down there also, but I'm not considering myself a first responder. But I was down there. I spent a lot of time down there with you."

Likely false. (As elaborated in the linked video, watch it in whole for a strong rebuttal of the claim, and others.)

On 9/11, Donald Trump was sitting in his office in Trump Tower, and actually phoned in an interview.

"Everyone who helped clear the rubble ― and I was there, and I watched, and I helped a little bit..."

If you look at the quotes closely, he does not actually claim much, though he makes it sound like much more. He admits to having been there for "a lot of time", that he "watched", and that he "helped a little bit". You could arguably say this for anyone who stood there, gawked a lot, and perhaps passed a water bottle or moved one shovel of dirt while posing for the cameras.

Only that not even a picture exists.

There is a total absence of evidence that Mr. Trump did any amount of helping worth mentioning, and statements from people like Richard Alles (at the time Battalion Chief of the FDNY), who was supervising search and rescue teams for two weeks after the attacks and said that he "spent many months there myself, and I never witnessed him".

User CL. posted a video link of an interview given by Mr. Trump. About this video, The Daily Mail had this to say (emphasis mine):

In that interview, he said he had 'hundreds of men inside working' and offered a colorful description, speaking about how five men had been found alive that day.

The claim was widely circulated on September 13, and was featured on a chyron under Trump as six men being rescued, but in fact was untrue. The last survivor was pulled from the rubble 27 hours after the planes hit.

So Mr. Trump was not, indeed, close enough to the actual rescue efforts to know the rumor for a rumor. The Daily Mail continues:

Trump therefore certainly came close to Ground Zero, although his interviews showed that if he did actually go to the site itself, he must have cleaned up before appearing on television; conditions there meant anyone who went near it was covered in dusty and debris.

The claim about "hundreds of men" is in turn challenged. Quoting the New York Times article,

Mr. O’Brien, the author, said the size of the Trump Organization at the time was “a little bit over a dozen people,” which would have made it impossible to send hundreds of people to participate in the relief effort. At the time, Mr. Trump had a large number of casino workers based in Atlantic City, but there is no documented evidence of him marshaling his resources to aid in the relief effort.

Snopes quotes Richard Alles (see above):

“This is the first I’m hearing of it,” Alles told us by phone. “There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered.”

John Feal, who was at Ground Zero as a construction demolition expert, is quoted that he...

...didn’t see evidence of hundreds of workers hired by Trump at the site, and added that by 15 September 2001 the area was on lock down. “There was no way anyone could get in and out of there without a [government-issued] badge,” he told us.

As for helping via donating money, Mr. Trump claimed that he donated $10,000 USD to the 9/11 fund, a claim which the office of New York City's Comptroller Scott Singer refuted.

Bottom line, we have zero evidence of Mr. Trump having "helped" other than his own words.

Community
  • 1
DevSolar
  • 19,034
  • 8
  • 77
  • 74
  • 157
    Trump has been a tabloid-level celebrity in New York since at least the 1980's. If he was there, its really hard to believe someone wouldn't have noticed. – T.E.D. Jul 30 '19 at 18:07
  • 57
    Also worth noting that people who actually went down and helped got covered in [rather unhealthy ash](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4686342/), and Trump is by multiple accounts (including his own) a [germaphobe](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/07/donald-trump-germaphobe-1399258), who disinfects between every handshake, and has trouble with aids who even so much as cough in his presence. If he really was there, given that background, I'd be mighty impressed with his bravery overcoming that phobia. – T.E.D. Jul 30 '19 at 18:28
  • 16
    And now [this video](https://twitter.com/EddieZipperer/status/1156171073743990789) has popped up. The reporter remarks that "his men" are also there, so his little bit of help might be that he has sent them. – CL. Jul 30 '19 at 18:49
  • 9
    While I don't at all doubt the conclusion that Trump was exaggerating whatever level of involvement he may or may not have had, the statement of one man that he never personally witnessed him there doesn't really say much at all. We're talking about a rather large site where many thousands of people would have been present. It's unlikely that any one person who was there happened to see any other one person who was there. How many months one of them may have been there doesn't have any effect on the probability of having seen the other if the other was only there for a short time. – reirab Jul 30 '19 at 19:00
  • 3
    @reirab that's not 100% accurate. The number of months one of them was there affects the probability that the time periods they were both there overlap. If person A was there for 1 (random) month out of 3, person B was there for 3 months out of 3, and person C was there for 2 (random) days only, person B definitely has a higher probability of seeing C than A does, because he was guaranteed to at least be there both days C was there. – Steven Jackson Jul 30 '19 at 19:08
  • 3
    @StevenJackson True. I worded that poorly. My meaning was that _if they were there at the same time_, the number of additional months that person A was there would not increase their probability of having seen person B there if person B was only there for a short time. – reirab Jul 30 '19 at 19:12
  • 13
    "helped" could very well mean he donated to say the Red Cross. And "a little bit" is impossible to quantify, for mr Trump, "a little bit" could have been several hundred thousand dollars for all we know. And yes, he was in New York so he was there, pretty close to it too. – jwenting Jul 31 '19 at 04:48
  • @jwenting: See expanded answer. – DevSolar Jul 31 '19 at 06:14
  • 16
    Please remember the "Be Nice" rule and that your political opinions aren't welcome here. – Oddthinking Jul 31 '19 at 06:20
  • 3
    @reirab - If big-wig types generally contact, talk to, coordinate their appearances or efforts with that fire department official, then, yes, his being unaware of Trump would be more telling than any particular random individual saying "well, I never saw him." – PoloHoleSet Jul 31 '19 at 17:04
  • 4
    *"he does not actually claim much ..."* This is obvious. It's a benign claim that just about anybody present could make. *"... though he makes it sound like much more."* Well, now your projecting your opinion, making a bit of a strawman here. –  Jul 31 '19 at 18:31
  • 4
    @fredsbend: He's either referring to his "hundreds of men" (which were not true), or he's changed his story in his head to a more modest one and just didn't tell us. (Perhaps hoping we'd remember the "hundreds of men" interview and take it at face value). No matter how you turn it, it's dishonest. – DevSolar Aug 01 '19 at 07:14
  • @T.E.D.: Just because you take sensible steps to avoid catching a cold or flu doesn’t mean you are a germaphobe. I’d be happy if my manager sent colleagues home who come to work with the cold. – Michael Aug 01 '19 at 07:47
  • 4
    @Michael - Since he's apparently self-described that way, you should take your objection to the term up with him, not me. – T.E.D. Aug 01 '19 at 12:55
  • 3
    Further offtopic comments will be nuked without notice. Please remember that you can complain with Stack Exchange about moderators at the contact us page linked below. Starting flamewars or posting rants anywhere on the site will only lead to them being removed. – Sklivvz Aug 06 '19 at 17:38
29

There seems to be some circumstantial evidence to back up his claims.

First, to be fair, neither of those quotes say "on 9/11". But he was at least in the area near ground zero in the days following 9/11.

Here is an interview he gave with a German reporter on 9/13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoYXihwcp8c

And here's an interview he gave on the same day (note the tie) with NBC News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4ZfXOil1pk

In these interviews he praises the first responders and claims that he has deployed hundreds of employees to the area to work in some capacity related to the attacks, although he does not make it completely clear what sort of work they are supposed to be doing.

He could, of course, have been lying during these interviews, but this is a contemporary account of his activities in lower Manhattan two days after the attacks, a couple of years before he became involved with reality television and long before he sought public office.

BeReasonable
  • 543
  • 3
  • 4
  • 9
    "long before he sought public office". He's talked about it since the early 90s at least. Actually running a campaign, the presidency was his first. –  Jul 30 '19 at 21:10
  • 41
    He ran as a candidate for the Reform Party between October 1999 and February 2000. – Avery Jul 30 '19 at 21:20
  • 20
    Politifact dubbed the truth "not clear" on Trump's claim of paying hundreds of workers to help in search-and-rescue efforts in the aftermath of 911 in their March 13, 2019 piece at https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/article/2019/mar/13/did-donald-trump-pay-hundreds-workers-help-search-/ One does wonder whether Trump's New York offices even could have had hundreds of employees who could have helped. If he was paying contractors, surely there would be receipts? – jeffronicus Jul 30 '19 at 21:36
  • 1
    @Avery - I stand corrected. This is an interesting chapter in third-party politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign – BeReasonable Jul 30 '19 at 21:53
  • 31
    Contemporary statements are only useful as evidence if they're given by someone else credible, or if they prove contradictory. Contemporary self-statements like this only show he's kept his story straight, which he often cannot manage. In addition, "they had nothing to gain" is not evidence when evaluating claims; the [Cottingley Fairy Hoax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies) is a prime example. Even so, Trump has been a self-promoter [making dubious claims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump) long before he was a TV star or candidate. – Schwern Jul 30 '19 at 22:29
  • 3
    @Schwern There are many reasons why contemporary statements are useful. One is if there is a currently a motive that would not have been present, or would not have been as strong, at the time of the statements. Another is if the statements are part of a larger coherent narrative that would have been easier to construct after the fact than in real time. Another is if they are corroborated by other evidence that is currently available, but the person would not, at the time, have known about. – Acccumulation Jul 31 '19 at 14:21
  • 4
    @Avery - Trump NEVER ran as a candidate for the reform party. He launched an exploratory committee and said he was thinking about it. That is all. That's a far cry from actually being a candidate. – Dunk Jul 31 '19 at 23:08
  • 10
    Trump owned the 2nd tallest building in NYC on Wall Street, about 7 blocks from the WTC. He had hundreds of employees working in that building. He said his employees voluntarily helped out, especially in the moments after the collapse but also in the days that followed. Did Trump pay those employees for their time volunteering? Unknown, but quite possible especially if those employees were on salary. Did Trump fire any employees who voluntarily helped out instead of report to work. Absolutely not. Seems like a clear case that Trump was most certainly involved and helped out in some way. – Dunk Jul 31 '19 at 23:14
  • 3
    @Dunk which building was that? – phoog Aug 01 '19 at 16:01
  • @fredsbend - He was asked about it numerous times (by Oprah Winfrey and others) but he always said that he did not want to run and preferred that someone else would do it. – Mayo Aug 01 '19 at 17:03
  • 5
    I strongly disagree with the usage of the word "evidence" in this answer. He said something in 2001, then he said roughly the same thing in 2019. The one is not "evidence" of the other, not even "circumstantial". It's only evidence that he hasn't changed his story. It's worth mentioning, because a changed story would be evidence of falsehood, but that's all. – Foo Bar Aug 02 '19 at 19:46
  • 3
    The mods here can continue to selectively/biasedly delete comments that don't portray Trump in the most sympathetic light possible all they like. The idea that Trump (or _anyone else_) can claim transitive credit for 1) paying salaries that would have been paid anyways and 2) not firing people for volunteering to help after a horrific terrorist attack occurs nearby will always be patently absurd. :) – aroth Aug 03 '19 at 13:39
14

Snopes has a picture of Trump near ground zero 7 days after the attacks, so Trump's core claim from this speech -- that he was there -- is true. Though as Snopes points out, very little about what he actually did there is verifiable.

bvoyelr
  • 302
  • 1
  • 4
  • 29
    Snopes has a picture taken "at the New York Stock exchange", which is several blocks from Ground Zero. That same Snopes article continues to go into some detail of how Trumps words on how he had "a lot of men down here" are dubious... thanks for the sources, I'll add those to my answer. ;-) – DevSolar Jul 31 '19 at 13:53
  • 26
    The fact that he was in NY at some point in September 2001 does not verify his claim. – Simd Jul 31 '19 at 17:37
  • 7
    @Anush I visited NYC in January 2002. We went down to Wall St, it was an abandoned mess. The destruction of the towers flooded the subways and streets with debris all the way down Broadway to Battery Park. Your assertion is silly. The fact that he was at Wall Street verifies he was down there and it’s hard to believe he didn’t go to ground zero. – Rob Rodriguez Aug 01 '19 at 01:56
  • 9
    @RobRodriguez Part of the claim (implied in the first quote; specifically stated in the second) is that he *helped*, though. – ceejayoz Aug 01 '19 at 14:19
  • 11
    @RobRodriguez it's very simple to believe he didn't go to ground zero. For starters, it was an active disaster and cleanup area filled with noxious chemicals in the air. You weren't allowed on the site if you weren't FDNY/NYPD/PA/Cleanup and had a badge. Ground zero wasn't a tourist destination. The NYSE was open for business a week later. [This](https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/donald-trump-speaks-outside-the-new-york-stock-exchange-a-news-photo/97337022) photo was taken on September 18th, a day after the NYSE opened back up. – DenisS Aug 01 '19 at 14:27
  • Thumbs down for using Snopes as your only source. –  Aug 02 '19 at 14:10
  • 6
    @puppetsock: Ad hominem against Snopes doesn't help. If you have a specific reason to distrust their sources, please share it. – Oddthinking Aug 02 '19 at 15:12
  • I am not a "Snopes denier," but if you took the trouble of consulting Snopes, why not go one better and consult _their_ sources, that they generally list at the bottom of each article? (Same for Wikipedia) – WGroleau Mar 30 '22 at 17:33
4

The two videos¹ that @BeReasonable cited show that Donald Trump was there on or before the thirteenth.

  • NBC News interview, near the WTC rubble, September 13, 2001, talking about his having "hundreds of men working inside".

  • German News interview, near Ground Zero, September 13, 2001, talking about having been to Ground Zero, having 100 men working on the site, with another 125 coming.

They neither prove nor refute his claim that he had employees there (but note that neither journalist had reason to challenge it).  They also neither support nor refute his recent claim that he “spent a lot of time” there.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
WGroleau
  • 419
  • 2
  • 10
  • I am puzzled by the difference in his speaking style in those videos, compared to his style since 2016. – WGroleau Aug 02 '19 at 14:44
  • What does this answer add that the other answers haven't already covered, better? – Oddthinking Aug 02 '19 at 14:56
  • 7
    It is an attempt to balance out all the "answers" and comments that insist or imply he was lying, without hiding the point in verbosity. – WGroleau Aug 02 '19 at 15:17
  • 1
    Note: I don't mean to imply he was telling the truth about having employees there—just that the videos are not evidence either way. – WGroleau Mar 30 '22 at 17:30
-6

NBC News has a video of Donald Trump interviewed near Ground Zero two days later talking about "hundreds of men" he had working at the site.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
Winston Oatsvall
  • 3
  • 5
    The video states he was there on September 13th, which has already been established by the previous answers. – F1Krazy Mar 30 '22 at 06:53