9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

2011, 9/11  -   1,508 Comments
8.53
12345678910
Ratings: 8.53/10 from 374 users.

Join 23-year architect Richard Gage, AIA, in this feature length documentary with cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 top experts in their fields - high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more.

Each is highly qualified in his/her respective fields. Several have Ph.D's - including National Medal of Science awardee Lynn Margulis.

She, along with the other experts, exposes the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied and acknowledges the overwhelming evidence of high temperature incendiaries in all dust samples of the WTC.

High-rise architects and structural engineers layout the evidence in the features of the destruction of these three high-rises that point inevitably to explosive controlled demolition.

More great documentaries

1,508 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Hilarious how much people fall for this cr*p. All this apparent evidence and not ONE enemy country of the US or even terrorist group has come out to expose the US government for lying about 9/11, why? because they aren't. The only people that are, are the internet sellers of this rubbish. Too many fools on the planet that wouldn't know how to discriminate the truth to save themselves. "Experts speak out" hilarious tripe.

  2. How is it that another investigation can not be carried out? For such a dramatic event - people deserve to know the truth!
    If the USA govt has nothing to hide then whats the problem with confirming their so called original findings!

  3. Physics was suspended on 9/11/01, as was the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Same could be said of international law.

  4. It's fairly obvious from scanning through a good deal of the post that the majority of people posting here haven't even watched the documentary. There's a term brought up near the end of the documentary that fits quite well with these serial posters..."cognitive dissonance". Look it up guys.

    1. I should add that I'm still a bit on the fence as far as these investigations go, but more toward the "something strange happened to those buildings that day", especially after learning that a third building fell freefall.

      A couple of questions I asked myself while watching the documentary is this:

      Why would so many respected experts in the Engineering & Architect fields (majority of them from the US) lie about this? What could they possibly gain from stating their beliefs? There is definitely far more to lose.

    2. "so many"?

      Strange term for less than 1/10th of 1 percent.

  5. 9/11 was a terrible day and a tragedy for the thousands of family s who had their loved ones murdered by these vile terrorists I have been fair and watched all this program but it has to go down as one of the most biased things I have ever seen. It is always good to question things and governments but these people are awash with theories but none of them have listened to their far more experienced peers who on mass have explained the events of this sad day. I don't understand the motive for this but they should but forward their evidence or ideas for peer review I also note PhD's are thin on the ground in this work.

  6. "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." Joseph Goebbels

  7. This documentary made me seriously worried, so I can only imagine how it feels like to live in USA, where people get mass-murdered by a government that did not get elected, in order to justify the invasion of another country not involved in the terror-act, killing countless of other civilians, killing and torturing any direct opposition, where the people being held responsible for crime have no rights, and making it obviously clear that if anyone dares stand up against them and fight back...

    How does that feel?

    1. Quoting nazis? Really?

  8. They keep speaking of "ordinary office fires." Doesn't jet fuel burn hotter than an ordinary office fire, and wouldn't a jet knock out some of these support beams?

    1. come on... how can... well let me first say if you had any sense the first thing would be to look up jet fuel burning temp which open air is max 600F soooo even if a support beam was knocked out how do you explain molten steel? or burning steel? its on video before the towers fell. so if your question is serious (i really hope not) you may look up any of the facts ive just stated.

    2. When you state some facts maybe we'll look them up.
      The fire's primary combustibles were the contents of an office building which typically burn at 1800 degrees F. If you were not pushing an argument built on lies or ignorance that would be the only number you'd be discussing.

    3. Except for the fact that A36 steel, the weakest steel used in the towers, melts at 2600-2800 degrees.

    4. Because of course until steel melts it retains its full strength and integrity.
      The fact that comment got 5 thumbs up speaks a world of things about truther ignorance.
      It's as if you know nothing about this event and expect others do too.

    5. Show some facts, and stop putting people down until you do.

    6. building 7 was NOT hit by a plane or missile. As were #'s 1 and 2. Clearly explosives were in all 3 of those buildings before they fell at free fall speed. The 16' hole in the pentagon was no doubt a missile hit. The only question is, who is responsible.

  9. you all talking "you knew" this, "you knew" that. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT ??
    Spread the news, go out on streets, people that govern your country (which is not your government btw) are going to be the demise of us all.

    Worried guy from Croatia.

    1. What would you do about it if it happened in your country?

  10. to a-no-n maybe you ve never heard eye witness acounts given that very day and a few times after by poeple including firefighters and police and even first responders that they DID IN FACT hear several seires of explosions or maybe youve got your fingers in an orifice where your head is stuck listen closely to the recordings of the firemen who died inside the buildings you can even hear some explosions in the background you really are a frightened little sheeple if you believe the "official report" the first list of suspects was laughably stupid as some of them were found to still be ALIVE

    1. eye witness accounts are unreliable at best.
      Like i keep saying the kind of explosions Thermite would make wouldn't have been heard by the firemen, it would have deafened them!

      I'm a frightened little sheeple? I'm not the one pretending some all powerful big brother has everything under control.

      The suspects were found to be alive? source for that information please!

    2. Do you not understand what the phrase "at best" means?

    3. yeah, it means don't base your entire hypothesis around it because it's really REALLY flimsy

    4. That is simply not an accurate statement. At best, eye witness accounts are reliable. You clearly have real trouble with basic elements of the English language.

    5. I'm sorry, but according to the psychological profession, you're wrong.
      The people who study the human mind say that eyewitness testimony is a terrible tool to rely on because the human memory changes information over time, it can be easily led and is just generally unreliable.

      My English is fine, but your research seems to be non existent.

      you're clutching at straws that aren't there.

    6. My research? Again, most Western criminal justice process is based on the provision of eye witness testimony. Do you really assert that the very best eye witness accounts are unreliable? Keep on winning!

  11. I was not in NY when this happened...I was watching it live on TV as the towers fell. I knew for years beforehand that there was a core steel structure, and the first thing I said to the people around me, was, "That is not possible! There is a solid steel core structure, and for these buildings to fall like that, the core must have been turned to liquid!"
    I am not a scientist, but I am a metalworker. I knew that jet fuel would not burn hot enough to melt steel, and that there was NO way, that heat at the top of a solid steel core, would be able to move downward towards a heat sink of bedrock...It would move away from the heat sink which meant upwards.
    I wonder why no one mentions that the granite and earth under the buildings, is a heat sink. Maybe it is so elementary they don't feel the need to, but there it is.

    1. you can't be a very good metalworker...Steel loses it's structural integrity at 500 Celcius...a temperature easily achieved by a burning office and jet fuel!

      You're talking about bedrock heatsink, in reguards to a skyscraper...seriously? What has the bedrock got to do with anything?

    2. come on research before you make silly comments. jet fuel max burning temp is 600F MAX, NOT 500C which is 932F, you added over 300F from where??. AND this does NOT explain molten steel (which has reached its burning temp of above 2000F) or the fact you could see molten steel from the towers before they fell. see this as something other than the tv story because it is a lie, that is all people are saying. and btw bedrock is under the ground of major buildings like this, HENCE the major building above it... you should already understand that.

    3. Who cares what the temperature of burning jet fuel is? Read my lips IT WAS AN ACCELERANT NOT THE PRIMARY COMBUSTIBLE. Which were the contents of the building- carpets, drapes, furniture, file cabinets full of paper, computers, wire insulation, etc.
      It's ABSURD to not understand all that instantly ignited was not plenty hot enough to weaken steel AND IF IT WASN'T WHY DOES CODE REQUIRE FIREPROOFING?

      The temperature of the combustibles burning was 1850 degrees F.

    4. How do you know it was steel?It could easily have been,and probably was ,molten aluminum.The furnace that was created by the ceilings ,floors and walls boosted the temps to heights that weakened the structure and down she went.All this talk about melting temp of steel,burning office supplies temp...ridiculous.

    5. *Bangs head against wall* i said Steel looses structural integrity at 500C.
      Please read the comment before losing your sh1t over it.

  12. This is the documentary to watch for anyone interested in 9/11
    conspiracy. I thought the 9/11 event was off, from the very beginning.
    The buildings came down too fast and too clean. Here why 50 engineers, architects, and demolition experts are requesting an
    official review of 9/11. It is well worth 2 hours 19 min of your life.

    1. Hundreds of thousands of "engineers, architects, and demolition experts" think those 50 are complete fools.
      Look up "scientific method" and see how the terms "consensus" and "fringe" apply here.

    2. Where did you get that number of engineers, architects and demolition experts who think that the 50 are fools, scatvette? Is there some institution that documented hundreds of thousands of individual confirmations by various professionals of the official collapse explanation?

    3. I suppose if the world's geography experts don't all make a public statement that the earth is round, we should assume they might believe it's flat.

    4. Great false analogy. Are you leaving hundreds of posts in the comment section of documentaries proposing that the earth is flat?

  13. A controlled demolition is fascinating to watch, it seems surreal because it is so unnatural, it is a man made occurance manipulating the laws of gravity and physics, a precisely orchestrated series of explosions with exact timing, which experts can use to make a building fall into its own foorprint. Buildings falling by themselves do not collapse in the same manner. When people watch 3 controlled demolitions in the same day and accept it as a natural occurance, I have to wonder about those people. When they are told a jet flew into the pentagon, with no visible sign of the plane, no debris characteristic of plane crashes, and they are told a 200ft plane fit inside a 16ft hole, again I have to wonder about those people. When they defend the cover-ups and lies fed to them by the officials, lies which offer no facts or explanation, I have to wonder about those people. Why cant they see the truth, plain as day infront of them? Why do they not accept factual evidence, and make intelligent and informed conclusions based on those facts and evidence? Why do those people accept and defend an 'official report' that ignores and omits evidence, and offers no plausible explanation? The response many people have to 911 are even more strange than the event itself, not only does it leave us seeking explanations for 911, now more than ever Im looking for signs of intelligence on ths planet.

    1. "Buildings falling by themselves do not collapse into their own footprint"
      you forgot to put "I assume" at either the beginning or the end of that, because you have no possible source for information like that because there are no other instances of a building that size falling under those circumstances!
      You're also ignoring the fact that fires were raging inside those buildings for hours before they fell, essentially hollowing them out.
      a controlled demolition requires a series of LOUD chain explosions. the kind of which there were none of at 9/11. the definate b-b-b-b-b-b-bang of a controlled explosion would have been audible for about two miles in every direction. Yet this rhythmic explosion was nowhere to be heard.

      You appear to have made your mind up before even bothering to find out what the evidence actually is.

    2. anon, you clearly did not listen, or watch the Docu...and have never worked with metals...Too bad there was No evidence saved to properly investigate.

    3. i take it you are chief secretary for metal working and documentary watching in your local government?
      The evidence was saved, and examined...just because it didn't get the results you wanted, doesn't mean it wasn't recorded...it just means you're wrong.

    4. That statement is simply false. Neither NIST nor any other government body conducted a systematic analysis of the debris. You cannot provide a study or report entailing this analysis, because it did not occur. The official account of progressive collapse is based on computer modeling. Wrong again, son.

    5. normally when we make a claim...we provide evidence to back it up!
      you can get a computer model to say anything you want...You conspiracy theorists decry all government models for this very reason...yet you fail to apply that critical thinking to the models that confirm your biases like the one you mention...i wonder why?

    6. Right. There is no evidence to support an assertion that the trusses, spandrels, floor pans, and column trees were examined by qualified experts after the collapse in the pursuit of understanding the mechanism and course of the collapse. So computer models were used. You on the other hand, with no evidence to support the claim, stated that the evidence was saved and examined. Wonder why?

    7. and what about the vast majorty of qualified experts who don't agree with you attention seeking messiahs?

      When people are putting out information the government doesn't want to hear, they get what Bradley manning is getting right now! they don't get book deals and air time.

      Unfortunatly there is evidence for the official explaination...the fact that you want to put your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn't exist, doesn't actually stop it from existing!

    8. Bradley Manning stole classified information and exposed it to the public. Nobody in the documentary is doing anything of the kind. Again, complete failure to acknowledge your prior false claim, aother red herring, another insult, (attention seeking messiahs?) and another post with no statement of fact. Keep on winning, son!

    9. Bradley manning passed on information the government didn't want getting out...he was arrested and placed in solitary confinement and is still there to this day.
      Alex jones et al however, who are supposedly doing the same thing, are multi-millionaires.
      because Fiction allways sells better than the truth.
      like you lot always say, just follow the money.

    10. Your analogy was wrong, as per every single one I've read, and you just keep on plinking away at your keyboard. Bradley Manning broke the law, unlike the people in this documentary, who are not serving US military personnel, which Manning is. And then yet another strawman. Find a single instance where I have said "follow the money". Alex Jones, is not a qualified expert, and from my observations, he did not appear in this documentary. You seem not only incapable of forming and presenting a coherent, critical argument, you seem quite comfortable with dishonesty. In fact, there is little indication in your posts that you even watched this documentary. So, whatcha' up to, Sonny/

    11. blah blah whine whine...you're wrong because i say you are nyah nyah...it's like arguing with a f--king child.

      If you put half as much effort into evidence gathering as you do thinking of pathetic little insults, we might have actually achieved soething with this.
      But you seem to think the person who acts like the biggest tosser is the person with the best argument...i gotta admit, if those are the rules we're playing by you win hands down...That's the problem with discussing evidence with someonwe who doesn't have the faintest idea what the word even means...I'm done with you you sad little troll, go away.

    12. Once again, a complete failure to address a single specific point. You ran around behind your accusation of childishness, for at least the third time, and haven't presented one specific and relevant fact related to either the documentary or the arguments put forth by the commenters. And then, despite this, and despite the fact that you have made dozens upon dozens of similar posts, you call me a troll. This after calling me a conspiracy theorist and a tin foil hatter, and then you claim that I'm making pathetic insults. Absolutely bizarre. Again, it seems as though you are trying to parody an ignorant, uniformed reactionary.

    13. i see...so your responce to being called childish, is to call me childish.
      You're going to play that kindergarted classic 'the repeater'.
      And then you've actually got the nerve to try and act like you've got some kind of moral high ground on me.

      You have given me NOTHING. Your outrage is pure distraction from the fact that you can't provide a single piece of evidence to back up your theory and cram a few more insults in.

    14. The repeater? You claimed that the evidence from the attacks was saved and analyzed. It was not. You cannot cite a comprehensive scientific study of the debris, conducted by NIST nor anyone else, that indicated the mechanism and progress of the collapses. Your assertion was false. And yet, you made five successive posts without a single statement of fact that supported your original assertion. What are you doing in this forum, besides winning?

    15. The reason i haven't posted a link to the official analysis is because i can't find it...Googling 9/11 literally gives you nothing but pages and pages of different conspiracy theory websites, all saying it's a massive conspiracy ut never quite able to agree what about exactly. (so much for government suppression),
      I literally cannot be bothered sifting through all the tin foil hat to try and find the actual report...but it's there, it was carried out.

    16. You stated that such an analysis was undertaken, and you are unable to provide any evidence to support this claim. Despite your complete failure to establish that any evidence exists to support your allegation, you flip back to your fail-safe position and throw conspiracy theory and "tin foil hat" (now it's an abstract noun?). Winning again, junior!

    17. really...you're going to chide me for not providing evidence...you?

      Why am i the only person in the world that needs to provide any evidence? why do all the attention seekers making documentaries get away without using any plausible evidence when they say it's a conspiracy...but when i say it isn't you demand i proove absolutely everything from every angle ever.

      It's such a ridiculous double standard.
      You aren't arguing for a truth, you're arguing for an ideology.
      (You've said winning enough times now...you're a cool cat like charlie sheen i get it allright.)

    18. define "comprehensive" and show how it applies to a forensic analysis of a disaster on this scale.
      Hundreds of pieces of steel were recovered and analyzed. You don't think that is enough and feel unless ALL the steel was analyzed something is amiss- even though forensic science does not work with such ridiculous standards.
      Fortunately unanimous agreement is never required for common sense and reality to prevail.

    19. The term "comprehensive" describes something that is complete, or nearly complete. The analysis of the WTC steel was nothing like complete. Regardless of whether you believe the official story or not, investigators stated that the haphazard removal and destruction of the steel evidence had seriously compromised any investigation into the collapse. You made that bit up about my feeling that all the steel had to be analyzed. As the events were quite unique, with the aircraft impacts, fires, and subsequent total collapses, I would have expected all of the steel to be saved initially until the investigation was complete. When an airliner crashes, investigators don't cull a portion of the debris and order the rest disposed of.

    20. Maybe you should watch the video. After reading several of your post, it's quite obvious that you haven't.

    21. you do see you are the only one who has not even read the description of this film let alone actually seen it. we could list the number of logical fallacies and attacks you throw but in the end all i feel is pity for you as should others and not bother wasting time responding... if you really fight so hard for what you see has the truth either this event will shatter your mind or youve fought or lost for this cause. i was gun-ho once for this as well... then i started to think on my own with the facts right in front of me, as they are for you as well. good luck

    22. (from the links I provided above)

      Here are some current facts about the stored steel and what will be done with it once the NIST investigation is officially under way:
      As of July 11, 2002, NIST had in its possession in excess of 100 pieces of steel from the WTC site. These pieces include the following types: perimeter columns, wide-flanged beams and trusses. Identification and cataloging of the pieces are in progress.
      As of July 11, 2002, three sections cut from columns stored in Gaithersburg have been transferred to Boulder.
      Analysis of the steel to be conducted in both Gaithersburg and Boulder will be done to determine properties and quality of the metal, welds and connections, and to provide data for other investigation projects. This portion of the research will include:
      documenting failure mechanisms and damage based on visual observations of recovered steel, especially focused on available columns, connectors and floor trusses;
      determining the metallurgical and mechanical properties of the steel, welds and connections;
      correlating the properties of the recovered steel with the material properties specified for construction of the buildings; and
      analyzing the steel to estimate maximum temperatures reached. It is recognized that high temperature exposure before the collapse may be difficult to distinguish from exposure during post-collapse fires.

  14. The architect that they interview has helped design 2 buildings neither of which was more than 15 stories tall as one of the people who says that he doesn't believe that fire brought these 3 buildings down LOL. They might as well of just interviewed people on the street.

    1. Holy crap. They interviewed so many credible people. I'm not sure you even watched this documentary. Your statement is ridiculous.

    2. that depends entirely on what you consider to be credible

    3. How about firefighters on the scene that day describing the 'pop-pop-pop-pop...' explosions, floor by floor, as the buildings collapsed? eye witness professional firefighters seem credible. The testimonies of the scientists in this film explaining the laws of physics...seem credible. Common sense should be all you need to figure it out. Funny that you accuse me of ignoring the facts, when all the evidence Ive noted is factual, and your comments are based on neither science or reality! ie., "fires were raging...hollowing them out" and your belief that buildings naturally fall into their own footprint (despite all laws of physics and gravity which make that claim impossible).

    4. Eyewitness testimony alone is unreliable at best, misleading at it's worst, especially when you're comparing it to the rest of an investigation...anyway a 'pop pop pop' sounds more like a it hints toward something bursting from pressure...the kind of bangs Thermite would make you'd have heard in the Bronx! The explosions would have echoed down the streets and back up again, one of the hundreds of cameras and microphones pointing at the buildings when they fell would have heard it.
      Please tell me what information you are making those assumptions from...to the best of my knowledge there is nothing at all in all of human history to compare the falling of the twin towers to.
      You can't say you know for definate the building would have fallen another way, it's never happened before.
      You've got a lot of nerve claiming i have no science when you're basing your entire outlook on pure assumption.
      To me, the twin towers falling looks nothing like a controlled explosion because the debris is too out of control...it's everywhere, its such a chaotic plummett I don't know how anyone can think there was one iota of control to it.

    5. You are just spewing absolute nonsense. Even the most ardent supporter of the official story acknowledges that explosions occurred; they are alleged to have resulted from fuel pouring down the elevator shafts and igniting once aerosolized. Whether you agree that the collapse was due to a controlled demolition or not, many people have stated that their impression of the event was that of a controlled demolition. That group includes Dan Rather. There are some people who have posted on this website who completely dismiss the premise of any scenario other than the official version, who at least have a degree of sophistication to their arguments. You ought to stick with Wordsearch, or coloring books. Eyewitness testimony is not unreliable at best. At best is it a cornerstone of the Western Judicial process. Dunce.

    6. ok...so try actually reading what i said!
      I didn't dispute that the noises were heard...i just don't think it was a truck load of Thermite!
      Dan Rather can get bent...Unless he has evidence i don't give two sh1ts what he thinks.
      Charles Manson thought he was Jesus...do you believe that as well? Manson thought it was true, so by your logic it was!

      how about rather than attacking me like a child throwing all his teddies out the pram, you read what i actually write and try attacking that instead.

      I'm left thinking that you didn't read my comment at all...and just dove straight in with however many petty insults you could manage.
      get over yourself dude.

    7. I read your comment, and it was a non sequitur from start to finish. A child throwing his teddies out of the pram is not attacking anyone. What I am saying is that you seem quite incapable of making a coherent, reasoned and relevant comment on the subject at hand. Dude.

    8. I asked you for evidence...and i'm still waiting...You seem far more interested in appearing to be a wit than you do with the matter at hand, and to be honest it's starting to get boring now, do you have anything beyond insults assumption and conjecture or can we move on?

    9. Absolutely bizarre. You did not ask for evidence, you claimed that explosions were really the sound of things bursting from pressure. Then you again used your favorite ploy, tying some emotionally-charged but totally irrelevant subject, in this case Charles Manson, to your non-argument. You don't seem to have a clue what it is you want to communicate other than the fact that you don't like people who don't buy the official story. I've read dozens of your posts and they're devoid of any original thought and indicate a lack of any substantive understanding of the subject addressed in the film and resulting comments.

    10. lol, i was given a hypothesis, i explained why it was wrong, and you lost your sh1t, and have spent the last five or six posts throwing every insult you can think of at me...to be perfectly honest with you buddy, i couldn't care less what some delusional on the internet thinks of me, the only effect your insults are having are convincing me further that i'm right, becuase when you take away the insults, your comments are empty, devoid of point.

    11. lol, you did nothing of the kind. You made a vague comment about things bursting, and then ridiculously claimed that at best eye witness testimony is unreliable, when of course, eye witness testimony is a basic element of Western judicial process. You alleged I'm delusional, but as in every one of your posts I've read, you can't construct a logical argument to support your appeals to emotion. Whatcha' up to here, little feller?

    12. well...for one i'm not arrogant enough to think that i know absolutly everything there is to know about falling buildings.
      You are delusional...you think insults and statements beat hard facts and gathered peer reviewed evidence.
      You've given me absolutly nothing but assumptions, and yet somehow i'm the one with something to prove.
      You conspiracy theorists must have your goalposts on wheels for all the moving about they do. No evidence is ever enough and if there is evidence, you can invent a narrative that means the evidence against the conspiracy somehow proves it...it's literally insane and irrational beyond all measure.
      Like all conspiracy theorists, you've decided to deride and insult your critic rather than addressing the issue.
      I gave you perfectly reasonable explainations, and you ignored them...that's your problem, not mine.

    13. Well, you are arrogant enough to make dozens upon dozens of posts on this website that are completely devoid of counterfactual evidence and original thought. Bravo, sonny, bravo.

    14. what evidence?
      As soon as one of you tin foil hatters can provide evidence that isn't already debunked, like the tripe in this documentary, then maybe you'll actually sway a few people.
      your "counterfactual evidence" is nonexistant...it's assumptions and wishful thinking. there is not a single hard indisputable fact in the conspiracy camp.

    15. Cheney did it. Case closed. I win.

    16. the guy that couldn't go duck hunting without shooting his friend in the face orchestrated all of this?
      Sorry, i just don't buy it...i think you're giving that particular mo*on WAY too much credit.

    17. You think that was an accident? Man, you are gullible.

    18. how was it not?
      is anything Not a conspiracy?

    19. No humor at all.

    20. It's hard to keep a sense of humour when delving into this kind of stuff...it didn't occur to me that you might have been pulling my leg

    21. Not a single fact presented and you've made seven posts just in the thread from the above comment. You've called me a conspiracy theorist and a tin foil hatter(sic) without my positing a theory of any kind. Again, whatcha doin' little feller?

    22. what's with all the little feller business?
      belittle me all you want...i've explained so many times now that the burden of proof does not work that way...it's up to you to prove your crazy theories...the fact that you can't do that is not my fault!

    23. Not sure why the burden of proof lies with those that doubt the government. What is your reason for a Britain being so trusting of our government? I guess if Blair says so it is good enough for you.

    24. If you have a theory, it is your responsibility to prove it true, It is not the establishments job to disprove it...that's like the first law of science, i'm sorry if you don't like it, but it's what gave us the internet, computers, electricity, medecine, and everything else you probably take for granted.

      It's about EVIDENCE, something that is sorely lacking where these conspiracies are concerned.

    25. You don't talk like a scientist.

    26. never said i was a scientist.

    27. poor guy... are you paid per comment?

    28. It should be a law. One must actually watch the documentary before commenting. No matter how tempting to do otherwise. Either that, or there are way too many dumb-a**s on this planet.

    29. Which of these "credible people" has completed a research paper in rebuttal to the NIST report and submitted it to a peer review professional journal for scrutiny?

      That's how science works, anything less amounts to faith and beliefs. That may fly for fundies and conspiracy theorists but not for most people.
      You would think that with all these "architects" and "engineers" they could utilize the channels of their professions to get some action on this. Or even get some one in the mainstream media to take on the scoop of the century. But NOOOOO they are reduced to posting pseudo docs on youtube and offering due process for those they accuse to be heard by kangaroo courts of post pubescent tweeners disillusioned by the dismal future promised in existing in the basement or garage of their parents' home.

    30. wow, let's hope you never get on a jury, what a dufus, oh sorry LOL

    31. "The architect that they interviewed..."
      Have you even watched the documentary? There are Architects and Engineers from all over the US and several other countries interviewed.

  15. This was a very compelling documentary. All these specialists and experts who all agree on how these buildings came down. It's unreal but the evidence is right there. People still deny that something bigger took place that day because they are afraid. It's time to wake up and take back our country.

  16. Why was it important that the buildings collapse? Did the government think that nobody would care if planes merely hit the buldings?

  17. One would think that the official investigation would have been flawless. The building debris field should have been secured and sifted through piece by piece instead it was guarded while the government shipped it to China of all places with no inspection at all. That is a criminal act. More money was spent on the OJ Simpson trial than was spent on the 9/11 investigation. All Americans should be outraged.

    1. "The building debris field should have been secured and sifted through piece by piece"

      Why, when tens of thousands of people watched what happened to them? How absurd would it be to tell everyone "get back, you can't look for survivors or your fellow firefighters in the rubble, because I have a theory that something other than planes and fires caused the buildings to collapse and what we just saw was a big lie!"

      Oh and by the way the debris WAS sifted through piece by piece, collecting human remains. Most of it is still buried at Fresh Kills landfill. I'm sure they would be happy to produce all you want with a court order from your "new/real/independent/what we want to hear" investigation.

      What's stopping you? Investigate! Who do you people think should investigate? The government? If not, then whom? How would any enforcement be possible?
      The federal agency with the jurisdiction to do so was the FBI and they had 7,000 of their 11,000 agents involved. Are they in on in too?

    2. These docs are the investigation. The results are in. Somebody is fxxking lying. It is more than just incompetence. It was an excuse to go to war. Money runs this world and war is the greatest source of profit. Hell ya the FBI the CIA and many other government agencys are probably in on it. Do you know anything about the CIA? These people get their kicks from toppling governments and running arms and drugs!These people are modern day SS officers and just follow orders. They have been trained to kill civilians without hesitation.
      How do you explain Dick Cheney telling intercept jets to stand down? War games scheduled for the same day? Hijackers that have been proven to still be alive? PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of explosives!?! The cronyism of the 911 comission? The rush to war afterwards? Jet fuel cannot melt steel!

    3. somebody certainly is lying...the person who made this documentary?

    4. "Dick Cheney telling intercept jets to stand down? "

      Not supported by evidence, merely misinterpreted hearsay.

      "War games scheduled for the same day?"

      I was in the Navy, nearly every day of the year, some unit, somewhere, is engaged in "war games".

      "Hijackers that have been proven to still be alive?"

      A lie.

      "The cronyism of the 911 comission?"

      All aspects of life in politics and business involve "cronyism". If your father owns a company we both work at you will be promoted before me.

      " The rush to war afterwards?"

      Combat operations in Afghanistan started Oct 7. 2001. Nearly a month later, after near unanimous approval by Congress.

      You'd have waited longer? Why?

      "Jet fuel cannot melt steel!"

      I agree.

      Goodbye.

    5. Tens of thousand of people did not watch what happene to the structural components such as the spandrels, trusses and floor pans, as these were not visible from the buildings' exteriors. While hundreds of thousands of tons of fine debris went to Fresh Kills, it was sifted for human remains and not subjected to analysis in an effort to determine the process of collapse. 7000 FBI agents were certainly not involved in investigating the collapses. Very soon after the attacks structural engineers tasked with analyzing the event stated that the recycling of the steel from the buildings was a grave error. I am aware of no comprehensive study of the steel components recovered from the site undertaken to determine the mechanism of collapse.

  18. now i think we all no the truth its time for change in the world and i think its happen slowly peace to all and we can do this

  19. I wonder if Thang Tran, probably not his real name, had lost family in the collapse, if he would be taking on such a m*ron attitude. If you watch and read the evidence by extremely educated people, I'm speaking about Phd's, not the Thang Tran's of the world, then you will see why so many are questioning what really happened. Just the thermite alone is enough to raise red flags, and along with what the firemen, police, and people on the street had to say at the time, raises a whole lot of red flags. Then there is Building # 7. It was a "controlled" collapse, as were the two towers! It is time we help the families who are looking for answers and go forward to find out the truth and bring those responsible to justice!

    1. Each one of the planes that hit the world trade center buildings had the energy equal to 1 tenth of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and that bomb destroyed an entire city.

    2. More importantly each tower, merely by standing, had as much energy stored in its mass against gravity, as the Hiroshima bomb.

    3. You and Marky Mark have to give linked professional evidence to such claims. Otherwise every argument you try to sway will fail. Even worse, it will all just sound like garbage spewing from your mouth.

      Only evidence can bring justice to your contrary claims.

  20. The best I have seen on 9/11. You cannot beat scientists and experts opinions v/s statements from politicians. A no brainer.

    1. What scientists and experts, the 99% who agree with the NIST report, or the less than 1% fringe that don't?

  21. Not bad but a little bit old.
    I mean that they didn't know (At the time of this movie production) that most if not all security companies involved in the WTC was a foreign one.
    I don't feel that many US Gov Org were involved as conspiracists suggest.
    Peoples gets lost in this. It ought to be simpler than this.
    After the "Protection failure", Gov wasn't keen to talk about it nor picking up the pieces. Who would?

  22. very good documentary what is wrong with the American people we need to investigate this again these people are not conspiracy nuts in this documentary.

  23. ingybob; Many thanks for your contributions, well thought out, well presented. All your posts, point to one conclusion. TIME FOR ANOTHER INVESTIGATION IN TO THE EVENTS OF 9/11

    1. It won't happen for fifty years if ever. They covered their tracks by blowing up building 7. The perfect demo.

  24. Once again, I will ask if any "security" safes were found in the clean up after the collapse [of the WTC buildings 1,2 &7].

  25. My curiosity has been whetted by reports of hot spots, liquid metal and other very strange phenomena relating to the events surrounding the destruction of the WTC 1, 2 & 7.
    My qualifications, primarily are in Metallurgy.

    Hot spots: Could be caused by a controlled thermo nuclear reaction, this can be clearly ignored as there has been no radio-activity above background readings in the area.
    Next, these hot spots could be the result of pools of molten metal.
    How do you get a pool of molten metal?
    Where can these hot spots originate?

    1. You can melt metal in a furnace (Electric steel making). Improbable
    2. You can reduce iron oxide in the presence of limestone, carbon [coke] and lots of hot air (An over simplified Blast Furnace). Improbable
    3. You can melt pig iron, scrap iron, steel with coke and limestone (An oversimplified Cupola for making cast iron).Improbable but not impossible.
    4. You can have a thermitic reaction between an metallic oxide and an elemental metal (e.g. Fe2O3 & Al.). Improbable, as this requires the placement of huge quantities of thermite in strategic positions, but not impossible.
    5. You have to exclude a thermonuclear reaction, because of it's implausibility.

    My experience is limited to a little over 6 metric tons of molten steel, because that it the maximum the furnace that we had, would hold, we were casting a wrecking ball of about 8 MT and the mould contained about 3 MT of pre-warmed steel.
    This took several days to cool, exactly how long I am not sure. After 3 days the top was removed and hosed down to cool. It was still very very hot.
    As a guess it would take more that 6 tons of molten iron or steel to create the heat signature that has been shown to exist on the WTC site.

    To form 1 metric ton of molten iron from the thermitic reaction Fe2O3 + Al you will need approximately 482 kilos of finely divided Aluminium and more than 1,430 kilos of finely divided Fe2O3, the volume of this mixture is going to be pretty incredible but not so incredible as the amount of kj's in the reaction, Fe2O3 + Al giving 2Fe + Al2O3 given as -822.2(x2) kj/mol.
    To put this in perspective @ approx 160 g/mol of Fe2O3, so 160 grams of Fe2O3 will give 1644 kj's., at 100% efficiency.
    In an induction furnace for melting steel you need 540 to 680 KWH/ton (taken from details supplied by Magnalenz).

    1,430,000 grams (that is 1,430 Kilos) of Fe2O3 will produce 14,700,000 kj's this is roughly equivalent to 4,000 KWH,
    So if my sums are right the energy in the thermite reaction is not only sufficient to produce molten Iron, but to melt lots of steel and anything else that it comes in contact with.

    Any molten metal will find it's lowest point, like any liquid, any cooling of any molten metal will be a slow process, as the ground, in essence forming the crucible, will have come to a sort of equilibrium and there are few air currents to help. Thus heat loss is basically by radiation. Also, do not forget that there will be a slag of sorts, over the top of the melt.

    The liquid metal pouring out of the North Tower WTC, is without doubt in my mind, molten Iron, plus still reacting thermitic material, the sparks given off are probably the result of liquid Iron solidifying and giving off energy in the form of light or a spark. The amount of molten metal is not easy to determine, but as a guess, it would be somewhere in the region of several kilos per minute, not very much at all, but at that rate, given the cooling effect of the atmosphere, it is a wonder that it flowed at all.

    I do not believe that molten Aluminium gives off a yellow colour when superheated and it will vapourize at the temperature of the Fe2O3/Al reaction, as will the Al2O3.

    If someone can convince me that the metal pouring out of that building is Aluminium, I am willing to listen.

    Please sensible comments only, without the usual agendas, I am only here to satisfy my own curiosity.

    BTW, the Chinese know exactly what happened to the WTC 1, 2 & 7., as they have had most of the evidence delivered to them. Maybe somebody should ask them.

    1. the building was full of office materials, computers, carpets, wood, paper, cardboard. Add onto that all the luggage mixed in with that jet fuel and the engine oils, and why not?

      at the end of the day, 500 decrees celcius is what you need to heat steel up to for it to lose it's structural strength. So starting from the incredible initial impact from the jet Give it a few hours of that heat added with the pressure of an incredibly heavy roof and ten stories of stuff and people on top of it...seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially when you consider just what an effort it would take to get that much Thermite in the building without it being noticed in the first place.
      If you're trying to work it out down to the last kilojoule of power then you're kind of missing the point because there are just too many unknowns and variables to try working it out like that...It involves making a hell of a lot of assumptions

  26. Batvette, if you do not understand this fixation with declaring things “free fall” or otherwise, let me explain.
    “Free fall” is shorthand for Newton's second law of motion, you are aware, I am sure, of all of these laws, but just in case here they are again:

    I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
    II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma
    III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    All of these laws are vital for discussions on the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

    Now let me bring things into perspective, my comment was:-

    “Regarding WTC 7, if the lower vertical steel components of the structure failed due to fire, then the velocity of the collapse of the building in the first instance would be free-fall, would it not?
    Yet the structure did not achieve free-fall until moments later.
    Was this due to the time taken for the primary collapse to occur? “

    Perhaps I could have added the word “central” before vertical, which would make the question a little clearer.

    Was this due to the time taken for the primary collapse to occur?

    Your answer is not an answer to my question.

    I do not ask questions to further an agenda, I simply wish to know.

    The first instant of the collapse of building 7 WTC (the main structure, not the penthouse on top),
    begins slowly at first, then the fall is roughly equivalent to the fall of an object due only to the force of “gravity” (32feet per second per second), until the debris falling meets the debris that has already fallen.

    The building (WTC 7), was already collapsing when the penthouse disappeared from view, then there is a gap in time before the main building begins to collapse, and when it starts collapse it is slower at first than “free fall”.

    If we take the big bang theory to be true, then we know what happened in the first milliseconds of the Universe, someone must have a theory as to what happened in the last 10 seconds of building 7 WTC.

    1. Is the answer to your question not found in the NIST report?

    2. nothing of value is found in NIST. Watch the documentary : 9/11 Explosive evidence. It explains it all. Excellent information....on Netflix.

    3. i see...so if it isn't confirming all of your biases it's worthless...if it's saying everything you want to hear then it's all wonderful.

      have you ever heard the term "confirmation bias"?

  27. rufusclyde, most if not all of the major players have used their agendas to further their aims for Centuries, if not Millennia.

    I would like to ask my previous question again, to see if there are any answers.

    "There is a problem that troubles me, most of the offices in the WTC 1 & 2 would have had security safes in them, these safes are by their very nature almost indestructible, were any found in the clean up after the collapse?"

    ingybob

    1. Why do you assume MOST offices would have safes? For what?
      And if the mass of the falling building can snap and bend thick steel columns like matchsticks or pretzels, why would you assume a safe should not have that happen as well?
      Safes aren't typically solid steel, not nearly as thick of steel as those columns. A typical fireproof file cabinet with combination locks approved by GSA for classified military documents must survive an 1850 degree F fire for one hour and during or thereafter, a fall from 20-30 feet onto concrete, remain water tight, yet still allow its gypsum insulation to vent water vapor without bursting the cabinet. The fall is because it's expected floors may burn through. Most safes of the common variety are not rated for much more than that- they are however designed to resist drilling or picking attacks.
      Not an enormous crushing by a large force.
      While there were a large number of banking and securities firms in the buildings, what would they keep in safes? The ones that would have to have physical assets commonly outsource secured storage. This: "these safes are by their very nature almost indestructible," is not a realistic expectation. Nobody robs safes by crushing the building occupying them.

    2. batvette, once again, you fail to answer my question. Instead you ask a lot of questions.

      Q. Why do you assume MOST offices would have safes?
      A. Because most Companies keep important documents in safes away from prying eyes.
      [My safe is fireproof, up to 1-2 hours @800°C and is explosion proof, it would survive].

      Q. For what?
      A. To keep sensitive documents in.

      Q. And if the mass of the falling building can snap and bend thick steel columns like matchsticks or pretzels, why would you assume a safe should not have that happen as well?
      A. The falling building did not snap any steel columns, all steel columns were distorted in the collapse of buildings 1,2 & 7 of the WTC., so rather than assuming as you suggest, I am actually asking "if any were found in the clean up after the collapse?"

      Q. While there were a large number of banking and securities firms in the buildings, what would they keep in safes?
      A. To keep sensitive documents in.

      Please keep replies to the point in question and in future resolve not to answer questions with questions, unless you wish to clarify an important point.

    3. You're presenting your question as if it suggests a point.
      What makes you think viewers here have this information?
      It seems whatever information is out there would be misinterpreted by you anyway, has your safe been tested and rated by UL to withstand being crushed by a half million tons of steel and concrete, burn for a week, then spend another week soaked in water?
      Why are you claiming it would survive then?

  28. My last comment, the USA still has the death penalty for egregious acts of loss of life. The only way this can't happen is lack of knowledge of such an effective loss of life. Both the enactors and those who cover up such events are culpable. Someone (anyone) needs to pursue this atrocity.

    1. What atrocity, your posts?

  29. Lastly, I'm so glad to see the architectural experts putting themselves in harms way to get the scientific and educational point of view across. Kudos where it really deserved, don't let the ba@stards get away with it!

    1. Experts? Who the guy who helped design 2 buildings neither of which was more than 15 stories tall? Each of the planes released the energy equal to one tenth of that of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and that bomb destroyed an entire city.

  30. The really sad thing is I can relate to all these people trying their best to save us from all rest of the people of the world, real tears ... The ultimate in old age cynisism ... BTW Churchill was carrying an alcohol burden about 15-20% what I'm currently at ... go figure ...

  31. Ho hum, yes I'm an alcoholic well into a binge. Just remember I have my sober moments too ...

  32. I once worked in a building, which won awards for best architecture in the early 70's, (Frizzel insurance, Bournemouth, UK), that could survive the destruction of 1/3rd of its support beams. The entire building was one floor above ground (parking) level except for an elevator core.

    Yeah, like they can't already identify me.

  33. For the first time in my life I'm glad PA has the least restrictive gun laws! OMG ..

  34. Still, what would these people know, they're just experts in their field. We all know 'W' is much more qualified!

    1. Sarcasm is always appreciated.

    2. according to you W is qualified enough to perpetrate the most extensive and elaborate conspiracy in all of history.

      ffs nixon only tried bugging a hotel room, there were less than five other people involved, and look at the state he made of that...W can't even wear a wire to a speech without getting caught, but you think he's somehow capable of being in the centre of keeping an entire demolition team, 99% of the scientific institution and the media from blabbing?

      You lot are the one who thinks bush is some kind of god-like evil mastermind not us rationals!

  35. Oh, and bythe the wty, the Chinese have the evidence ...

    1. that's odd...i could have sworn Bin Laden sent his confession to the US

  36. 9/11 is an inside job, look at what followed how can we say it was not. Western powers have always been instigating, whether it be the UK support of both sides during the Nigerian Civil war, or the US nuking of Japan even though evidence shows that Japan's generals already surrendered prior. 9/11 was used like the US call's for enlisting against Germany, same propoganda same scare and emotianal tactics. Also why no official investigation into 9/11 surely authorities are there to uncover the truth and not hide it. Bush, Blair and journalists who are in bed with the US administraion should have a price on their head.

    1. This is always the silliest argument supporting 9/11 conspiracies, the ideological belief that the US government is historically evil so they must have done this evil thing too.
      It requires one believe such evil is multi generational, and inclusion within merely requires one take employment with the US government.
      However please forget I have pointed this out to you, go ahead and keep believing your argument is effective and does not instantly ridicule those presenting it.
      I shudder to think if people with such silly leftist self loathing beliefs were ever to be taken seriously in the political arena and were able to influence it successfully.
      Noting the holocaust denial implied by your Germany reference. Was kristallnacht a product of western propaganda? Did the gas chambers not exist, and were not used? I don't roundly judge all Germans of the era to be Nazis, but we didn't need to create propaganda against them. They did splendidly on their own.

    2. scatvette! Flippin' back and forth between your "realpolitik" aspirations and full-blown jingoism. Great use of emotional language to steer a discussion out of facts. Nevertheless, the agents of the US State have engaged in behaviors like the agents of every other state throughout history. They have used whatever means they have at their disposal to enact the policies of the ruling elites. Thus, the US government sent their armed forces to kill off Indians and Mexicans. Then they sent them to kill Filipinos, and then lots of folks in Central America. The US government also sent US troops to europe, three years into a war that Wilson claimed he would not enter, in order to further the position of economic elites in the US system. The apparatus of the state is used by elites to maintain and increase their power, whether the state is communist, fascist or anything in between. Good and evil is for evangelists, scatvette.

    3. That's nice, doofus lied.
      How is that relevant to 9/11? I don't recall any of those events being a conspiracy to attack Americans at home which crippled our economy. And who are these "elites"? (I'm familiar with the term) The President and Congress of 19th and early 20th century America are not the same people, of the same families, and you seem to imply that merely being a political or business figure is enough to make one commit mass murder.
      It's automatic! Join the government and you're a heartless b*stard willing to kill thousands!
      A conspiracy on the level of 9/11 would take the involvement of thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands. What was the motivation for all the actual participants- cash? Wouldn't there be a money trail of them spending their new found wealth? What did the "elites" gain by crippling our economy, shutting down the stock markets, grounding airlines, making it difficult to fly anywhere- to freely consume the goods their companies sell?
      Tell us, doofus lied, if the elites had the power to do this crime so perfectly.... why would they need to do this crime merely to gain power?

    4. Now scatvette, you are really starting to come apart at the seams. Your job, self-appointed or otherwise, on these forums is to attack people who disagree with the official account of the 2001 attacks, and yet you say that a conspiracy on the level of 9/11 would require the involvement of thousands? The official story of conspiracy does not entail thousands, just nineteen hi-jackers, bin Laden and Kaleid Sheikh Mohammed. Since you claim that any other scenario is completely fanciful, how do you arrive at a manpower figure for something that couldn't have taken place?

      As for your assertion that the 2001 attacks crippled the US economy, that simply is not true. In fact, the US economy was in recession as of March 2001, a recession that was determined to have ended in November of 2001, two months after the attacks. You is either a liar, real ignorant, crazy, or some combination of all three. Whirlin' ol' scat-slingin' scatvette!

      The strawman about the government and elites is just really shabby. As the 2008 collapse proved very clearly, elites, those with plenty o' capital in the financial sector, make made loot when stocks go down or up because they use complicated financial instruments like CDS's. Derivatives are worth trillions, and they are based around the concept that the rich will make money whether markets go up or down. The government is a tool of the rich, and although it is a blunt instrument, one hundred years of sophisticated propaganda coupled with a corrupt judiciary has produced the society you now live in, with 40 000 000 Americans drawing food stamp relief of one kind or another while the empire maintains hundreds of foreign military installations and tiny fraction of a percentage of the population owns most of the society's wealth. Spin on, scatvette, spin on!

    5. asking people to explain what they are claiming isn't attacking someone...it's the logical progression from coming up with a theory.
      If you don't want your beliefs challenged, then go and have a circlejerk on the loony boards with the UFO abductees and the lizard people who will agree with just about anything you care to tell them (good people to sell a car to!), don't come onto a public forum and then whine when someone asks you a basic question about your outlandish claims.

    6. Nice work. In less than two dozen lines you use three logical fallacies. You started out with a nice strawman, swapping out scatvette's use of the term truther, which is an attack, and sliding in "asking people to explain what they are claiming'. Then you turned that strawman into a false dilemma, setting up the choice of having ones beliefs challenged or going and having a "circlejerk on the loony boards..". And then, with real showmanship, you bring it all home with a red herring about who is posting on these 'loony boards'. Good job, son,

    7. hmm...a stirling effort, ten out of ten for effort, bugger all for execution.
      ok first of all, a strawman is a diversion...asking someone to prove their claims isn't in any way shape or form a strawman argument so...wrong.
      How devious that you should try and divise a method of silencing critics using a really bad understanding of logial fallacies...the only logical fallacy you could possibly accuse me of is an "Ad-hominem attack" with the loony boards reference...But for an attack to be 'ad hominem' means it has to be unfounded...But generally people who try to use trickery to stop people from asking them questions tend to be lunatics from the dredges of the internet with a paranoid axe to grind and a yearning for acceptance by anyone else who believes in the little fantasy you wish was true.
      so i stand by all my comments!
      like i say, ten out of ten for effort...it's a shame you couldn't have done five minutes research first and actually learned about what you were talking about before talking about it.

    8. Complete gibberish. You are a dense person, and completely free of the burden of awareness of your own enormous limitations. Babble on, Commentard.

    9. I'm really sorry...i thought i was having a conversation with an adult I didn't realise you were only six years old.

      considering the general quality of all that i'm quite suprised you resisted calling me a poopyhead or threated to tell your mum i was being mean to you.

      Do you want to tell me WHY you think i'm so wrong...or are you just going to keep acting like a lttle girl who'se been told she can't have a pony for christmas?

    10. Why would you ask a six-year-old, whom you feel is acting like a little girl who's been told she can't have a pony for Christmas, to tell you anything? Scatvette stated that the 2001 attacks crippled the US economy, which is simply untrue. He has consistently used the term "truther' to refer to those who dispute or don't accept the official version of the 2001 attacks. You chimed in claiming that I was being asked to explain what I was claiming, which I wasn't. You have stated nothing that contradicts my statements, but have pretended that you're in an argument. You are either a truly stupid person, or are pretending to be a truly stupid person. If it is the latter, well played sir, well played.

    11. well, like i say, i thought you were an adult, until you stopped acting like one and decided insults were the equivilent of evidence.
      Sorry but you can't act like a whinging little b1tch and then expect me to suddenly start taking you seriously.
      You made statements, i asked you to provide evidence, you didn't. you just made more statements, and when i called you out on it, you had a temper tantrum which you are appearantly still having because again with the insults...you seem awfully desperate to call me names like stupid at every opportunity, who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?

    12. You are very confused. You didn't ask for evidence, you slipped in some completely irrelevant nonsense about UFO's, right off the bat. You seem incapable of forming a response based on critical analysis of what you read, but instead you're emotionally compelled to blurt out inane analogies with no bearing on the previous train of conversation. Again, you're either a m*ron, or doing a sublime job of pretending to be one.

    13. I don't buy into the whole conspiracy theory but there are some unsettling things that happened like stock puts against the airlines used in the attacks before 911 were several times the normal volume

  37. Regarding WTC 7, if the lower vertical steel components of the structure failed due to fire, then the velocity of the collapse of the building in the first instance would be free-fall, would it not?
    Yet the structure did not achieve free-fall until moments later.
    Was this due to the time taken for the primary collapse to occur?

    1. I honestly do not understand this fixation with declaring things "free fall" or otherwise. In the collapse of all three buildings various parts of the buildings reached the ground at different times, even if they came from the same floor of the building. No building saw its collapse completed at anything resembling "free fall speed" and the most visibly obvious chunks saw their path to the ground completely unimpeded by the remaining structure as they fell outside of it.
      From a superficial standpoint WTC7's collapse actually does resemble a controlled demolition, the twin towers look like anything but.
      Considering what a controlled demolition really is, the ability of all significant load bearing components simultaneously being removed of their ability to do so, it should not be a surprise WTC7 resembles one. That's essentially what happened when critical beams failed and caused a global collapse. This created loads on beams they were never designed to support.

  38. There is a problem that troubles me, most of the offices in the WTC 1 & 2 would have had security safes in them, these safes are by their very nature almost indestructible, were any found in the clean up after the collapse?

  39. The real key to the whole debate is WTC7. Given that no other steel and concrete building...EVER!...ANYWHERE! has collapsed from fire! and other buildings have had more intense fires for far far longer! is a total and complete utter give in to what happened to all three buildings. To think that was not some form of controlled demolition "you would have to be very ignorant indeed"

    1. "Given that no other steel and concrete building...EVER!...ANYWHERE! has collapsed from fire! "

      Not true at all.

      " and other buildings have had more intense fires for far far longer!"

      Not with a 20 story gaping hole causing structural damage and allowing unlimited oxygen to fuel the fires. Most importantly the fires were largely unfought, meaning there was not a steady supply of water being sprayed on the structural steel to keep it cool.

      All the accounts of events that took place that day by firefighters and city building engineers go against any theory of controlled demolition. They saw distortions in critical beams. They sighted the building with a transit and noticed it leaning hours earlier. They heard groaning and creaking in the building.

      Funny enough the theory it must be a controlled demolition is always based upon ignorance. You don't know all of the details about what happened, particularly regarding the steady progression of reports detailing the building's worsening state throughout the afternoon. You think the fires weren't that bad. You don't realize they were. You don't know why this event would be different than other fires. But it was. All arguments from ignorance. No offense intended.

  40. why don"t they build the world trade center like a tall pentagon joining one another.built not by paper,but a special grade of rubber with concrete type posts in the center of rubbers.

  41. why don"t they build the new wold trade center more like a twin tall pentagon joining together, not using paper but a high grade type of rubber with concrete pillars in the center of the rubber blocks.

  42. If the official explanation is correct, then the internal and external columns were being pulled inward as the falling floors crashed down, forming an increasing mass. As the colums did not remain standing, bowed toward where the floors were, they must have come apart. Did all the bolts attaching the spandrels fail, and all of the bolts holding the trusses to the truss seats and the dampening units also fail? If the falling floors were shearing each successive lower floor from the spandrels, why didn't the columns remain upright? Were all of the column trees intact and simply not connected anymore as the bolts all sheared?

  43. The point not being discussed here is the amount of steel/debris pile after the buildings were destroyed. Their are plenty of photos showing this 'pile' on 9-11, and several days after,the LACK of debris is astonishing. Yes, there is steel, other materials laying about, but look at the mass of those two buildings standing, I mean LOOK at them, picture them dropping straight down in 10 seconds, and then look at the pile remaining. Its non existent. Their has been a very thorough investigation, it can be found at Dr Judy Woods website, or in her book 'Where did the towers go'. Also on Facebook. It will open your eyes!!

    1. Hockeypop200...

      Thankyou for your suggestion to take a look at Dr Judy Woods. I watched both her interviews with Theo Chalmers and Richard.D.Hall and found what she had to say intriguing.

      Although both interviewers left a lot to be desired, Dr. Woods has raised some interesting questions from the evidence she studied.

      For those interested, both interviews can be viewed if u google:
      'one step beyond dr judy woods'
      If you only watch one of these interviews, I thought the second one, by Richard Hall, was the better of the two.

      Ultimately, I think the one conclusion that can be drawn is that many unanswered questions remain about what truly happened on 9/11.

    2. @ kismyasp- most important to any investigation is WHAT was done. Dr wood puts that to rest. The evedence is that DEW of some sort was used is undenyable. Now as for the WHO, that has some unanswered questions. WHY, well, comes down to the old " who benifits' issue as to the motive. And seeing various govts that benifitted at the cost of 1000's of lives is sickening. This is a primary reason most truth seekers cant accept it was anythg but domolition, even tho the evidence betrays that belief. The implications of govt involvment is beyond their comprehension. If in fact the towers were destroyed with DEW, and the evidence shows that they were, that puts to rest anybody but some govt and military pulling this off. So all this chatter of who said what, which plane turned how sharp, stand down orders, and so on, are EXACTLY what the perps want- confusion, endless discussion going nowhere. And thus far, 11 years down the road, they have succeeded. This angers me more than the atrocity of the towers being destroyed!

    3. hockeypop200...

      I don't think you can yet claim that Dr Woods' findings are unquestionable.....she is not the one and only expert with an opinion that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark".....

      I agree she raises some intriguing questions and presents some evidence that deserves to be looked at...so do many other very highly experienced people with as good or better academic credentials as she holds.

      The upshot is, the ‘official’ report is inadequate at the best...
      ‘What was done’ still needs to be established.....and not by one person alone....
      Whether the govt was involved in what was done or not, we know already that they certainly are responsible for not answering all the questions and doubts people still have after 11 years. This in itself is reprehensible.

    4. @kismyasp-I disagree. Regardless of credentials, though hers are above and beyond most, Dr Woods findings are supported by ALL the evidence. If she cant back it with evidence, she does not make the claim. Thats how science is supposed to work. Shiveled cars 1/2 mile away(demolition?) 80% of buildings missing(demoliton?), seismic data that unquestionably shows these 2- 500,000 TON buildings did NOT slam to the ground as we are told, huge magnetic pulse at the instant of each event such as the holes in the towers, then their final destruction, undamaged bathtub (slurry wall retaining the Hudson), surrounding the tower complex- NONE of this is addressed by these other 'experts'. Why? because they will lead you ANYWHERE but DEW. They are disinfo dispensers, most bought and paid for by the weapons industry. IF there was a 'Mickey Mouse did it' camp claiming he did it, an 'expert' would 'appear' to lead that group along that path for a time. Divide and conquer, thats how its done. Bottom line is, as Dr Wood has claimed, if she could get this evidence to court, with subpoena power, the perps are toast. No other 'experts' can claim this, simply because their findings are not backed by the facts of the evidence. They would be torn to bits in a court of law, and they know this. Dr woods case is under appeal at this time I believe. Youll find all her court docs on her site, beginning to end, all the way to the Supreme Court. That takes guts, and most importantly, solid proof. I can promise you, you will NEVER see another case, involving demolition, nukes, whatever, get this far in court. the evidence simple is not there. I cant for the life of me understand this ignoring of anomalies thats taking place. I cant do that myself. This "make the evidence fit my 'belief' " mentality so many have is mind boggling to me. Its not about belief folks, painful as it will be, its about what the evidence shows to be the case. ALL of it, no picking and choosing.

  44. Agreed Colin.

  45. If the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, cutting the steel columns on all the floors of those buildings, then cut steel columns would be everywhere. Where are they? Anyone seen any? -or reported that they saw any? All of this steel with both ends cut with big diagonal molten cuts. There were hundreds and hundreds of people, first responders, rescue workers, firefighters , demolition workers at ground zero moving and removing all of that steel ,for months , putting chains around them , hoisting them into the air, putting it on trucks and driving them through the public streets of NY to the piers and moving them on barges to the dump site. Hundreds of pieces of steel were examined, photographed , during the rescue operations and the in clearance of the site every single piece of steel was seen by the people who were there and there is not one report ,photograph, statement by anyone who saw steel with cut ends. None at all.

    1. Did you actually listen to the information?

      The evidence points to columns weakened and/or melted by thermite....not "both ends cut with big diagonal molten cuts"....or "steel with cut ends", as if teams of welders with blow torches had been on the rampage!

      Photographic evidence was shown of thinned and melted steel beams...did you sleep during the program?

    2. "The evidence points to columns weakened and/or melted by a huge building fire which engulfed entire floors and was left unfought."

      Why did they even need thermite?

    3. Even more fascinating is reports of NO-zero- desks, toilets, furniture of any kind. Why? because they were all turned to dust. No amount bombs in the building can explain this. You blown something up, you get fragments, pieces everywhere, these were non existent. Dr Judy Woods documents on her website, as well as her book,'Where did the towers go' how this was done. If you want solid evidence, not finger pointing and speculation and chatter going absolutely nowhere, this is where you'll find it. This 'missing' building, as well as all its components, has interestingly been lost in the discussion. Kudo's to you for noticing these massive steel columns obviously vanishing.

  46. Not an engineer, nor an architect, nor a physicist... but let's say the so-called experts are right, and the WTC towers were imploded...what is never explained by these folks is the amount of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy, and how they got the demolitions into place within the building, and then the timing of"hijacked" planes to offer a 'plausibility' of explanation as to why the buildings then collapsed etc. How are these people convinced that such actions were conscionable, and/or how is their silence guaranteed... which seems to my way of thinking the very argument against 'conspiracy theories' to begin with... Since there is no way the demolitions needed for such 'implosions' were put into place after the planes struck, one must assume they were done prior... when, and how so without raising the suspicions of people working there everyday. That seems more impossible to believe than the NIST document.

    1. Dave,
      I don't think this program was about specualtion of who or why...it was a presentation of scientific facts and a demand for an official, independent investigation based on scientific method and facts.
      ...A very reasonable and deserved demand in my opinion.

      The idea is to have a sound investigation of the evidence (that which still remains!) and from there ask the questions of how, who and why.

      I do think however that there was a clue to the possible 'how and when' of placement of thermite before the events....
      The old guy who had worked as head engineer of the World Trade Buildings said that elevator crews had 24/7 access to the elevator shafts and therefore, 24/7 access to all areas of the World Trade Buildings.

    2. It would still take weeks if not months to complete this task and most of the inner columns and ALL of the perimeter columns are plainly visible to tenants on a daily basis. Given the thickness of the steel beams (and more importantly the amount of any kind of thermite, super duper secret or not, required to cut them) it's simply not rational to believe the buildings could be so rigged clandestinely.
      However getting back to the more impossible point it's claimed, since no explosions were evident, that thermite cutter charges were used in this "controlled demolition".
      Yet in 9 months of removing the rubble round the clock by thousands of workers not one beam nor column which appeared to be cut by thermite was ever found. Tens of thousands (estimate) of photographs taken, no trace of same evident. (though a few of the sections cut by welders were attempted to be presented as such, and debunked)
      Scientific evidence? Not the paper published in the Bentham Open Journal. Flawed in methodology, credibly refuted by an independent testing laboratory, and in the first place published in a vanity pay to print journal- and authored by "researchers" with an agenda who controlled the conditions so only one conclusion would be evident.

      "an official, independent investigation"

      Reality check: "official" could only mean the government is the one doing it. Yet they've done them already from several perspectives, truthers believe they are rigged because it's the government.

      "independent".

      Millions of truthers looking under every rock, nook and cranny for 11 years. That's as close as you will ever get and what have you got after 11 years?

    3. I'd say it would take 2-4 people to set up the demolition, with access from the elevator shafts. This is all it takes in normal demolitions with explosive experts - no one else is allowed to touch explosives in usual circumstances as it is quite dangrous. The silence of a very small group of people can be bought, or done the old fashioned way, or perhaps the people involved think they are doing the right thing for complex reasons and don't need to be bought or killed? That is all conjecture though... the important thing is the physical facts and evidence, not our disbelief of how other human beings might behave. There have been countless less dramatic conspiracies in history which have come out over time... I find it strange that you think it is so unlikely as to discount all the evidence just because you don't see how it could be orchestrated... just my 2 cents

    4. "I'd say it would take 2-4 people to set up the demolition, with access from the elevator shafts. This is all it takes in normal demolitions with explosive experts - "

      That's preposterous. That's like saying it took a dozen people a week to build the Hoover Dam.

    5. It's not really like saying that it took a dozen people a week to build the Hoover Dam. We know that the Hoover dam took much longer than a week, and we know that tens of thousands of men worked on it. There was no time frame suggested by Harmony Hill, and a demolition does not normally take 2000-4000 people. Swing and a huge miss!

  47. Never paid any attention to the 9-11 World Trade Ctr collapse before. However, having an engineering background myself and after watching this video, especially the collapse of building 7, the government needs to reopen the investigation. Just too many things seem to defy physical laws and material properties.

  48. The trolls are still here and people still argue with them. Mathematically, everyone should question 911.

  49. let me make sure that i understand you.
    we are all unable to choose or decide if we will be corrupted because corruption is the breaking down of something, and it is inevitable due to instability inherent in all things.(you say breaking down, i say taint...but then, i do tend to gibber, um, ish...)
    and i guess accountability would be based on if have been naughty or if you have been nice this year.....

  50. NIST are now complaining amongst themselves,...not enough of budget, were steered in a certain direction, some evidence withheld, set up to fail from the beginning and a? couple of other points that i have forgot.

  51. Hey rufus,
    "alleged to be of the man Bin Laden"
    What recording?
    Do you have a link to it or is it all secret?

    1. Hey David, you have the same capacity to use a search engine or pick up a book that anybody else does. Bin Laden issued a denial of responsibility on September 16, 2001. On December 13, 2001 the US State Department issued a recording that they claimed was found in Pakistan, showing a man whom they claimed was Bin Laden. The State Department further claimed that the man on the tape was claiming responsibility for the attacks. Subsequently, it was determined by translators that no such claims were made by the man on the tape. It really is not difficult at all to find this information, which begs the question why you would ask if it is all secret.

  52. I think Ossama Bin-Laden had something to do with it.
    Anyone can look up the video he released after the attacks.
    He gives his reasons.

    1. Well Baruch, Osama Bin Laden was an asset of US intelligence, so if he was involved it seems quite possible that his US handlers were involved. However, there is a recording, alleged to be of the man Bin Laden, that was made in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 murders on which the alleged Bin Laden denies involvement. This is the same recording of which a false translation was used to claim Bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks.

    2. Factually incorrect.

  53. @ a_no_n, mmm...ok let's get this straight - I'm NOT going to argue black is white or throw in circular arguments. What's the point of that? Thing is... you are adament in your overall belief about this. As am I. So on each point I CAN be converted by your better understanding, or possibly convince you that mine requires more consideration by you, or we can beg to differ. The last one is the one we are trying to avoid if at all possible. But if it is not to be, then I accept that and will move on to tap your understanding for something new.

    So no I'm not high. Eesh!

    The welds and bolts matter in establishing the underlying structure as strong and sound, and flexible and unheated by any fire above.

    Consider this: Take a block of the same weight and density as that of the 'top' section of either tower [edit: the section above the hole]. Drop it on to any steel frame building from say 30 ft above. Can't you imagine that 'object' smashing into the structure below without destroying it, but instead tipping to the side as soon as it becomes off balance and falling away from the structure? This SHOULD have happened with the towers. But instead we see it drivepile straight down through the center taking everything with it. Not once, not twice, but three times. What's the odds of that? I imagine you consider it like a kind of snowball effect of gathering momentum and pace, but the forces pushing BACK upwards (against it), prevents such a thing. Unless the structure itself is being compromised by catastrophic failures. Supposing those failures occured [Edit: due to the design build alone], it would be expected that ONE of those buildings would buckle, and not collapse in its own footprint. None of them did. The forensics didn't asked much about why. I dare you to say they asked enough!

    I'm a qualified architectural technician, and structural steel construction was part of my studies. So I'm NOT an expert, but I understand forces acting on bodies and structures more than you might suppose, and yes I took physics throughout high school.

  54. Are you implying that a blacksmith's forge is comparable to the floors of the WTC buildings with randomly dispersed fires burning in them?

  55. If there was a bomb, I wouldn't have heard an explosion, as I was not present. However, plenty of people who were present did report hearing explosions. Your statement regarding investigators not looking for a bomb because it has no basis in reality is highly illogical. While I can accept the notion that anomalous events like airliners crashing into the towers could result in the distortion of the supporting mechanisms and subsequent destruction, bombs are the only means by which any of the other buildings I mentioned were destroyed. Ugh.

  56. You didn't make a point. You made a reference to a fictional story, and that was it. Every single fact I listed is easily verified, and I offered no theory. It's hard to tell if you're a troll or just tremendously uninformed and juvenile. Either way, in the era of Hasbara and Cognitive Infiltration, replying to your comments provides an opportunity to provide real information about terrorism and it's place in geo-politics. It's never too late for you to read a book.

  57. Spinning, spinning Batvette! Dozens upon dozens of posts on this documentary alone, all in the name of reaffirming a perception of an event that you assert is self-evident? Why, oh why so many keystrokes Batvette to refute belief in Bigfoot, the power of crystals, and communicating with the dead? God bless America, the singular manifestation of the technological development that is nationalism. Hated by devils, and pinkos and now French surrender monkeys. Oh those French cowards, fleeing in their tens of thousands to hide in the dirt of Verdun!

  58. One of the most important pieces of evidence proving that the towers were demolished with thermitic explosives is the presence, verified by a large number of witnesses, of molten iron and/or steel (not aluminum which looks like mercury). Hard science tells us that ordinary fires, including those from jet fuel, cannot even come close to the temperatures required to liquify iron or steel. This issue is very well addressed in the film. This all by itself is enough reason to demand the real criminal investigation that was never conducted. The focus therefore needs to be on demanding a real investigation and not endless online debating and speculation.

  59. When the second plane crashed it did so near one corner.
    When the burning fuel weakened the steel the building fell straight down. This failure may also have been helped by the kinetic energy of the impact. In order for the building to fall straight down the other three corners of the building would have to receive the same undermining that the corner very near the impact did. Does anyone know how this impact caused the failure of the relatively undamaged frame at the very same time as the corner suffering the impact and fire?

  60. take a look at the steel upright beams at the base of the building, they have a slant cut, just as they do in demolition. If the towers fell due to jet fuel i would imagine the steel would have irregular shapes, cuts and fractures on the main support beams.

    1. You mean those photos and videos taken during the excavation of the rubble pile? You're right, they do have a slant cut. That's the way the workers were cutting them with their torches. I have video documentation of this, if you're interested in it. It's from debunking911 d o t c o m, you know that site that answers virtually every question "truthers" have but is rejected because by defending the official story this makes its owners paid by the conspirators to do so?

    2. Not weighing in on this either way, but there is a credible retort to your claim about those cuts being made onsite, and they seem to be made by mostly reasonable people with related work experience on the pilots for 9/11 truth website. You can also google it, if you are interested.

      Just thought I'd point this out for people who tend to believe the guy that says "there's proof that you're wrong on ____" without doing further research.

  61. inside job

  62. Problem is not what happened with towers. To me and to most people 9/11 was US government project so they would be ?allowed? to make laws/actions afterwards.
    Problem is, what can/will we do about it? People today feel scared and powerless. For that i blame religion and government forms. All religions are the same and all governments are the same.They want you to feel like that so they can control you.

    Human specie urgently needs social revolution.

    1. The fact they exploited the event is hardly rational cause to posit the event was of their own doing.
      Now to your second point, you're only offering good reason for government and religion to control and oppress. Gee here comes some guy who feels his way is the right way so we should throw everything else out the window and try that.
      I do recall the first week of basic training in the military, while we were questioning that their commands were so rigid and structured, one of the more enlightening messages coming across was that in your path before you there have been millions who have already tread.
      The odds of your idea actually being better or more efficient than any of theirs is pretty darn slim. The way we did it was the culmination of all their experience, refined and honed to take advantage of all their successes- and mistakes.
      "Social Revolution". Brought to you by the same folks that have been responsible for war after war after war. You were born so you want change. The same idiocy as being alive now and thinking now we should have peace.
      (I'm not questioning what you said as much as mocking the attitude this should all be a surprise or something you can change)

  63. anyone who isnt willing to look into this is in a state of denial so all the info in the world is not going to shake that reality of fear to to believe that this was an inside job and should not be so easly brushed off as more conspiracy hype.There are several sources of information that back up this source , that is just as compelling, if you really want to be open minded to look further the information is out there and it can not be debunked or disputed. There are faR more professionals out there asking for another investigation ,more family members who we hear nothing about wanting answers, the official story does not make sense nor does it answer some of the most obviouse questions. There are first hand witnesses that are now dead for one reason or another including supposed suicide that were going to testify, there are documented interviews with witnesses that seen the crash at the pentigon funny that every first hand account matches each others story but does not fit the official story as well , nor does the physical evidence , and it is the same with the the other plane crash , nothing fit what the official report said and it should if in fact it were true

    1. LOL, you think people haven't "looked into this" and are in a "state of denial"?

      "the official story does not make sense nor does it answer some of the most obviouse questions."

      I think I posted below, "ignorance is not evidence". Let's go over this repeatedly until it sinks in, "because you don't understand why airplanes full of fuel smashed into buildings and started huge fires which weakened the structures and initiated a gravity driven collapse is possible, is not compelling evidence for those who do, to consider."

      There is not ONE question ANY of you "truthers" have about this event that does not already have a credible answer out there somewhere. Think not? Go ahead and think of any question you have and Google it. Bet the answer was out there already. You just didn't like the answer so you went somewhere else and asked it again, in front of another audience of ignorant people who thought you were profound for asking it.

      It's always the same with conspiracy theorists. You believe that all around you are people who lack your courage to stand up to authority, or aren't as enlightened or educated as you, and would believe as you do if only they were exposed to the things you know and weren't afraid to do something about it.

      Arrogance. Nothing more nor less. I'm sorry if this appears overly rude in tone but what is it supposed to sound like when you post claims like there is information out there that can not be debunked or disputed? You want debunked or disputed, well how about if a single one of all these "professionals" you are talking about would take on the NIST report on the towers and offer a credible rebuttal of its findings in a peer review professional journal? Additionally, where's all this "evidence" you are talking about? Don't tell me- "it's out there... you just have to do the research. with an open mind!"

      Open? Or is it really, empty?

  64. everyone on this planet should at least view this ,it is very compelling the victims were the the ones who started this petition to re-investigate what happened so if the families are willing to re-open this wound then we all owe it to them to look into it the new evidence from independant experts in the field od desighn fire,explosives,metalurgy,physics,ect,eye wittnesses such as firefighters,reporters,police,puplic citizens, are bringing factual accounts, physical scientific evidence, and expertise,to the table which does not support what we were told. This not about conspiracy theory, anti government , this about solid evidence.. Pass it on

    1. If it's about solid evidence, why ignore all the Evidence that says it clearly wasn't a controlled explosion?

      Because they've found a couple of "experts" so desperate for attention they'll say anything to a camera? That's not evidence, that's Bias conformation!

    2. You are really locked in aren't you? Avalanche expert on the twin towers. Case closed, thanks for sorting this all out.

    3. Why am i locked in? Because i don't believe the illuminati and the masons blew up the trade centre using aliens in the glorious name of Satan?

      At the end of the day you're asking me to believe that Bush, the muppet who couldn't even fake his way through a speech without getting caught with a transmitter taped to his back, is the same guy who was able to perform the most complicated conspiracy in all human history?
      Lol anyway, what's to sort out? all this conspiracy gumpf has been debunked time and time again...It's a good science fiction story, but it's not the reality i'm afraid.

    4. well plz start by giving logic to ur explanation

    5. I have...what don't you find logical about what i've said?

      Why do you demand logic from me but not from the people telling you aliens did it?

      You think it's logical that, rather than a bunch of p1ssed off violent extremists with an agenda, the biggest load of bumbling beaurocrats since the allied command of WW1 managed to pull off the most technical conspiracy in all of history? Give me a break, Chaney and bush didn't have half a braincell between them, there's no way they could keep the lid on something like this!

      The only conspiracy involving 9/11 is the conspiracy whereby a few sociopaths are making money out of gullible paranoid people by selling them fantasy stories dressed up as truth!

    6. its please, not plz.cannot take text speak seriously.

    7. why dont we examine the evidence that isnt there? exactly, where is the evidence to support the official report? no bodies, no identifiable plane parts, no internal debris that could be positively matched to the sites,planes leave mass amounts of debris in their wake when they go down,and scattered bodies,of course pieces of the plane itself. Ground zero managed to evaporate while falling, cause vehicles amile away to flip over, vaporize engines, remove pieces of the vehicles melt rubber, remove winshields, incinterate inside but not outside of some , cause the paint and metal to to vanish, some parts warped or melted, yet none of them exploded from their gas tanks,some of this occured a mile away from the initial site, if jet fuel caused this kind of damage wouldnt the gas tanks explode, would not all that paper u see have burned, there would have been more fire damage visible all over,and surely the people who lived to tell would have burned as well.To believe that fuel and heat did all the damage then what caused the pulvarization of the concrete, the bone fragments to fly over to near by structure roof tops, which was a considerable amount yet we see no outward explosions after impact , where are the plane parts surely more than two pieces would have been recovered, basically , how did people manage to get out that were above the impact zone, it would not have been possible. and BY THE WAY NIST WAS CHALLENGED . You do not have to be the smartest tool in the shed to see the evidence does not fit the official report.Because it is a lie.

    8. hmm...ok first of all, if Evidence isn't there, by classical definition, it isn't really evidence...no wonder you're so confused if the only evidence you're examining isn't there (you're technically admitting that you're constructing a fantasy). But anyway, two gigantic buildings fell down...of course nothing is going to be recognisable afterward, why is that so hard for you to believe? What are you even suggesting, that it wasn't two planes that crashed into the buildings?

      You're arguing science without having even the most basic knowledge of the subject...you're asking questions that have been debunked a million times! FFs it's all in your head, get over it and move on!

    9. I suggest you Google some of the people in this video who have years of experience and many published articles in high impact journals to qualify your statement about people without even basic knowledge of science making baseless claims.

    10. i suggest you google something like Penn and Tellers Bullsh1t...where they explain quite eloquently why the people in documentaries like these are experts of nothing, and dead wrong.

      Oh and by the way, those "High impact journals" they're not recognised or respected are they? They're probably agenda pieces...The only real conspiracy here is the conspiracy on the part of these authors and fantasists who are using the disaster of 9/11 to sell books/videos/etc to gullible and paranoid people.

    11. What are you? A troll? I watched that thing on your recommendation. They don't provide 1 shred of evidence during that 30-minute name-calling session. "Conspiracy theorists are I*IOTS." Wow. Real hard hitting stuff.

      Compared to this movie with actual experts?

      What's wrong with you? Do you work for the CIA? Why would anyone purposely ignore evidence? You haven't watched or read 1 piece of critical analysis on the buildings, have you?

      Admit it - you're just a troll - and that's sad. Because 3,000 people were murdered and we all lost many freedoms in the process of this bulls*it.

      Public school education? 3,000 people in your town ? How did you develop YOUR narrow-minded worldview?

    12. Gosh, you're very quick to anger when your views are questioned...I expect that would be your reaction to anything that didn't confirm your predetermined conclusions.

      What this movie doesn't tell you, is that most of these supposed 'experts' are either: a/ not considered experts by anyone other than themselves, b/ talking out of their field, c/ ignorant of the science behind what they are saying, or d/ have been completely discredited!

      There's a reason we let Physicists discuss physical things like gravity, and not engineers...because engineers don't study physics, and as a result have absolutely no idea what they're talking about!
      If you're listening to an engineer tell you about gravity, then you ARE an i*iot, because that engineer hasn't got any authority to discuss such things, the 9/11 disaster involved material on a scale far beyond ANYTHING anyone on earth has ever seen before, nobody can do anything but SPECULATE how they should have fallen!

      FFS, you call me a troll, and a CIA plant in the same sentence...Do you not see how paranoid it is to assume that someone who disagrees with you could only possibly be working for the government or having a laugh?
      I'm actually British, I live in a city of over a quarter of a million people, and i was publicly educated thank you very much (which sounds like a hell of a lot more education than you were exposed to)

      My biggest gripe with this conspiracy is that it relies on George W bush AND Dick"head" Cheney not being complete imbeciles...George Bush couldn't even cheat his way through a speech without being caught wearing a ridiculous transmitter, yet you think he was able to precide over a conspiracy involving thousands of people, for well over a decade...It's literally Insane!

    13. Much tripe a_no_n. Clearly a conspiracy existed, as a group of perpetrators was unquestionably involved in these atrocities. Just who constituted the group is at issue. It is a strawman argument to set up G.W. Bush as the organizer of this conspiracy as it is well established that he is not capable of organizing and overseeing a complex military operation such as took place in 2001. The idea that engineers don't have to have an understanding of gravity is preposterous. Physicists don't design our bridges, nor our airplanes, spacecraft, high-rise buildings nor off-shore drilling platforms. Engineers do.

    14. You say clearly, but I disagree...The only thing i think is clear is the scale of mass paranoia in America! What is your PROOF for ANY of the things that you claim? Because it all sounds like assumption to me...like the plot of a bad action movie!

      It's not preposterous at all. Engineers don't study science...they study engineering, that's why we call them engineers and not scientists!

      Dude if you can't even wrap your head around that how are we supposed to have a proper conversation about this?

    15. Dude, a group of men commandeered the airplanes and killed a few thousand people. The acts were planned, organized and carried out by more than one person, so a conspiracy existed. Again, who made up the group, who exerted what level of control and who performed what actions as these events unfolded is the issue. With regard to engineering and the curriculum studied therein, you are beyond ignorant, like a vast black hole of naievte. Try using the Google, and look up a first year engineering program at any reputable university.

    16. Yeah fair enough, put it that way a conspiracy did happen, but why is it impossible to believe that a bunch of god crazed heroin dealing extremists from the arse end of the world did it?
      why does this absolutely HAVE to be a government conspiracy? why are you so sure when the only evidence you have supporting that theory is other people ranting on the internet?
      You have to ignore about 90% of all the evidence and data gathered on 9/11 to come to the conclusions you have.

      There has never been anything like 9/11 before! For anyone to be able to claim they know exactly how those buildings 'ought' to have fallen is outright lying, because there is absolutely nothing to base those theories on!

      I'm not ignorant, i'm just not as gullible as you are, i don't believe every crackpot theory that rolls past my way just because it's popular!

      make your special pleading case for engineers as scientificly qualified all you want...i'm afraid it just doesn't work like that in reasonable debate!

    17. Funny that you would call me gullible. It is well established that the Western intelligence agencies were recruiting and training men from a variety of Islamic countries, prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and deploying them as assets. These assets were used in the destruction of Yugoslavia, the establishment of the NATO enclave in Kosovo, and continue to be deployed to this day in Syria. The methods used in 2001, specifically the kamikaze planes, were part of the Bojinka plan concocted by Jamaal Islamaya, which was, like all terrorist assets, connected to superpower intelligence agencies. JI killed one of my rugby teammates in Bali in 2002. He was, curiously enough, an engineer. With regard to heroin, the KLA are heroin traffickers who were put in power in Kosovo by NATO. The US intelligence apparatus has been using heroin trafficking since the end of the Second World War. So when you talk about crazed muslim heroin traffickers, you are talking about Western, in this case, specifically US, intelligence assets. Again, go on the Google and examine the first year curriculum for an engineer at a reputable university. The more you know!

    18. So is this story set before or after the hunt for red october, is it the plot for the sequal?
      think i might give it a miss, it just doesn't sound believable.

    19. Which story do you find unbelievable? After the Kuomintang were driven from China, one group went to Formosa, which is now Taiwan, and one group went to Burma. The United States, through proxies, supplied the KMT forces in Burma, and they attempted to invade China from Burma. The Shan, among other indigenous people in Burma were converted into opium growers. Claire Chenault, the man who headed the Flying Tigers, a US mercenary force that was sent to fight the Japanese, before the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor, operated a company called Civil Air Transport that flew arms into Burma, and flew opium out. The CIA began operating with the traffickers after the Corsican mafia was used to put down dock strikes in Marseille after WW2. Jimmy Carter's administration oversaw the creation of a military force to foment chaos in the muslim nations, as part of a strategy of creating an "Arc of Crisis" that could be exploited in furthrance of US geo-political strategy. This force was used in Afghanistan, and among it's assets was Bin Laden. The network of radical Islamists was used to destroy Yugoslavia via the Bosnians, and strangely enough one of the Kosovar bosses is a former Croatian general, a pack of Nazis whom the Germans armed in the early '90s to establish their influence in Yugoslavia. Islamists were armed and trained by NATO special forces in Lybia two years ago, and some of these same Islamists are being trained and supplied by NATO in Syria today. My friend's name was Merv Popadynec. He was from Wynyard Saskatchewan and was blown to bits by a bomb outside a nightclub in Bali in 2002. I went on tour with him to Ireland in 1991. He broke his jaw in a game in the early '90s, and the hardware installed in his face was reputedly used to identify his remains. That bomb was set by Jemaah Islamaya, who were financed by US asset Bin Laden. Try out your library some time, and maybe check out a book that isn't a modified comic book, unlike Tom Clancy's "work".

    20. i see...so rather than discuss my point you're going to try to divert my attention to something else, and then just gish gallop (google it) rubbish at me and call that proof.
      *sigh* Seriously? You're going to come out with a whack job comment like the short novella of paranoid delusion you just wrote, and then try telling me i'm the one with my head in a comic book because i think your theory sounds a bit silly?

    21. Uhm...engineers study things like applied mechanics, which includes maths and plenty of physics (i.e. forces. Especially from gravity, in tension and compression (loads) as no structural steel engineer could begin any design without it). In fact, maths and physics is usually a prerequisite for entry on any structural engineering course.

      Furthermore, the necessary knowledge for calculating gravity acting on a body (roughly 9.8 meters per second) is early high school physics, and not anything other than simplest of algebra.

      The strongest evidence against 9/11 comes down to:
      1) Building 7 'collapse'
      2) Removal of all the steel to China, and melted down.
      3) The covering of the lawn at the pentagon, and the grabbing of video from 80 sources, but the refusal to release anything substantial.
      4) Molten steel.
      5) No previous collapse of steel buildings before or after.
      6) No explanation of how the central columns fell at freefall.

      Sorry to jump in. But that's my take.

    22. there literally isn't space on the internet to fill in all the gaps you've left, and data you've ignored to come to those conclusions!
      Anyway, it still ignores the fact that well over 90% of engineers don't agree with the attention seeking truthers!
      1/ Building 7 collapsed after debris struck it...duh.
      2/ China are paying the highest price on steel...duh.
      3/ Gosh America doesn't want the insides of it's military HQ broadcast for the whole world to see...So what?
      4/yes molten steel is a thing...that's how they're shaped into girders in the first place, they don't just spring out the ground fully formed! We've been melting steel for thousands of years, it's really quite easy.
      5/ No planes ever slammed into a building before either.
      6/ there have been plenty of explainations, you've just chosen to ignore them.

      So there we have it. All six points are totally pointless, or self explainitory.

    23. Lol, ok come on a_no_n, all due respect to you, but...

      1) You think that was enough to collapse a steel building, straight down? Hey if you do then you do.
      2) It's a crime scene! The biggest in history. Remove it sure, but destroy it, without investigating it PROPERLY ??? !!!
      3) We all saw the insides, including a desk and chair that didn't ignite, but the plane's engines?
      4) ...mmm, not even gonna go there :)
      5) Check out the bomber in 1945 tht hit the empire state building in fog. Because of that, the twin towers were built with multiple plane collisions in mind. Seriously!
      6) Ok, I'll check it out, but in all these years, I haven't seen any.

      Do you concede engineers understand physics at least?

    24. 1/ yes, it's been well documented that's what happened! Debris caused fires that were allowed to rage out of control until the building collapsed
      2/ i think once Bin laden claimed responsibility, there wasn't any need to investigate every last scrap of metal.
      3/ not everything in a burning room gets scorched. look at any picture of a room that's been half on fire, and you'll see unburned stuff.
      4/ why? Steel is an Iron alloy, it loses it's strength at about 500 degrees, it's really easy to melt... ever see a knight in shining armour? Medieval steel, which had to be heated and shaped with just coal for a fuel.
      5/ Planes in 1945 were completly different, and much smaller than planes in 2001...that's like making road safety measures based on the performance of a model T ford and wondering why it isn't good enough for your Bugatti Veyron going at 200mph.
      6/ Fair play to you, It's all there, you just have to accept the possibility that it might not be all lies...once you've crossed that barrier it's plain sailing.

      Oh btw, i've actually timed the collapse of the WTC, over 30 seconds, three times longer than you would expect in a controlled demolition...so i think we can definitely rule out a controlled explosion.

    25. 1) So a bomber hits the empire state and stands, but a couple of steel girders and a little bit of fire collapsed a far more modern structure? I think not.
      2) The HOW was not answered in the 'supposed' claim or the WHY it came down the way it did (for future builds if nothing else!), and there were plenty of questions from the getgo about both, to warrant a full [edit: forensic] investigation. What happened was ear bleedingly innept. And the shock and bereavment just don't cut it, forensically.
      3) Might you concede that the heat required to evaporate the plane's engines alone, could not leave a wooden desk and chair intact at the very edge of the hole?
      4) I don't want to back down, correct, and this one aspect is too complicated for a one line response.
      5) Extending 1) - certainly MORE than what hit building 7 wouldn't you say?
      6) I certainly accept the possibility, if for no other reason than the conclusion [edit: consequences] of it being an inside job (or complicitly 'arranged') is staggering.

      Engineers? Physics? Just aa little nod perhaps?

    26. It doesn't prove a conspiracy, but...
      3) Material from cameras not attached and some not even directed at the pentagon has been withheld.
      4) From Wikipedia: "Cast iron melts at approximately 1,375 °C".
      This temparature could not be reached in the fire in the WTC towers, according to the experts in the documentary, and cast iron is the easiest to melt. The experts also said that the fire didn't reach a temperature where the steel would become so weakened that the structure would fall apart. They also said that there is evidence from experiments to support this.

    27. 1/ America's security service went hysterical is the only suggestion I have for that...it wouldn't be the first time.
      2/ Iron melts at over 1000 degrees celcius, correct, but it doesn't need to melt to lose it's strength. Steel loses it's strength at a mere 500 degrees C, that's what's called the working temperature, and it's called that because that's the temperature where you can hit it with a hammer, or put a bit of pressure on it, and it'll easily bend and can be shaped.

      Again, how do you people think they made suits of armour back in the day? they didn't have jet fuel back then but they still managed to make fires hot enough to work iron and steel into whatever shape they want.

    28. @a_no_n what's important is the huge mass of steel of the building underneath the hole, that wasn't affected by fire and thus was at full strength*. The area affected by fire would have been weakened, I don't think this is even in contention. So the question becomes, why didn't the top fall off in pieces leaving most of the building intact. What happened was the entire structure disintegrated before our eyes...twice...sorry, three times and under differing circumstances. This is a very important aspect.

      * The welds and bolting points of the steal joints are designed to be points of greatest strength. Just in case you think they are weak points. And the building itself was designed to 'sway'.

    29. what's important is that it's one of the things this crackpot theory is based around, and it involves a fundamental misunderstanding of the way metal works.
      Why didn't the top just fall off??? Are you high?
      that's the way physics works.
      What do the welds and bolts matter? they're made out of sttel as well, so as soon as the fires heat them up, they're going to be as useful as the rest of the metal, which bowed and distorted the frame of the buildings, causing the floors to collapse in on one another and leaving a void that the top of the building fell into, starting a chain reaction that levelled both structures.

      "Designed to sway" and "Struck by a commercial airliner going full speed" are two completly different things...So is this the way this works, if i clear up one misconception are you just going to immediately invent another vaguely similar one based on the same misconceptions to take it's place?

    30. a_no_n you haven't cleared up any misconceptions. The damage to the buildings, all three that fell down, was assymetrical. The NIST theory involving the hat trusses on 1 and 2 does not account for a universal collapse, nor does the NIST account of the collapse of 7. You are not presenting new information, and you are not presenting information that is counterfactual to this video. You are clearly extremely limited in your understanding of matters pertaining to the this subject, so I am left to ask just what it is that you think you are doing?

    31. ugh this comment was a shamefaced rant that did nobody no good so i got rid of it...what can i say it's an annoying situation lol,

    32. I hope you see yourself how poor this explanation of the destruction of evidence is. The american police force never has the luxury of going hysterical.
      As for the steel losing strength: I'm no expert, but I've heard both sides, and the experts in this doc are i.m.o. more convincing than the authors of the NIST report.
      As I said, a conspiracy is very unlikely, but there are unsatisfactory answers in the report that justify a new investigation, and this time really impartial.

    33. ugh, no there isn't! It's a complete waste of money, if you want to investigate something, investigate the way the aftermath was mishandled! Investigate a problem that is actually there!
      It doesn't matter who you think is more convincing...science doesn't care whose the most convincing, it only cares about what's right, and what's right is that steel loses it's strength at 500 degrees Celcius, a temperature that can easily be achieved with burning office furniture.
      As for all the rest of it...this is why i first said get your physics from a physisist who studies physics, not an engineer with a rudimentary grasp of the concept.

    34. Sorry but that wouldn't explain very much at all of the 3 WTC collapses. The top few floors could not possibly collapse the entire remaining undamaged structures below them, twice, nor could Bldg 7's loss of a single column (if that happened) cause what we saw.

    35. actually more than three buildings in the World trade centre complex fell down...but you won't hear the conspiracy buffs (nuts?) talking about them because they don't help the narrative they've built up to sell their books with.

      What actually happened with the buildings was that by the time they fell, they were hollow shells, because the insides collapsed first...there's quite detailed computer modelling that shows the domino effect that happened, and it was the massive force of all that weight falling that did the rest.
      You can prove this by watching building 7's collapse. If you watch the ENTIRE video, *Most pro-conspiracy videos edit this bit out for the same reason they ignore the other WTC buildings that collapsed* you'll see that the penthouse (the darker bit on the top left of the building) collapses into the main structure about five to seven seconds before the rest of the building falls. And it does that because of the effect I just described.

    36. @ a_no_n
      "more than three buildings in the World trade centre complex fell down"
      The 'others' did not fall down. No other buildings collapsed on their own, but others were demolished as damaged beyond repair in the days and weeks that followed. There is no conspiracy about these other building demolitions.

      "You can prove this by watching building 7's collapse." - really? Proof you say? The conspiracists say it 'shows evidence', yet you say 'proof'. If I turned that line around and said to you, "Look at building 7, it's proof that it was demolished." I'm sure you wouldn't be happy with that as an explanation. Yet we are to accept that presumably when you say it?

      "Most pro-conspiracy videos edit this bit out" - no they don't, they place emphasis on that critical bit, as evidence that it's in line with other filmed demolition examples. Why on earth resort to making that up? It can only lead to one conclusion - that you're willing to cross those lines to get your view across.

      What you are saying about empty shells only makes sense when...well actually it makes no sense at all.

    37. It doesn't make sense, because you don't want it to.

      Physics doesn't adapt itself to suit your needs, physics doesn't care what you believe, it just does what it does whether you like it or not, no matter how intricately you try to argue.
      I'm getting bored of this constant special pleading...You people aren't interested in the truth, you're interested in the nice comfortable little fantasy that there's some guy in a suit somewhere who has everything under control...sorry to break it to you guys, but Santa Clause doesn't exist. It's just chaos.

    38. Heavy derp. It's just chaos, but in this case it was chaos controlled by Osama bin Laden along with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, although any other alleged perpetrator is a fantasy about a man in a suit exerting control? What are you trying to accomplish with this self-contradicting nonsense?

    39. The lady doth protest too much methinks...I get the impression you say that about everything that doesn't agree with your biases...You're trying top make it sound like i said stuff i didn't say to try and make my perfectly valid point seem unreasonable...Please try and keep the sleaze tactics to a minimum.
      You clearly don't care about the truth, because you ignore way too much data...It's all about keeping the fantasy alive so that maybe the world doesn't seem quite so big and scary if we can imagine there's some fat white guy in an office somewhere pulling all the strings.

    40. I haven't put forth any theory involving any of the things you alleged, but you're back on that fat white guy pulling strings. It is a fact that Osama bin Laden was an asset of US intelligence and it is a fact that his network was being used to further US policy in the balkans as late as 2000. It is a fact that a number of the alleged hi-jackers were linked to the US military. It is a fact that US visas were issued to terrorists in Jeddah. It is a fact that Able Danger was monitoring a substantial portion of the alleged hi-jackers prior to the attacks. These are not fantasies. But again, you provide an opportunity for anyone with factual knowledge to present that in this forum in contrast to your strawmen. NIce job, son.

    41. "You're trying top make it sound like i said stuff i didn't say to try and make my perfectly valid point seem unreasonable...Please try and keep the sleaze tactics to a minimum."

      It's what he does, and he does it a lot. He'll even tear off on a rant about nothing yet discussed and say you lied with the rebuttal you hadn't even offered

    42. batvette...

      Did you actually watch this documentary all the way through and concentrate on the information??

      These many building experts are saying that a fire, even unfought, COULD NOT HAVE BURNED HOT ENOUGH to melt steel, OR to have weakened the columns enough to cause them to collapse. That is why it has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!!!

      For the first time EVER, burning steel framed high-rises collapsed...not just one building....but THREE......and not after days of burning throughout, but collapsed after only a couple of hours, and while only burning in parts.

      The suggestion is that thermite, strategically placed, could have provided the heat necessary to melt and/or weaken columns, for a controlled demolition. Evidence from site dust analysed points to a sophisticated type of thermite, suggesting a military source.

      It is normal after a disaster, for example earthquakes, building designers have access to all the data and evidence of the damage so that they can make analysis and then make changes and improvements to their future building designs, for public safety.

      Why in this case....the first ever collapse of burning steel framed high-rises...three in one day – a catastrophic failure.....has the govt not only destroyed all the evidence but refused to hand over the so-called data they used to make their report, refused even when requested under the freedom of information act, doing so with the excuse, ‘in the interests of public safety’....???????????????

      The govts’ refusal to provide this evidence and data for independent analysis is what goes directly against ‘the interests of public safety’ and begs the question, what are they trying to hide???

      For goodness sake, at least watch a documentary before you start to blab about it!

    43. The claims you are making are worthless. And dishonest- why are you ranting about building fires without any mention of planes hitting them?
      When has a skyscraper ever been hit by a jumbo jet full of fuel and passengers and luggage at near top speed, then had the fuel ignite whole floors' contents at once, then be allowed to burn with no fire fighting effort?
      NEVER.
      So it's the first time skyscrapers had all this happen to them and the first time they collapsed.
      So what.
      "the govt not only destroyed all the evidence"
      Bull Huckey. You're just making excuses for the fact YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. How was it destroyed when almost all the structural steel was recovered and cataloged and warehoused? Some was sold to China, much of it is in Fresh Kills landfill right now. Thousands of workers toiled for 9 months on the pile at ground zero, what evidence did they miss, twoofer?

    44. Jet fuel is not the real issue when the heat generated is not enough then we can compare other fires and see what's wrong with the official story. If u think we are talking about a passenger plane "full" of fuel, then have u ever tried to lit jet fuel on fire? It burns up REAL quick. pilots do training every six months and light fires with jet fuel to put them out. I'm surprised U still think it was jet fuel burning in the towers.

      - NIST admits in its Final Report, “The initial jet fuel fires
      themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”( page 182 September, 2005)

      The 929 cubic feet volume of jet fuel that remained in WTC 1 and 793 cubic feet in WTC 2 are inconsequential amounts relative to the SIZE of the buildings and could not have caused the demolition of these immense buildings through either fire or structural damage. nist keep blaming that the fire alone is the cause of it even we have had worse fires before and after 9.11. The WTC fire in 75 which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C! (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."
      Sources: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975

      -1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel (A36)
      -825ºC (1517ºF) - Maximum jet fuel burn temperature is 825 Celsius.

      - Diffuse flames burn far cooler. Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet. The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types. The heat is not as great as u want it to be, when people, as evident from photos, are standing in the impact zones :D
      So we can look at the story from 75 and compare it with 9.11 the heat is pretty much the same. There was actually very little jet fuel in the overall scheme of things. Moreover, that jet fuel and office supplies were the sources of fuel for the fire almost guaranteed that it would be a fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire, which burns cool evidenced by the copious black smoke. Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

      - In nine instances, NIST’s Final Report qualitatively refers to “fuel-laden” airplanes as if to emphasize the airplanes were carrying a tremendous amount of fuel. However, NIST’s detailed quantitative report, Computer Simulation of the Fires, reveals that on impact with the - 2 - Towers, Flight 11 and Flight 175 were respectively carrying only approximately 36% and 31% of full fuel capacity.

      - The only remaining source of fuel for the fires was common office furnishings. The idea that a few floors of common office
      furnishings burning for 56 minutes could result in the
      demolition of the South Tower is phenomenally ludicrous. If
      true, then every high-rise steel tower ever constructed should
      be immediately demolished as a hazard to public safety. Of
      course, that is unnecessary because no high-rise steel
      structure has ever collapsed as a result of fire.

      (the journal of 911 studies)

    45. What makes your position utterly wrong is that the jet fuel was NOT the primary combustible in this event- the contents of the building were. The role of the fuel was as an accelerant which instantly engulfed whole floors of those contents at once.
      Those contents include draperies, carpets, foam and wood furniture, papers, computers, battery banks for UPS, etc.
      If these things did not burn hot enough to weaken steel then steel buildings would not require fireproofing by code, would they? Now with the addition of the fuel igniting all those contents and the fires left to burn with no fire fighting effort applied, this was an unprecedented event.
      No one has disputed that most of the already shoddy applied and ill maintained fireproofing was removed by the plane's impacts. So now what logic would we be using to ponder the fires did not cause the collapse?
      Only that which requires willful ignorance. Thus the truther arguments follow that it was only the temperature of burning jet fuel that matters, or that we forget planes removed the fireproofing and structural columns, thus the claim " no high-rise steel
      structure has ever collapsed as a result of fire" is not only irrelevant it amounts to just plain dishonesty.
      Seems the only truth you people care about is that which fits your agenda.

    46. scatvette! How long until you hit 500 posts on these 9/11 movies? Now unlike these Truthers, whomever it is that they are, I am curious to know how much fire-proofing was off the various members exposed to fire, and whether or not those deficencies would cause the steel in the various components to heat to the point at which they would fail, given the material available to burn, and the other conditions experienced in the 2001 attacks.. I would also like to know if, having heated to the point in which these components failed in the manner alleged by NIST, whether or not those failures would result in a progressive collapse of the entire buildings. Alas, I don't know any of those things.

    47. "Alas, I don't know any of those things."

      Arguing from complete ignorance would not be unusual for you, however I have no obligation to bring you specific information upon your demand, given your track record of pursuing dishonest personal attacks.
      Your questions however are pointless. Obviously all of those conditions were met because the buildings did collapse and there was no obvious additional influence of mini nukes, thermite, directed energy weapons, or Bush's magic fairies seen on that day, nor evidence ever found of same- while careful analysis of the video records by countless individuals and entities supports the theory of collapse by fire and plane impact initiating at the plane impact zone.
      If you require further convincing use "the Google", as there is hardly any pretense for you desiring information with this reply, but instead to waste my time badgering me with pointless arguments. I have seen the information you request. It's in the NIST report, you should spend more time reading that and less time being a pest.

    48. scatvette, you ol' dissembler! According to the European demolitions expert, there was quite obvious additional influence, as the man stated that the collapses appeared to be demolitions rather than the product of progressive collapse due to plane impacts and subsequent fires. What do you reckon it is you're doing on this website with your hundreds of posts on these 9/11 movies? No rest for a scatvette the Wurlitzer maestro!

    49. Useless ad hominem BS combined with useless argument from vaguely referred to authority.
      No rest for the trolls.

    50. Funny stuff, shifty ol' scatvette! Right out of the gate you used disinfo techniques, specifically using the term "truther" or 'twoofer" to delegitimize your targets, and then whined about ad hominem attacks. You've made hundreds of posts on these 9/11 docs scatvette, but why?

    51. Why do you keep wanting to discuss me and not the documentary? Why have YOU made hundreds of posts? Oh but of course truthers have only pure intentions and anyone who opposes them must be suspect as evil for doing so, is that it?
      You people will all spend your entire lives being snickered at, mocked, and politically marginalized. As you should. There is nothing unusual in that.

    52. scatvette! I want to discuss you because you've posted hundreds of times on discussions for these 9/11 docs, and your posts are very strange. You've used propaganda techniques such as I have previously noted, starting by calling posters 'truthers" or "twoofers", and by repeating the same generalities and ignoring the content of the documentaries. In addition, you yourself used the term "talking point" to refer to your own posts. Why would a person giving a spontaneous comment on a film have "talking points"? Wrigglin' ol' scatvette! How many posts are you at now?

    53. If doofus lied has a topically relevant point to present, please do.

    54. scatvette! You asked why I wanted to discuss you, and I very clearly explained it to you. You have made hundredsof posts on these docs, and you have used disinfo techniques. And again, I really do want to know why a person making a spontaneous comment would have talking points. Also, please explain why you began using the term "twoofer' to refer to people who do not agree with you.

    55. The poster that you replied to, is such an obvious troll, I don't understand why people still respond and argue. Clarity is not an issue with this person. I choose to call it, Fox Newman. And I am done arguing with it.

    56. " And I am done arguing with it."

      Actually you never even started, not in this thread or any I recall. Perhaps I missed it and have forgotten where you got owned and butt hurt over something and that's why you express such sneering, bitter hate towards me.
      Maybe you're just anticipating the inevitable.

    57. a_no_n you continue to have no idea what you are talking about. The buildings are not alleged to have become hollow shells by NIST, nor by the 911 commission. The floors are alleged to have sagged in 1 and 2 due to heat, at which point the exterior columns were deformed inwards. As other columns had already been compromised by the crashes, the combined effect of the load transferring, due to heat expansion, through the hat truss, with the inward bowing of the columns, was the dropping inward of the floors, pulling the columns with them. Again, with your limited understanding of even the official explanation, what are you trying to do with these posts?

    58. When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = ?F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

      The first body is the building above the point of collapse the second body is the structure that SHOULD have been intact below the point of collapse. The fact that newton's 3rd law of motion was absent in all 3 buildings that went down on sept 11th
      is all the proof that should be needed to signify demolition.

    59. Actually, the term "-F1" in your model is why the airplanes didn't exit through the other side of the buildings with any recognizable parts or body segments intact. The airplanes tore gaping holes into the buildings. The buildings, in turn, almost completely obliterated the airplanes.

    60. That is exactly right so we witnessed this law in action when the planes hit but somehow it was absent when 30 or so floors of the building collapsed through 80 floors roughly, at nearly zero resistance? yeah I do not think so. As is stated in the film buildings do not have zero resistance. If anything the floors would have destroyed each other leaving nearly half the building standing or caused a toppling collapse as gravity pulled the floors toward least resistance.
      Then you have building 7 that was not even hit by a plane. Even if this building was heavily damaged and had raging fires neither of these conditions would cause it to collapse in the manner it did.

    61. So if you know and understand all that...why do you still think satanists alien allies laced it with nuclear bombs or whatever particular formulae of conspiracy it is you prescribe to?

    62. That's the same trick batvette used with regard to the percentage of professionals who agree or don't agree. There is no study that indicates what ratio of engineers agree with the official explanation. Nobody posting here has refuted the evidence provided in this documentary. This documentary does not prove that a controlled demolition took place. Considering that the Murrah building in OKC was demolished with explosives, the '93 WTC attack was done with explosives, the Khobar towers were attacked with explosives, as was the US embassy in Beirut in '83, and the apartment buldings in Moscow were attacked with explosives in '99, it struck me as very odd that investigators were not looking for evidence of a bombing in 2001 in NYC.

    63. @ rufusclyde You know people often say that future generations will look back at our destruction of the planet and say things like "how could they be so stupid? Didn't they know?" to which the reply would easily be "Well look at 9/11, they bit that big hook." The truth though is we DO see the blatant truth of it all, but we are powerlessly in denial 99% of the time.

    64. Do people often say that?

    65. @ rufusclyde, they do. What do YOU think future generations will say, when looking back at this period of human history?

    66. I don't think future generations will do much looking back at this period of human history, the way most people today don't know any history. If people did know history, they would understand that today's humanity is no different than any other period. The trouble we're having is the same as we've always had. Elites and mythology.

    67. Interesting. So the common vein throughout has been "My might is right, so believe what we (me and my friends) tell you" ? Can't really argue with that, having recently watched Andrew Marr's "History of the World". Certainly appears to be historically true. But I can't help thinking, though it's presence is a common thread, that the blame doesn't lie squarely at their feet. Hence, our own collective stupidity or powerless apathy has allowed ourselves a sense of relative indifference for the bigger picture. Thus, "How could they be so stupid?". IMO anyway :-/

      We now have (for the first time really) a true voice of the people via the internet. Our leaders are running out of credit to say, the people don't know what they want, justifying their elite existence. Maybe it's true to say they never have, but it's not true to say they never will. My hope is that this will at least give us a platform to govern ourselves better, and have a powerful influence. We are learning to not look to god to save the world, and this instrument is a tool for us to stop looking to our leaders to do it either. We still need leaders, but the changes have to come collectively, and not with votes but with our voices; not through a multiple choice question, but through free expression - an idea that the politicians haven't be able to (or been willing to) comprehensively entertain, up till now.

      Therefore money as free speech must die. And I think it will die through it's perpetual greed, but not before everything becomes worthlessly diluted in value. Our voices will hopefully become the power value, if the freedoms of the internet can survive the coming attacks.

      My god, where did that speech burst from!? lol.

    68. I don't know from whence that "speech" burst, but I hope you find out and are able to plug the hole. Money is technology, the internet is technology, government is technology, propaganda is technology. The ones who understand and control the most effective tehcnology have the most power. And power corrupts. De gustibus non disputandum est, but Jack London's story "The Strength of the Strong" has always appealed to me as an entertaining story of the fundamental struggle of man.

    69. Ergo technology is corrupting. Ok agreed, but not in general - we all know that isn't a fundamental truth. e.g. a printing press was far more than just a corruption device, though I'm sure some would have sought to destroy them as purely such. It's the 'those', not the tools or mechanisms or systems that taint, and not all of 'those' are corrupt. So there's more than a decent chance, with people numbers equipped with the right tools (the internet), to overcome the horrors of the elites. 9/11 is a trial contender.

      Lol, hole plugged.

    70. We don't know anything of the kind. I know that the printing press afforded the ability to replicate writing on a mass scale, and that means any kind of writing, including propaganda. The original use for the Gutenberg press was producing bibles. The bible has been used since it's inception as a device to propagate a particular mythology that was used to control people. The technology of the internet is already being co-opted, and the average person is subjected to the same manipulation as a television watcher or church-goer. Your Yahoo home page has information about the modelling debut of David Beckham's son, but not too much information about derivatives or Africom.

    71. @ rufusclyde I concede, well put and true. 10 bonus points if you can tell me the antidote to corrruption?

    72. Who told you that there was an antidote to corruption? Corruption is a natural process, like death.

    73. I suppose people can be backed into a corner through blackmail, or threat of death, to submit or give in to corruption. I suppose further that all selfish actions and desires, could be of corruption. So I understand your point. We are all corrupt to one degree or another, despite what we may choose to tell ourselves. Just as there is evil in all of us. Keeping that monster caged, but not denied, is the ongoing battle we all face. Sounds much like the story of sin, good and evil, darkness and light, etc. just encompassed in terms of 'corruption'.

      So, in reducing it to those terms, I don't agree there is no antidote...for if that were true, we would all helplessly succumb to it completely, with no way to fight or win. You could say winning is strictly a relative term if given enough time. I could talk about honour, vigilance, tolerance and the disease of indifference, and you could call me an optomistic idealist who hasn't inevitably succumbed to realism yet.

      On a good note then, we have quickly arrived at the impasse of irreconcilability in good time to realise it's best to beg to differ. Sorry about the bonus points, but to be honest I didn't really have them to give. :-O

    74. There is evil in all of us? Like the smouldering lump in Time Bandits? How much evil in a bush baby, or a cockroach? Was the evil a result of a genetic mutation, and was it present in australopithecus, or is it a more recent phenomenon? Can I get my evil level checked, like tri-glycerides?

    75. Evil is such a cr*p word. The boogie-man of 'good'...oooo frightening. I used it unintentionally as I'm working on a bigger study and from that piece, the word evil crept in to this (i.e. it's on my mind). Sorry. But the essence of it is right, yes, it's in all of us, not just over there in those 'people', who we must fight and destroy and dominate as is our right and duty as the 'good' people. 'Evil' (ugh!) is a human thought abstraction, used to assign some meaning to human behaviour and thought (not animals or viral bacteria). It is used as a weapon of control, submission and power, to the will of men. IMO. Okay so no more about evil.

      I know you understand my inference (even if disagreeably), and think your commendable use of questioning is evidence of good philosophy skills. To return the favour, based on the quality of your replies, I'll pay more attention to what I say to you in future.

    76. I don't understand what you are trying to say in the least.

    77. Perhaps I was mistaken? Not a problem, summarised then: corruption is in all of us and we must be vigilant in our fight against it. The devices of technology are not innately corrupt or corrupting, but can be used by those who, through corruption, wish to do so. Corruption is not an inevitable natural process or consequence or irreversible. A belief that is not a statement of fact but opinion and moreover, not easy to reconcile.

    78. Only humans, who have the freedom to chose and the ability to think, are capable of causing real 'evil' en become 'corrupted', but they need not be aware of it themselves.
      Why shouldn't we call all human actions that cause people and/or animals to suffer (or to suffer unnecessarily) 'evil'?

    79. @ Giacomo della Svezia: This is so very complicated. A possible step in the right direction is to see evil as the absolute absence of any good (including good intentions). A blood sucking parasite (bad) doing so to survive (good), is not evil. It therefore becomes very difficult to nail anything down as evil when some good intention is present. What so-called evils can actually qualify, if the good intention of pursuing survival is present? Unless your intention is to label it evil, regardless of any good, making it very easy, everywhere and in everything.

    80. That's why I say it is a matter of choice. Making a choice requires the ability and the freedom to reason and to chose. Only we humans have that freedom and the brains to think about the consequences of all our actions (and because of that we have also the responsibility to do so), therefore only we humans can create evil.

    81. I hear you, but what I'm trying to show you is that not only is it a human thing, but that it only exists, perhaps, in those who are extremely mentally ill. (I'm still trying to define it)

      Perhaps you can give me an example of evil, that does not fall in to that category? Anything you come up with will have an alterior motive of good intention. So won't qualify as evil as I define it - the absolute absense of good. The 'choice' aspect, as I wrote in my last post is a relative, slippery slope of ethical decisions.

    82. The mentally ill may have lost their ability to chose freely: some people hear voices that can be so compelling that they do what those voices tell them to do. I haven't made up my mind wether that should be considered as evil.
      Evil can begin with indifference. For example, buying the latest gadget that was made in some sweatshop in Asia where employers have to work in dangerous and unhealthy conditions. We know it happens but we choose to ignore it.

    83. Yes, if someone is so ill that they don't know what they are doing then they aren't even culpable, let alone evil. Good point. In fact that right there shows evil is, if at all, reserved for human activity.

      Indifference was the first one of four that I've identified so far from my own analysis. The other 3 so far are intolerance, self interest and spite. Each one is capable of astrocities that could, for want of a better word, be called 'evil' but not innately acts of evil.

      The 9/11 conspiracy, for example, could be far better described than evil, and more precisely described as at least a collection of those 4. IMO. Also, if bad is the opposite of good, what would the opposite of evil be? Evil is also 'live' backwards - just a useless point.

      If we can get past this 'religious' terminology, and identify things for what they are, we can grow up to be more responsible for our own actions as well as those of others.

    84. I can think of another motive: a sadistic person enjoys suffering inflicted on others. Harrassment, bullying and inflicting physical pain are not caused by the motives you mentioned, not even self-interest.

      I think evil doesn't mean the absolute absence of its opposite, it's more like a scale with two theoretical extremes. Indifferent people may cause evil, but can also do well and even the most cruel have a human side.

      There's one type of mental ill I find impossible to fathom, and it's a very good reason to claim that good and bad are a human invention: psychopaths of sociopaths. They can be entirely egoistic and unscrupulous, but are they to blame for their condition?

      Edit: Evil isn't necessarily a 'religious' term like 'sin', a word I really dislike.

    85. corruption is a choice. it is not a natural process.

    86. @ ceedot: Nice try, but not good enough. Choice in itself is a natural process of decision making. Ergo corruption is a natural process. Giving in to corruption or choosing corruption is not, as I'm saying, inevitable. But the more I think about this as black and white choices, the more grey creeps in. :(

    87. i'm not sure how choosing and deciding are different and how one is inferior or subject to the other resulting in the natural process of corruption. do i choose resulting in my decision or in deciding have i chosen? and having "given in" to the natural process of corruption am i choosing to give in or deciding to give in? if i am only able to decide resulting in the natural process of corruption, then did i have a choice? i think this might be splitting hairs - we are accountable and cant negate that accountability by saying that corrupt behaviour is in and of itself a given. to corrupt is to taint. white is natural - without taint, grey is corrupt white, black is absolutely corrupt white.

    88. Holy gibberish! Corruption is the breaking down of something, and it is inevitible due to instability inherent in all things. To whom are we accountable, Santa Claus?

    89. ugh argue semantics then, i don't really care...And it still doesn't change the facts.
      If there was a bomb, you would have heard an explosion, even supposedly silent Thermite makes a racket when you use it in the kind of quantities you'd have needed to use to level the twin towers.
      Investigators didn't look for a bomb, because it's a stupid idea, and it's got absolutly no basis in reality!

  65. Too bad we get our money from the federal reserve and have to pay interest and in order to pay that we have to borrow more money with more interest and i thought this is why we split from the british banking monopoly but anyways So can someone please tell me how the twin towers fell smoothly in free fall and why the cord collums were sliced perfectly diagnal and why there were explosions before the towers fell, and how come at the flight 93 crash site there is no evidence of a plane crashing there idk maybe just maybe some of the people in government arent all peaches and cream #inside job

    1. Hate to tell you but ignorance is not evidence.

    2. an someone please tell me how the twin towers fell smoothly in free fall

      Quick question of my own here...How many towers of that size have you actually seen fall? How do you know smoothly straight down isn't the natural responce for such a huge mass?

  66. At what point, over a period of time, do people not figure out batvette is a paid schill, used to argue the opposite of the truth of 911, on each and every thread about it. I figured it out a while back. I am a certified engineer. I do not waste my time with rank amateurs. Enough on that subject.

    1. If there is a fact I have claimed you would like to challenge please do so. Otherwise please spare me the ad hominem attacks and self promoting drivel. If you were an engineer in any relevant field and had professionally qualified rebuttals to the NIST report you wouldn't be arguing with "rank amateurs" on internet message boards, you'd be publishing them in peer review professional journals and actually doing something worthwhile with your alleged talents.
      No you find it adequate to post childish displays of deplorably poor debate tactics. With all the hot air I've managed to pollute this page with I've offered plenty of material for you to work with to prove your qualifications, an argument from authority about your deluded thinking someone who disagrees with you must be paid by the conspirators to do so, falls short.

  67. I believe every work

  68. Someone in the Department of Justice is being paid to find the truth and uphold justice where it is found to be flawed. So who is going to sue this guy and when???

    1. Maybe never, because there still exists the First Amendment to the US Constitution?

  69. Although I've seen evidence that 9/11 is an inside job, and I know it is as such, some of the experts were obviously and blatantly reading a script on the right side of the camera. If they were such brilliant experts, why would they need to read a script?

    It's just so frustrating to see so many honest scientists pledge their research to a man who was "inspired by Obama".

    1. Nobody here was saying it was an inside job for one thing, and I only saw one person who was looking at notes--not a script--so your point is invalid.

  70. Former FBI Chief, Ted L. Gunderson is a true american hero, everybody who does not know him should check him up, RIP.

    Wiki:
    "The last years of Ted Gunderson's life were spent warning people of what he called Chemtrails and of planetwide Satanic and New World Order conspiracies. Gunderson had identified military bases he said were responsible for dumping unidentified poisons around the world from unmarked aircraft which he indicated killed wildlife and perhaps even humans. Gunderson spent years speaking on this and has made a number of videos. He also claimed, at a 1995 conference in Dallas, that a "slave auction" in which children were sold to men in turbans had been held in Las Vegas, and that four thousand ritual human sacrifices are performed in New York City every year. He also claimed that the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was carried out by the United States government and that the events of 9/11 were perpetrated by the United States Government as well.[9]"

    I can't possibly prove this to the close minded folk out there but this guy is definitely more qualified than you are so I'll take his word for it.

    1. If Ted Gunderson had a shred of evidence to support any of those things he claims he took it all to the grave with him. I've done a lot of research on that guy and tried to give him benefit of doubt because he is such an affable and charming soul in his interviews I've heard-it's very hard to hate on him.
      However the more I looked the more the disturbing problems arose, mainly that he was an architect of the COINTELPRO operations that illegally harassed Americans, and stated that the FBI was a fine outfit when he was in it and never saw a bit of corruption. Yet after he leaves he takes on a role of an insider or whistleblower telling everyone about government corruption- never naming any names and in fact in 30 years of pointing fingers at others since 1980 not one person anywhere was ever indicted let alone convicted of any crime or corruption he vaguely spoke of. What he did was attach wild conspiracy theories onto every issue he adopted as his own. One of his pets was the Satanic Cults story. Nothing ever became of it. During the last decade of his life he sold compilations of alleged files on these matters on his website for up to $85 a copy, many to victims of the very COINTELPRO operations he was a part of implementing and these victims were just seeking justice. To my knowledge they got nothing of value from those discs. Some say he photocopied their checks and money orders and turned that information over to the CIA to investigate the purchasers for subversive activities.
      Was Ted just a con man or was it something much worse? Some say he never left the agency and his wild conspiracy theories were just another ruse to cover for real criminal wrongdoing. I don't know but one thing I can say is he was not what he appeared to be at all.

  71. Ostrich Syndrome. Bury your head in the sand rather than face Reality!

  72. You lost me when you said, "you were inspired by presiden Obama!"

  73. Just goole "Mossad did 911", and "5 dancing israelis apprehended on Sep 11 in New York", and you'll find all the missing links. Clearly an inside job, a partnership of Mossad and some key players within the Bush gang.

    This is not to say anything against Jews in general. I know many wonderful Jewish folk who are appalled at what Zionists are doing.

    The average Israeli is to Mossad what the average American is to CIA.

  74. There is not one piece of evidence that links Osama bin laden directly to the planning stages of 9.11.

    Reason 1 to believe the hijackers are fake:
    We all heard them say a paper passport fell out of one of the towers and was picked up in the debris by a police officer on the street. this plane flies into the building explodes with jet fuel the passport goes out of the guys jacket through plane through the fireball out of the burning building fire shooting out, and comes down to the ground in read able condition. for 6 months they reported they had this passport they got this prove and suddenly Like many of the suspected hijackers this guy stood up and was alive! in the middle east (BBC) and they pulled it and said aaaah that was a mistake, and the story just disappeared. ;D

    The FBI has not revisited its list

    According to special agent flagg has explained that the FBI knew almost immediately the names of all 19 hijackers because they discovered a piece of Luggage was left behind by muhamad Atta which included not only a terrorist manual but the very convenient list of the 19 hijackers lol i would say that is quite stunning considering 5, 6 or 7 of this guys has turned up alive and well oh that's 6 more reasons to believe the hijackers were fake How can u explain that? And that incidentally gives new meaning to the word False Flagg .D

    No evidence has ever linked any of the dead or alive "hijackers" to Osama Bin Laden.

    1. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the person credited with most of the planning and they found lots of evidence on his computer when they arrested him.
      Where is the story these hijackers are still alive?

    2. Did they find the super secret MS paint document which detailed the plane flying into the building?

      alqaeda_missions2001septwtc_attack_by_plane_01.JPG
      alqaeda_missions2001septwtc_attack_by_plane_02.JPG

      He should have encrypted those details :)

      Also, quick question, are the people that claim to have found these mission details the same people that destroyed all the evidence from ground zero?

      Just wondering.

    3. this passport they got this prove and suddenly Like many of the
      suspected hijackers this guy stood up and was alive! in the middle east
      (BBC) and they pulled it and said aaaah that was a mistake, and the
      story just disappeared......Correction the passport was in pristine condition.

    4. People can not think of they're own government is behind anything that day. Just take a look at the history of mankind, it is built on murderers, and this can't happen now?
      Take a look at Europe and see how much corrupt leaders we choose to lead! some of them psychopaths some stays hidden there are many, but bush, Obama, USA that is not thinkable???! the Home of the Brave.. But a passport who survives an inferno, that is? heh i don't buy it.

      Everything happened so fast so even though they were sloppy they didn't mind it because no one would notice, then the next mission was to have the briefest and worst commission in history before any had a chance to fight back, and that is exactly what happened, then it went down hill from there.

      Removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq was a bad political mistake by the
      United States and all the countries that have participated in this
      conflict. It did not make the world any safer. It was not worth price of money, lives, and missed opportunities. Even
      though Saddam was a dictator, he was not the worst dictator in the
      world. He was still better than many other leaders. USA had no right
      to be occupying Iraq or say he is such a terrible person when US has
      supported other dictators like Hosni Mubarak before he stepped down as
      ruler of Egypt, or Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov.. i guess Saddam was the
      only leader who had nerves to speak against the west.
      People lives that were lost that day and in this useless war is worth less then the price of oil!! that's how much u are worth to them. Hussein was never a threat to anyone except the oil companies.

  75. if terrorist orchestrated this attack, we should attack them. if there is a giant conspiracy to blame a radical terrorist organization. Who makes the decision to kill American people? other Americans?....you didn't go to Harvard let the new world order do its job. DRINK TAP WATER! you peasant!

  76. In order for the U.N. to OK a money making war, we have to have a reason. I can't believe the biggest terrorist act in history was planned by our own people. with the help and blame of others. Home of the free?

  77. Nobody can trust one single word coming from george bush's mouth, the guy is a bear faced and guiltless lyer on many levels and subjects

    1. Yeah and U bet you think Obama really was hope and change. The big lie about politics is that politicians could be or even should be "honest". All politicians are liars, that's why attorneys are the most likely to make the jump to politics-and actors somewhere behind that. Both are good at looking people in the eye and telling them something when they mean another. It's part of what they do since you can never keep everyone happy.
      What's really going on with W. is he's not as good of a liar as the rest. (his ad lib public speaking skills are pretty bad and it's a well kept secret that like his father and brother, he's dyslexic so the teleprompter isn't much help. His IQ is just average, but he's also the closest President by blood lines to the Royal Family of Britain America's ever had, with both sides of his family related to the House of Windsor) All politicians lie though, they say Clinton is world class at it.
      God help us if we get a leader with integrity, honesty and a bit of humanitarian in him. We came pretty close with Jimmy Carter and that ***** ran the country into the ground in less than one term.
      But as for lying, ask yourself about the old dilemma- if the gov't knew an asteroid was going to hit the earth and destroy us all in a few days, should they tell us the truth or lie, given that a lot of people would descend into complete decadence and lawless behavior?

    2. wow...you just show everyone that you not just accept the lies,but you wish to be lie...wow

      and stop spreading that propaganda from that 9/11 report...that report was made by so called experts hire by the F government.

      if i hire a bunch of dudes to say something about me....what do you think they will tell...bad things or good things...or they will say exactly what I WANT TO HEAR???...since I'M the one who's pay...

      it's a retoric Q,no need for answer...

      you try in vane to convince ppl about that BS you call report...more and more ppl realize the truth

    3. The system under the Obama regime is the worst that it has been since 1975. 46 million Americans receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The National Defense Authorization Act is totalitarian legislation. Carter happened to hold the chair during the initial phase of the collapse of the post-war order that resulted from the Vietnam catastrophe, the industrial ascension of Germany and Japan, and the burn-out of the capacity of post-war capitalism to produce prosperity. Carter was also a member of the anti-democratic tri-lateralists.

    4. .we all know bush wanted this so he could start wars and enact the patriot act.

    5. "We" don't know anything like Bush wanting this so he could start wars and enact the Patriot Act. Bush would be hard-pressed to get the tally right counting up the twin towers. Again, Bush could not have read, let alone concocted the Patriot Act, and seems unlikely to have been able to find Iraq on a globe. This is a man who spoke seriously to French President Jacques Chirac about thwarting Gog and Magog. The notion of this person having control over anything is absurd. What we know is that elements in the US Government, in US intelligence,in US finance and in the armed forces of the United States have a lengthy history of using terrorists to enact policy, of trafficking narcotics, of money laundering, and fraud. If one knows about CAT, Air America, Iran Contra, BCCI, Banco Lavoro, Enron, Nugan Hand bank, Mena Arkansas, Manuel Noriega, Sukarno, Saddam Hussein, the House of Saud,etc., it is clear that a force that ties international narcotics, international finance, terrorism and the control of hydro-carbons together to the apparatus of the US state exists, and is the logical impetus for the 2001 attacks.

    6. That pretty much sums it up.We are screwed!

    7. "We" obviously have a small child's grasp of how government functions. None of "Evil Shrub's Dastardly Nefarious Plans" could be accomplished without approval by both houses of Congress.

    8. @rufusclyde:disqus world is easy to understand when you ignore history. We are in a serious economic depression. We survived the Great Depression because we took care of each other. Stop pretending to be political when all you are is an as*hole.

    9. Bizarre non sequitur, The great depression ended in North America when the economies were mobilized for war. What, or who is this "we" you refer to "surviving" the Great Depression? An economic downturn in a capitalist economy is not the Black Plague.

  78. Why is this NOT captioned for the deaf? This is outright discrimination, barring us from getting the full story like hearing people get.

  79. and what are those evidence???...that many "terorist" the us government says they were on that planes give interview to the press after 3 days???....omg...give me a break...this becomes ridiculos

    it's obvious that you have blind trust in your government...so sweet dreams...people like you is what ALL the governments wish for

    "ASK NO QUESTIONS,HAVE BLIND TRUST".....well, excuse me for having questions and doubts.

    1. You've presented nothing resembling a serious, substantive talking point.
      I hope you don't think you're convincing anyone of anything. Now it's what, the hijackers are still alive?
      That was soundly refuted within weeks of the event. If that were true wouldn't Iran, the Taliban, or any one of the US's enemies worldwide parade them in front of the world?
      I'm blind and you can see the truth. LOL!
      Get help. See your doctor and ask him if _______ is right for you. Side effects include nausea, dizziness, blackouts, diarrhea, restlessness, fever... do not take _______ while operating heavy equipment or driving...

    2. you just show everyone that you are indoctrinated beyond the point of no return....your government must be very proud of you....=))))))))))

      keep swalow what they give to you....whitout chewing...so long pelicans...:))))))))

  80. i just qoute his propaganda bi cth and you start talk about hitler....
    really...

    i think this:"if you repeat a lie often enough,it becomes truth"...is very true TODAY...that's all.

    from history we learn that all wars were start for power,resources or religion..... and sometimes for a woman...:)

    1. Well it's pretty obvious you've built your beliefs about 9/11 being an inside job not on evidence of the crime itself or cold hard logic, but on your jaded distrust of the system and TPTB in general.
      It's a lot like a prosecutor in a murder trial saying "people get murdered all over the world every day, and all throughout history. the defendant is a person, therefore that is compelling evidence he must be guilty of this murder".
      What you say about the cause of wars is not untrue of course. I often say they're about, as George Carlin would say, "stuff". We want their stuff, they want to take our stuff, They're rarely either as simple OR as complex as they appear. The number one reason we needed to take out Saddam is because he was asking for it and if we didn't give it to him every two bit dictator for a whole generation would have pushed it to the limit. 12 years, 12 resolutions, he flaunted them all. The more tangible reasons all fall in line after that.

    2. "...it's pretty obvious you've built your beliefs about 9/11 being an inside job not on evidence of the crime itself or cold hard logic..."

      Yes. All those experts must have come to their conclusions because they just have a "jaded distrust of the system".

      I was in Iraq. As someone who was there, and (regrettably) took part in the war crime that was the Iraqi Occupation, I have an informed distrust of the system based on experience.

      Did you watch the film? Do you have any science based objections or do you just have a "jaded distrust " of scientists?

    3. Why would it be "scientific" of me to reject the consensus held by the vast majority of experts in the fields of those "professionals" who spoke in this film and instead grasp their fringe theories which were not published in peer review journals?

      "I was in Iraq. As someone who was there, and (regrettably) took part in the war crime that was the Iraqi Occupation, I have an informed distrust of the system based on experience."

      That's rich, you're a regular John Kerry- and equally full of **** because if you had any "experience" AKA witnessed or participated in any "war crimes" in Iraq you would be required to report them or turn yourself in for Courts Martial proceedings for same. (do you go down to the VFW and talk about all the grannies you raped and babies you killed but conveniently forget the names, places, dates, etc, and can only say you did it all for "fun" like Kerry's pretenders too?)

      Or was it all a "War crime" that you can assure us all really happened but you didn't really see or do any war crimes? Ah, I bet your prep school hockey team just loves you too.

      I won't similarly insult your intelligence by suggesting my four years honorably served dodging planes on the deck of an aircraft carrier during the cold war gives my opinions on US policy any additional weight then the next guy who could pick up a newspaper or go to a library in those days.

      (in my day most guys who could expect to be such "team players" as you didn't make it past the first week of boot camp... and neither did the rest of the company's supply of dental floss, shaving cream and Master at Arms' nightsticks- but even the Marines introduced no-stress or "pink cards" I hear some time ago so most of the girls graduate now)

      However my flippant response is still anchored to the ridiculous idea that science is involved with getting some fraction less than 1 percent of the nation's civil engineers and licensed architects to sign a petition that says they have questions about the gov't story (they haven't even gotten together with a complete theory to counter the NIST report) when virtually all of the rest of their colleagues have reached a consensus approving it.

      You do understand "consensus" VS "fringe" in science?

      Really, a handful of "scientists" believe in something hundreds of thousands of their colleagues do not, and don't have a complete hypothesis on it at all, and that's science? This is a joke, right?

    4. batvette has a document indicating that 99% of qualified professionals in the United States analyzed the NIST reports on the 2001 WTC collapses and approve the NIST report. batvette discounts the idea of war crimes being committed because US military personnell follow their codes of conduct without fail, except at the indoctrination phase when people use shaving cream, dental floss and nightsticks on recruits for some reason or other. Loop-de-loop batvette!

    5. looping, looping batvette! UN resolutions aimed at Israel? 65 in 37 years. US invasions of Israel to "change regimes"? 0. Or by asking for it, do you mean Saddam was asking for more precursors for bio and chem weapons like those he received from US sources during the eighties?

  81. "if you repeat a lie often enough,it becomes truth"

    joseph goebbels

    don't need to tell that this guy was number 1 propaganda for hitler

    1. News flash: Hitler is dead.

    2. News flash:maybe we have to learn from history???

    3. First explain what the motive for the crime was and we'll see what that has to do with Hitler.
      The whole thing is absurd.
      The scheme that Bush Cheney and/or Silverstein did it to get rich going to war and/or cashing in insurance policies is impossible. The wars could not have been started without Congressional Authorization, period. A Congress with up to four decades tenure in Washington with their own channels to intelligence to make informed choices.
      The scheme it was done as a false flag operation to foment nationalist fever and extend American world domination is impossible. It's harmed our economy far worse and the wars did harm to our image forever.
      Just like the lack of a coherent explanation on how the towers were destroyed, the very motives for the alleged crime make absolutely no sense at all.
      The only thing that makes sense is our policies in the middle east killed over a million Arab Muslims, mostly children, and a bunch of Arab Muslims decided to do something about it. And we thought they couldn't or wouldn't come up with something significant.

    4. spinning, spinning batvette! Official US policy of sanctions that destabilized Iraqi civil society for over ten years and cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis? Sure, why not. Bringing to bear the might of the US Air Force against a tiny primitive people in South East Asia for over ten years, costing the lives of millions of indigenous people, not to mention 58 000 US service people, while bankrupting the US? What the heck. Supply Israeli commandos with the latest tow missiles, replenish depleted stocks of Israeli A-4s and alienate most of the Arab populations of the world? Who wouldn't? Invade and occupy Afghanistan, a geostrategically vital area? No way! Who benefitted? Well, of course the Moslems. They have been fortunate enough to have US forces blow apart the government of Iraq, completely fragmenting the country and costing the lives of tens of thousands of civilians. The Afghans have been blessed with another eleven years of continuous warfare. The Pakistanis now get to have their national sovereignty violated by flying US killer robots, and the accompanying destabilization. Winning Moslems! The big losers? Clearly, KBR, Dyncorps, General Dynamics, Halliburton, Boeing, Blackwater, ExxonMobil and Chevron. batvette says that Iraq had to be conquered to maintain petro-dollar hegemony, so clearly the fact that the dollar was not supplanted demonstrates a massive loss to those who benefit from the dollar's status as the oil exchange currency. Whirling, whirling, whirling batvette!

  82. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
    Thres lots of facts around internet; comments from demolition experts, plane pilots(Fex Danish document) just use google instead of Fox etc . Why Fox TV-reporter commented 20 mins before tower 7 collapsed its blewn up?
    Just sceptic and open minded comment from me.

  83. Israel, put the facts together, Israel have complete hold over the USA, everyone knows that, they have complete control over there politics, the bilderberg group with the richest people in the world, and most coming from Israel, wont go to much into detail as it's driffting off the subject, but the USA don't go to war because they are going to anyway, they go to war because they are told to.

    Seems a bit funny that because Israel were getting battered by Iraq that when the s*it hit the fan, USA jump to there rescue.

    All these presidents, prime ministers and other world leaders are just salesman,

    As kingsulet said, war is money and thats that, do what your told by the global corps, banks and make the rich people richer and the poor people poorer.

    1. "Israel have complete hold over the USA, everyone knows that, they have complete control over there politics,"

      Which is indicated by the fact the war in Iraq was for the protection of the Saudis and Kuwaitis, and all of our prosperity since 1973 has been facilitated by our agreements with the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
      "Not".
      Your rhetoric about wars being for the rich has merit only in the willful ignorance that man is instinctively driven toward adventure, exploration, endeavor, invention, and conquest- and the defense against the same ambitions of other men.
      I pity the pathetic wretch who lacks any of the above qualities and believes his place in humanity is to be content.
      All of the nonsense you people spew about evil America disregards that the recent wars in the middle east were initiated by invasions and attacks by Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, or that our actions in the cold war were all a part of a campaign to keep the "free world" that way in response to expansionist efforts by the Stalinist aligned USSR, whose tanks rolling through eastern Europe were only stopped by our resolve and commitment to help our allies resist them.
      I see no reason to regret our victories in any of that.
      It could be said Capitalism and money are the root of all evil. Those who say it should have spent a little time in Soviet Russia. In Soviet Russia, money spend YOU!

    2. spinning batvette! Conquest is natural, only America-haters accuse the US Government of conquest? Round and round you go. In Soviet Russia in 1942 current US allies like Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania drive all the way to Stalingrad with Imperial Nazi host, current US ally Germany. In Soviet Russia, United States, Canada and Japan try to establish colonies immediately following Russian Revolution. Conquest is just doing what comes naturally. Henry David Thoreau and Adolf HItler, kindred spirits? Who knew, batvette?

    3. Israel does not have complete hold over the USA. The US is a plutocracy, and about half of the most powerful plutocrats in the US are Jewish. Clearly some of these Jewish plutocrats support Israel, and this Zionist support is brought to bear on the US political system as Israel is dependent on the United States for billions in aid and access to first-line military equipment. Israelis are bombarded with just as much, or perhaps more propaganda than Americans, and like all people, live in a society dominated by an elite. A common Zionist propaganda technique is to question whether people believe that Israel has a right to exist. No nation has a right to exist, it's a word-game. Israel is a failing project for millenarian weirdos, and it enjoys a sentimental support from people in the US. It is a colony like Algeria. The Pieds-noires engaged in every trick in the book, but in the end their position was untenable as Israel's seems likely to be. In an era of increasing global economic interdependence and the diminshing power of nation states, the notion that a geographially tiny nation that has been at war with it's neighbors and completely dependent on an Imperial sponsor that is in decline is going to last in it's current form seems fanciful. How often does one see an Israeli "settler" interviewed who comes from Illinois or New York State? But human beings are persistent creatures, so how long this odd colony lasts is anyone's guess. The American people traditionally didn't jump to war, but then no modern people does. Elites start wars and convince the people to go along.

  84. yeah...you're right...war is good...wow

    your last reply just proves beyond doubts what i allready knew...you are very hard indoctrinated

    1. Yours just proves you lack a sense of humor.

  85. don't waste your time with that propaganda comment man...he thinks is the holder of absolut truth on anything and anybody else who have Q is a conspiracy nuts.

    WAR=MONEY for the "smart guys"...that's a fact
    how many bombs pay by the american taxe payers were drop in afghanistan in the mountains???...and the result was???..was more and more money for them,of course.after 10 years they send a few special forces guys and take care of bin laden...the bombing campain was to make MORE MONEY...simple

    like the war in vietnam...when they put some absurd ROE(rules of engagement) for the american soldiers,just to ensure that the war is going enough time to make...you guess...more and more money

    in '91 they defeat the 4th tank army in the world in 80 hours...and now they need 20 years?...sure they do...takes time to extract all that oil

    war is the most profitable business in the world...for the "smart guys"

    they don't have money for medical services,public education or welfare sistem...but for boms.........

    europe and north america are going from worst to worst...india,brazil,argentina,china are going from better to better with the economy...i wonder why...

    1. Looking for evidence of a controlled demolition on 9/11 in all that peacenik daisy chain wearin' kum-bay-ah singin' sit in protest commune lovin' hippie freak nonsense but I. just. don't. see it. But hey, hugs not bombs, yay. That and "put some Crisco on it" is the solution for everything to you people. God, if there really is such a foolishly believed in deity, Bless America! And Tiny Tim and Toto too.

  86. Spin, spin, spin Batvette. Suicide bombings never came to an abrupt halt. Most have been attributed to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Why Hamas, a creation of Israeli intelligence, chose to start or end their suicide bombing campaign is not clear. Strange framing of your question. It seems to imply that the Palestinian refugees did nothing for 60 years, and then began a bombing campaign.

    1. I was right and you were wrong, by offering the families of suicide bombers 2.5 times as much as those merely killed in action, they were in fact bounties for suicide bombings.
      What, you in the "Scott Ritter club of people on Saddam's payroll to defend the Ba'athist regime"?
      Wiki has a list of Palestinian suicide bombings, they coincide nicely with Saddam escalating his reward program-
      3.1 2000 (5 bombings)
      3.2 2001 (40 bombings)
      3.3 2002 (47 bombings)
      3.4 2003 (23 bombings)
      3.5 2004 (18 bombings)
      3.6 2005 (9 bombings)
      You'd have to be in serious denial to not see the connection or the motivation of $25k to people earning $2 a day on average. It's like a million dollars to an American. For young adults with no job, no future, to die a martyr and put your family on easy street is quite a temptation. He even threw parties for the families when he awarded the checks. You cannot tell me we were supposed to let that go after 9/11. Every UN resolution on Iraq concerning the cease fire demanded he stop sponsoring international terrorism. How silly is it to declare removing him was wrong.

    2. More strawman stuffing, batvette. The bombings were conducted by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The fact that the Baathist propagandists gave money to the families of people killed in a variety of situations does not equate with your attempt to spin it by characterizing it as a program of bounties for suicide bombings. Your claim that Saddam Hussein was the principle cause of the suicide bombings is, like most of your claims, derived from propaganda and not consistent with what is known about the suicide bombing campaign. Nice baiting with the Ritter comment. Who is this "we" to whom you keep referring? Do you actually equate yourself with the apparatus of the state?

    3. "The fact that the Baathist propagandists gave money to the families of people killed in a variety of situations does not equate with your attempt to spin it by characterizing it as a program of bounties for suicide bombings. "

      Your acceptance of this FACT which is well documented just as I describe it in numerous media pieces in print, online and television, is not a prerequisite for me to get through my day. You are the one spinning this by claiming "a variety of situations". Getting oneself killed by the Israelis "in a variety of situations" was $10k. If it was specifically a suicide bombing it was $25k.

    4. batvette, clearly it is a prerequisite for you to get through your day to regurgitate propaganda that was used by the Anglo/American PR apparatus in the lead-up to the conquest of Iraq. Describing it as a bounty is you spinning, spinning, spinning. Are insurance pay-outs generally described as "bounties"?

  87. And who cares who said what, everyone knows that this whole 9/11 thing is bs and it's just an excuse for the US to get the oil and build more military bases on the planet and infect the middle east culture with western companies, why are people still talking so deeply about this?

    there has been plenty of world experts on buildings and fire with degrees coming out of there butt holes yet we have 1000+ comments on yet another 9/11 documentary.... jeez.

    1. "everyone knows that this whole 9/11 thing is bs and it's just an excuse for the US to get the oil and build more military bases on the planet and infect the middle east culture with western companies, why are people still talking so deeply about this?"

      Since when did we need an excuse to do any of that, we're going to do it anyway, and we've always done it.

  88. A democracy (a word from the Greek language, demokratia meaning rule by the people[1]) is a kind of government. A democracy is a system where people are able to decide how their country or community should be run.

    People of USA "don't go to war"
    Bush "war!"

    Did you know that America have attacked 30 odd different countries (don't quite remember the number) and have failed to successfully install a democracy?

    and

    Are the only country to use a Nuclear weapon on another country?

    (Ice breaker)

    1. That's absurd. Individual policy decisions are never put on a ballot for popular vote. "the People of USA" could have contacted their elected representation in Washington and urged them to vote yes or no on the Joint Resolution. That's as close as it gets.

  89. Does anyone have any more information on this comment made earlier?:

    """" What bout the BBC reporter that is currently hiding in south america, who has footage from INSIDE the towers, he got out before it collapsed, and the US government is seeking to extradite him on charges of Rape or some shyt, akin to Assange. Yet the problem is, he already hit up the intelligence community in Brazil I believe it is, and they viewed his footage, and told the US govt to Fk off, and gave him amnesty because they saw the explosions going off too. """

    Ps sorry about the last comment...something went wrong.

  90. Does anyone have any more information on this comment made earlier?...

    <>

  91. There are so many things about the official 9/11 story that don't make sense. From the lack of air defense from NORAD, the lack of significant aircraft debris in Shanksville PA, the absent of ANY videos showing whatever struck the Pentagon to reason why Bush and Cheney refused to testify separately to the bogus 9/11 Commission. But the most obvious story about what happened on 9/11 is the total demolition of WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7. Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth have clearly demonstrated that these three buildings all fell due to controlled demolition. Also, 9 scientists from 3 countries tested several samples of the WTC dust from 9/11 and found traces of a military hi-tech explosive/incendiary called nanothermite in ALL samples tested. Google the scientific paper on "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". Over 118 firefighters, policemen and other first responders report hearing or seeing explosions on the morning of 9/11. Pools of molten metal found in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Evidence.

    1. " why Bush and Cheney refused to testify separately to the bogus 9/11 Commission."

      Because Dick Cheney was really the POTUS and Bush was his electable puppet. It's amazing how few Americans know this glaringly obvious fact. Cheney picked Bush, not the other way around. Doesn't it strike you as odd Dick Cheney has never won an elected office before? Presidential hopefuls pick a VP candidate that can add to their ticket, Cheney is as charming as a porcupine and had no experience on the campaign trail, and the whole 8 years hid in the White House basement wearing turtlenecks and stroking a long haired white cat. He was running the country while Bush flew around fulfilling the role usually occupied by the Vice President, dining with minor heads of state and doing photo ops.
      As much as people berate him Cheney is a shrewd SOB and we could have done far worse at picking a CEO for America. We can imagine Islamic terrorists weren't too comfortable hearing the leader of the US shot his hunting partner in the face and went back to work the same day, blowing it off as "I peppered him a bit".

      "Google the scientific paper on "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe""

      Calling it a scientific paper is a stretch, it was published in the Benson journal, a publication that will print anything if you pay them. It's been widely discredited amongst experts, never mind these "9 scientists" were already hard core conspiracy theorists who approached this project with only one outcome possible. Here's the funny thing though, even if we accepted their methodology as sound and accepted the paper, they don't go on to present a hypothesis that the towers were demolished using nanothermite.

      "Over 118 firefighters, policemen and other first responders report hearing or seeing explosions on the morning of 9/11. "

      Why is that unexpected? How many of them also insist the towers were brought down by something other than the official story?

    2. batvette, alleging that a cabal of religious nuts were assigned by another religious nut to travel to the US, received $100 000 from the head of a foreign intelligence agency, and carried out suicidal hijackings to do something or other to the "United States". There's a theory about a conspiracy. So what'a a "hardcore conspiracy theorist"?

  92. Most comments appear to be off-topic. The featured documentary seems to strictly deal with the opinion of a few dozen experts in ad hoc fields (from metallurgy to psychology) that happen to support in layman's terms the theory that the twin towers and Building 7 were destroyed intentionally and not as the belated effect of earlier acts of terror involving airplane crashes.

    How about commenting on a particular scene in the movie?

    Love,

  93. The official 'story' from 9/11 comes from a commission set up by the government. And, as you and I both know, governments *never* lie to their populations.

    Governments exist for one reason and one reason only: self-preservation at all costs.

    1. It's quite a leap to go from the government has lied in the past about some things to everything from the government can be assumed to be a lie. When it comes to the WTC and 9/11 I'm sorry but you can watch those buildings collapse and in five seconds see there is no way this resembles a controlled demolition by explosives, so anyone saying it was is obviously not existing in the same plane of reality as the rest of the world.
      Controlled Demolition by Explosives: All the charges are ignited at once, all the damage to every floor's columns happen simultaneously, the building is suspended briefly in pieces fully demolished and then the pieces fall to the ground.
      WTC 9/11: The collapse initiates at the point of impact from the planes with the upper and lower sections completely intact. The upper section falls onto the lower, fragmenting the upper section. The upper section in both large and small pieces pounds its way toward the ground, with each part of the lower building remaining undamaged until the falling mass destroys it on its way toward the ground.
      Who is blind and cannot see this? The NIST report makes a point of this as to why they did not pursue the investigation regarding controlled demolition, a layman could easily see that it was not.
      The key point is WHERE THE COLLAPSE INITIATED. In a controlled demolition the collapse initiates EVERYWHERE because charges are ignited on every floor. On 9/11 the collapse initiated on the floors where the planes impacted.

    2. batvette,

      Did you even watch this documentary? Because everything you're saying makes in plain you didn't and that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    3. Which is oh so obvious by the way you took any one of my clearly expressed talking points and credibly refuted even one of them, right?
      No you seem to feel you can just claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about and anyone is supposed to take your word for that as an established authority on the matter. Let alone implying that if one did not watch this laughable documentary one could not comment credibly on the subject.
      I needn't prove that I "know what I am talking about". You just keep on thinking the 6% of you Americans who think the government perpetrated 9/11 know something the other 94% of us do not, or that we're "sheeple" who buy into anything we're told, and we'll just watch you be dismissed further into the fringe of the delusional minds that such a fraction of the population normally represents.
      It's rather telling that when the numbers turn to people with professional credentials to analyze such a structural failure, the numbers fall from 6% to an estimated well under 1% and that's giving Gage's group a lot of benefit of doubt. That's right, there are over 250,000 licensed architects and degreed civil building engineers in the country, and even if Gage's group's members were of those (they aren't as he diluted the standards to any engineering field and anyone employed by an architect) his 1500 wouldn't even comprise 1 percent.
      So what does that tell us, that 99+% were all bought off by Bush, Cheney and Silverstein? Or maybe they're too scared to speak up? Or how about they looked at it and know the whole thing is rubbish and the other less than 1 in 100 are well within the population's expected statistics of mental illness or just plain foolishness?
      What is it about the "scientific method" that truthers seem to have missed? Two of its tenets include rejection of fringe theories and for a consensus on a hypothesis to be rejected requires a viable alternative hypothesis to be presented for scrutiny. This translates to your pointing out what you believe are holes in the official story are not enough to disprove it- the story you would replace it with would have holes you could sail a ship through, it's beyond impossible.
      I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears and you will continue to feel you are highly enlightened and know something the rest of us don't. The fact you're left expressing such beliefs on internet message boards and not professional journals of architects and engineers should be glaring proof you don't, but I digress.

  94. Don't waste your time reading any of these comments at the bottom, they are full of comments from a hard headed patriotic monkey. Enjoy your life and freedom while you still have it.

    1. "Patriotic"? Is that what you call being justifiably pissy that people, seemingly motivated by nothing better than irrational hatred for a retired politician, are running around saying we did this to ourselves to start unjustified wars?
      Yeah, you enjoy your freedom to make a fool of yourself all you like, but if you're dragging the rest of us into the muck like this someone's bound to get pissy about it.
      It's almost excusable when other nations' people are doing it, hey they hate us whatever, I guess we can hate back.
      However Americans doing it is just silly. Haven't we lost enough of our economy and stature, you have to make it worse by vilifying us unnecessarily? Don't you understand this "Bush is evil" stuff is interpreted by them as "America is evil"? If that's what you think well nothing is keeping you here.

  95. you and 95% of the american ppl(if that's true that 95% belive this bu ll sh it....i doubt it)...but you belive that because it's easy for you justify the killing that fallow this tragic event...Irak...they found no weapon of mass distruction...another lie...they needed to help the "smart boys" to sell more bombs and they needed some oil...this are FACTS for me.

    you just keep replyng my comments...but you talk about what you want, not about what i'm telling you that i have doubts...so for the last time:

    1.when did you see a similar plane crush site like the one that fail hit the white house???...the plane was pulverized(a history premier).
    2.how can you fit an airliner in a 5m hole(pentagon)...and again the plane was pulverized.
    3.one of the upper part of one of the tower in the moment it's start to fall,it's leaning to the left...it's pulverized before it hit the ground and did not fall on his predicted path...did a butterfly hit the part and pulverized that to???
    4.the upper part of the both 2 towers it's slow down by fractions of second by 100 concrit and steel floors???...tell that to a monkey,but give her a banana to belive you.
    5.they have found the license driver,the id card and other documents of the terorist...=))...this one is for really dumb ppl...after few days the terorist that US oficial claim that were on board gave interviews to the press...that's really for cimpazee.
    6.4 planes deviate from course...no radio contact to them...one it's hiting the first tower...the air force fail to intercept them?...epic fail???...another one for the monkeys...we talking about the world most advanced and powerfull airforce in the world.

    and this are just few of the facts that raise seriosly doubts to me.

    and my friend.....asking Q and having doubts das not make me stupid or crazy...i'm sure you have blind trust in your government...i'm sure they never lie to you..=))...i don't have in mine or in US government
    like i say before...probaly it's more confortable for you to have a justification for the killing that fallow after this tragic avents...thousands of childrens, womens and old ppl,all civilians...for what???
    and not to forget the lifes of young americans and other countrys(including mine)lost for what???they go to fight for a lie...where are saddam weapons???
    "making more bombs...making more money"...the smart guys motto.

    that was my last comment on this...peace to you and to all!

    1. What leads you to believe that the crash sites must meet your expectations of what a plane crash should look like for one to have actually happened? Why do you keep trying to make a point of airplanes being "pulverized"? What the hell do you expect them to look like after hitting solid buildings at 350-550 mph? Yet many parts were not "pulverized" at all and are easily recognizable as belonging to the aircraft in question. So what if a passport survived the collision? You're simply displaying your own ignorance about randomness in destructive events. Why do a dozen people survive a plane crash, some even walking away, that kills hundreds?
      Then you go launch into tirades about the Iraq war, good for you, you just give away the fact your entire position is motivated not by facts or evidence that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, but by your hatred of Bush and America and regret Saddam Hussein is not still in power gassing the Kurds, torturing his people and attacking his neighbors. Too bad for you, your boy was hung by the neck until dead and we're not sorry at all!

    2. 1. A large plane hit another building and it didnt penetrate...that MUST mean it cant happen to the WTC. (even tho a smaller one already did lol)

      2. speed = a cleaner hole thru something...and are we looking at the same footage of the pentagon? Looks like a plane hit it and if not....where did all the CIVILIANS ON BOARD that plane go? :)

      3. It must have been explosives then....lol. According to you the non expert? ok i trust YOUR opinion but i see no reason it wouldn fall apart. So lets look at the real investigation by experts...oh thats right we cant because you think that is a fabrication....uuuh ok. any.......you know.....evidence of that you would like to share.

      4. The building WAS after all designed to have that much weight dropped on it..wait no it wasnt lol.

      5.Your so deluded you dont know ANY example of things being amazingly intact after explosions....thats to be honest makes you look silly to me. Everyone knows that. google is you friend. The plane doesnt turn to atoms. Paper is found all the time lol. HOW can you not know this.

      6. You need to read about that day...the decision to shoot or not shoot the plane down between bush and his staff is well documented. I think(not sure) F-16's could have got there np. Not that i expect a 9/11 conspiracist to be up on the facts of that day.

      This conspiracy is insane due to the large number of people involved and the complete lack of motive (afghanistan? lol).

      U said yourself where are saddams weapons...thats was a real conspiracy to get the us public to go to war. so why 9/11? I would LOVE to hear your motive for your conspiracy. :)

    3. ok man...i understand that you belive bush right?...the only man on the planet that wacth live on television(acording his OWN words) the first plane that hit the first tower...before entering the class and read with the children (very relax)...=)))))))))))))....WOW!!!!!
      the mayor knew with half an hour in advance(again with his OWN words) that the first building it will colapse...i'm sure you belive him to....=))))))

      and acording to you...an aluminium airliner it's perfectly normal to do a clean hole with no wings damage on a CONCRIT AND STEEL building???(pentagon)....=))))))))))))....why don't they release at least one tape from the 80 recordings that they have with the impact???...this way will shut the mouth of all the ppl like me that have Q....

      and again you think it's happend every day that 3 buildings collapse ALL due to fire...and what do you know,they ALL collapse in their own footprints...WOW!!!!!...you're right...there's no Q here.....

      and when you want to hide something,the best place is right in the ppl eyes...always.

      and yes...i agree...it could collapse under his own weight...could happend...but ALL 3 in their own footprints...no Q there???....

      everybody has the right to make his own opinion...you have yours...i have mine...and i DON"T belive in coincidences.

      and if a bunch of arabs that just get down from the mountain(dating with goats...=)))...) CAN DO THIS to the world 1st superpower....well...i have nothing else to say.
      that means i'm stupid and you're smart...

  96. So, what are you going to do about it???

  97. the one that suposse to hit the white house and fail to do, looks to you like a plane crush site???
    the one that hit the pentagon fit in 5m hole??? and experts pilots with thousands of hour of flight say that a terorist with a few hour of flight with an instructor CAN"T DO WITH AN AIRLINER what the oficials want us to belive they do

    i'm not sayng the planes did not hit the towers...we all see that...but the other 2(pentagon...and fail white house plane)it's another story...to many Q and way to many ridiculos answers from the US oficials.

    and 100 floors(steel and concrit) slow down the upper part tiny fractions of a second?????...you are the blind one my friend.

    you talk about ignorant ppl...ignorant is the one who look into one side of the story...
    it is you right to belive what the US oficials tell you to belive

    and it is my right to have MY opinion about what happend there...and after all i see and heard,for me it's clear at least one thing:there's no way that a bunch of arabs can posible do what they told us they do on 9/11 whitout help from inside.
    it's just an opinion...MY opinion

    1. "i'm not sayng the planes did not hit the towers..."

      Then what possible point were you pursuing with erroneous claims that no plane parts survived the impact?

      "but the other 2(pentagon...and fail white house plane)it's another story..."

      Any possible point you could argue to the contrary is addressed at the snopes page. Are they in on the conspiracy too?

      "it is you right to belive what the US oficials tell you to belive"

      Do you really believe that I and the other 95% of the American population that is on my side of this simply accepted what the government said and did not look into any of the information offered by conspiracy theorists?

      Why would you think we wouldn't look deeply into this event, which has had such a negative impact on our collective fortunes and freedoms, and if there was something amiss, not look into it?

      This is why many people accuse conspiracy theorists of suffering from persecutory delusions. It entails the person believes only they have the high morals and courage to speak out while all around them are timid and corrupt people. Is this what you think, that I just believe what the government tells me I should believe? What else could motivate such an arrogant statement?

      Have you read any part of the NIST report? What part of it is so ridiculous it caused you to reject its findings? Please be specific, I'd love to expand my knowledge on this. I don't know it word for word but I HAVE spent a few hours perusing its more important points. It's quite scientific and well researched, and when you become familiar with its methodology you see why experts just shrug off most conspiracy theories- they insult the intelligence of these professionals.

  98. oh...and one of the upper part of the building,in the moment he start to fall,it's lean to the left...but probaly a butterfly cruh in to it and pulverized that to,before it hit the ground....OMG...=))))))

  99. the mass of the upper floors pulverize the entire building?...and you speak of my bad logic?...wow

    gravity don't lie...any obstacle in the path of the falling upper part should slow down the fall...but i'm sure you gonna say that Isaac Newton is a liar...right???

    and i'm sure you have a decent theory about 2 planes that been also pulverize at impact(first time in history...again)...but hey they found the license driver,pasaport and id of the terorist...OMG...yeah,i'm blind

    and building 7???...fire bring that down to,right???...i'm blind again
    maybe in america fire it's different from rest of the world...=))

    and at the pentagon they want me to belive that an elephant can be put in a dog house???

    yes my friend....i'm blind...=))

    1. ".any obstacle in the path of the falling upper part should slow down the fall."

      And it did. However the time was measurable in tiny fractions of a second.

      "2 planes that been also pulverize at impact(first time in history...again)...but hey they found the license driver,pasaport and id of the terorist."

      You are forgetting that parts of the planes were found outside of the buildings on the ground and the rooftops of other buildings.

      What is the point you are pursuing with this line of argument, that planes did not hit the buildings? That's utter nonsense.

      "and at the pentagon they want me to belive that an elephant can be put in a dog house???"

      dubya dubya dubya dot snopes dot com / rumors / pentagon dot a s p

      anything further ignorant to add?

  100. how the 3rd building fall?...how an airplan it's vaporized(pentagon)???...how all the building collapse exactly like they been set for demolition???...how the world best airforce could not intercept the planes after first crush in the first tower???

    the enswers that US oficials gave to this questions are ridiculos.
    fire bring down the buildings???...show me a fire that burn with the power of a blow torch...c'mon ppl...think...not even a fuel pomp burn like that...let's be serious
    helloooooooooo....we are not monkeys.

    sry for my bad english

    1. your bad english is excusable, your bad logic is another thing altogether.

      "how all the building collapse exactly like they been set for demolition???"

      They didn't look anything like a controlled demolition, you'd have to be blind to think that. It's quite clear the structural failure initiates at the floors where the planes impacted and the mass of the upper part of the buildings pound their way towards the ground. The video of the first tower to fall as shot from the ground makes that obvious, note how as the building is collapsing the lower part of it is completely intact. That is atypical of a controlled demolition which sees charges go off on all floors at the same time and then the building collapses.
      This is the stated reason why the NIST report didn't waste any time looking at controlled demolition theories, one look at the footage and it was obvious that wasn't what happened.

    2. Asbestos is a banned substance in new constructions, and its removal from pre-existing buildings must be done according to a strict code. Regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    3. So how are you in any way substantiating that asbestos is legally required to be removed from existing structures?
      Your reply which dances around the issue while attempting to imply it is true (invoking the authority of the EPA) suggest getting to the truth of this matter is anything but your real agenda.

    4. As soon as you start picking out people's bad english it means you lost the debate because you've just labelled yourself the crazy B--- who is AFRAID TO BE WRONG. you got nothing.

    5. This was the only mention of his English:

      "your bad english is excusable, your bad logic is another thing altogether."

      He brought it up in the first place by apologizing for it. That statement was followed by a topically relevant reply. Please find another sucker to attempt trolling on.

      I am never afraid to be wrong, in fact I invite being proven wrong, for then I will be educated about something I did not yet know.

      However you do realize either of us being right or wrong would have no bearing upon the facts behind this event? Or are you one of those people who thinks you can change history by proving people on the internet wrong, one person at a time?

      Good luck with that, sir.

  101. Damn fender24, you really have memorized Loose Change and every other piece of conspiracy crap, haven't you? Even though the author of Loose Change himself claimed that it began as a work of fiction.

    Eh, I'll leave you to your rumor mongering as it seems to be making the world a better place.

    1. It's like he thinks he's the first person to have found these "talking points" (if you can call them that) and they haven't been regurgitated before.
      He can't substantiate this at all:

      "He was required to remove asbestos in all buildings, a job that would cost over 6 billion."

      Because it isn't true.

    2. "Because it isn't true. "
      The buildings were due for some major upgrades and under New York state law the Clean air act, the asbestos was going to have to be removed. the Port Authority in 1991 filed suit in U.S. District Court against insurers in the hope of recovering funds to help pay for needed asbestos-abatement work at the WTC and one of the region's airports. In the suit, "Port Authority of NY vs. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.," by 2001, the cost of abatement could easily have topped $3 billion dollars. These were not the only properties that the Port Authority had that required abatement.
      Why would Larry Silverstein lease buildings that he knew he would have to pay billions for asbestos abatement?

      The Twin Towers couldn’t be demolished, and because of the asbestos, they couldn’t be upgraded. Quoting from a May 20, 2002 article in The New Yorker, "Explicity included in the [lease] agreement was that Silverstein and Westfield 'WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURES IF THEY WERE DESTROYED." 'the lease has an all-important escape clause: if the buildings are struck by "an act of TERRORISM," the new owners' obligations under the lease are void.
      The buildings were attacked 6 weeks after Silverstein took over. wow how convenient eh! lucky for Larry. The destruction of WTC, for certain interests, have been both desirable and profitable.

      "Try to find an example of a large skyscraper in America having a legal order to be stripped of asbestos. you can't"
      55 Broad Street: The removal of asbestos in that building cost $70 million when it was empty. That was five times the cost of the building's construction 15 years before.

      Twin towers: WHo says u can't? The removal is expensive and physically impractical because the removal operation must be quarantined and subject to rigorous decontamination procedures. Removal of asbestos used as structural fireproofing in steel framed high-rises is complicated by the fact that the fireproofing covers an intricate lattice of steel in the most difficult-to-access places. Asbestos is not safe at all that is why so many countries banned it, mostly poor countries use it.

      The asbestos industry has spent decades developing false science used to argue that asbestos is safe.

    3. So now the theory is Larry Silverstein did it for an insurance scam? What happened to Bush and Cheney did it to wage unjust foreign wars in Muslim countries? Are you conceding all those people arguing that and all their talking points are wrong?
      Do you realize abatement and removal are two different things?
      Your theory would hold that by now every building built in NYC prior to 1972 would by now have become white elephants, empty because they would have become uninhabitable and too costly to renovate. Yet 10 years later you can't point to one building where that became the case. Why is that? Isn't it because the foundation of the theory, that the asbestos HAD to be removed, is entirely false?

    4. "So now the theory is Larry Silverstein did it for an insurance scam? " yes, he is one of many involved.

      "Do you realize abatement and removal are two different things?"
      not always Asbestos abatement can means: the removal of asbestos in a public building LOL. abatement alone means decrease or termination of something.

    5. Sure and the insurance company which must lack your incredible investigation skills just paid out the claim because they are just sheeple, right?

    6. "Try to find an example of a large skyscraper in America having a legal order to be stripped of asbestos." That's what i did :D

    7. you mean 55 Broad St? Where was the legal order that the building as it stood was required to have its asbestos removed?

    8. Another one here Fiberglas tower in Toledo which used the same asbestos for fireproofing that twin tower did, this particular spraying was banned in 1971.

    9. This building was completely vacated by Owens Corning.
      Can you show me any legal apparatus in the state of new york in place in 2001 which required the management or property owners of the world trade center to remove the existing fireproofing in their building?

    10. Many buildings contain asbestos, which was used in spray-applied flame retardant, thermal system insulation, and in a variety of other materials. twin towers and fiberglas tower in toledo used this spray type until its production was banned in the U.S. in 1978! wake up already. you can do you're own research.

      "Asbestos removal, the biggest environmental cleanup project in U.S. history, has cost an estimated $50 billion over the past 20 years."

      Enjoy! ;D

    11. I hope a person engaged in such intellectual dishonesty does not call himself a "truther".

      "Removal is not the only means of asbestos abatement. Asbestos and asbestos-bearing materials may be "enclosed" or "encapsulated" to prevent building occupants from being exposed to the fibers."

      wikipedia dot org / wiki / Asbestos_abatement

      THERE WAS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE OWNERS OF THE WTC TO REMOVE THE ASBESTOS FIREPROOFING IN THE TOWERS. PERIOD.

    12. "THERE WAS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE OWNERS OF THE WTC TO REMOVE THE ASBESTOS FIREPROOFING IN THE TOWERS. PERIOD. "

      What are u talking about?! I have said clearly The port authority required it themselves. They attempted to have their insurers pay for the removal of the asbestos.
      The financial loss and the asbestos was the real issues for the port authority prior to 911.

      No doubt The destruction of WTC, for certain interests, have been both desirable and profitable.
      The problem could not be fixed legally, at least not economically, so blow it up and blame it on the Muslims.

      "Port Authority of NY vs. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.,"

      "Port Authority of NY/NJ WTC Tower Asbestos Abatement Contract Records For 1995-2000"

    13. THERE WAS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE OWNERS OF THE WTC TO REMOVE THE ASBESTOS FIREPROOFING IN THE TOWERS. PERIOD.

      What are u talking about!?, i never said that. U got confused over ONE sentence which u still do not understand because of you're ignorace. I have said The port Authority required it themselves. They attempted to have their insurers pay for the asbestos abatement cost.
      the financial loss and Asbestos was the real issues for the Port Authority prior to 9.11 until Larry came along with a solution.

      The problem could not be fixed legally, at least not economically, so blow it up and blame it on the Muslims.

      No doubt The destruction of WTC, for certain interests, have been both desirable and profitable.

      "Port Authority of NY/NJ WTC Tower Asbestos Abatement Contract Records For 1995-2000"

    14. The Port Authority required it themselves? What does that mean? Show me a legally binding document by any jurisdiction that required the asbestos to be removed.

    15. Thanks to the different media sources and amateur footage on 9.11, i did not need to read hundreds of pages when there was easier ways to find the truth.

      So 2+2 is still 4 until proven otherwise 9/11 is a inside job.

  102. Hey, Just wondering if the final edition of this doc will be up for viewing any time soon.. Thanks

  103. thought this was non-profit. I could watch the whole video earlier but now I have to go to amazon?!?!

  104. usa suc** so hard, so many fascts that 9/11 was made by usa government, there is no way these people are wrong cos they will not profit from it and are only lead by intention to get to the truth from other hand usa government is profeting so hard form this event it would be stupid to not consider that they were interested of making it

  105. Of all the 9/11 documentaries, which one would you recommend? Which one do you think lays out the facts in the most clear and compelling way?

  106. I'm from UK.. My heart goes out to all who lost loved ones on that day but the simple fact is that mega structures of this kind don't collapse all on there own.. They need helped on by human help.. some of the best demolition crews in the world could not bring the wtc buildings down with this accuracy so the question is who did ?. only a hand full of people/crews could.. who did? whoever rigged the building never done it for free (paper trail).. but like so many on hear say wasted breath falling on wasted ears.. Will we ever know the truth ..Do we really want to know ..What would be the implications in knowing the truth be .. Could we as a world standing together handle the truth ....

  107. This is very much to the point. These pros are listing all the flaws and omissions in the official version of the WTC collapse, and simply asking for an independent investigation about the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings. The evidence for explosive type of collapse for the 3 WTC buildings is compelling. The implications are mind boggling. It is of global importance that the truth be uncovered.

  108. I am Canadian and Love and respect my American neighbours, but one thing is forsure You will not ever get the truth from your government and please donn't feel bad because the Canadian Government is the same. Some day soon we will all have to stand together if things are to change. Question is.... how long will we the people allow our Governments to use us as their pawns

    1. Forever - that's the way it is. Maybe not - witness revolutions.

  109. Why are the truthful and informative documentaries removed by the user? It seems to be happening more often lately...Why?......

  110. Breaking the The Law of Conservation of Energy/Momentum is impossible. same as Newton's Law. Not possible. Enough said, thank you for coming out, the shows has concluded. Enjoy your day. Nothing to discuss here, move along now. Next question.

  111. sorry jeremy, sent that to the wrong person. of course it was meant for karpkomet

  112. One video proves this is not a conspiracy anymore, BBC announced the collapse of building 7 20 minutes before the event happened.

    enough said

  113. Bush Administration, especially Cheney, and the Spooks, have a lot of questions to answer

  114. The insights shared - on why we resist even considering the possibility that official investigation would intentionally be "off" - are IMO critical for us to consider. For me, the possibility of an intentionally misleading 9/11 official becomes "cumulative." I hold private skepticism of official stories explaining assassinations of JFK and King. Further, even though I've long understood the mechanisms involved, I've come late to appreciate the power of "manufactured consent" as described by Chomsky and others.

    I deeply regret personal losses of so many families. But I believe we also need to look at this apparent deception as informative and important. Being more aware is essential as part of "righting" our national cultural beliefs/identity. Perhaps if questioning assassinations of Kennedy and King had not been popularly mocked to the point of causing skeptics to "go away" we would have learned then to be less credulous.

    Unrealized but normal psychologically based reactions; the trauma of 9/11; and our inability to accept possible intentional misinformation even from earlier events, (Kennedy, King), were also at play in our acceptance of "good cause" to attack the people of Iraq. (Even when causes given to us changed from A to B to C!)

    Events such as 9/11 are unspeakably horrible experiences from which to gain important insights on normal human psychology. But the world's present "monumental crossroads moment", and our role in it, seem to desperately need for us to have and use as much insight as possible.

    I have deep faith in humanity's potential to realize itself in a world of compassion. If brothers and sisters along the way prefer to mislead us - we "simply" need to catch ourselves "about to fall for a good sales line", then stand our ground. We need to respectfully but firmly demand greater truthfulness from one another. "They" (the "misleaders") will eventually "come around". We also need to not be persuaded to dismiss those who raise questions - we need to hear them out, think about possible validity. (Even the inclination to "mislead" is "normal psychology", IMO, although most of us catch ourselves practicing this in tiny details!)

    I hope what I've said makes some sense. If I seem to "depersonalize" or invalidate deeply felt trauma, I don't mean to.

  115. It's simple physics really. I can prove it was a conspiracy and that the planes didn't bring down the towers... with one question...

    How do 13 floors of a building crush 97 floors into nothing but a pile of dust?

    The answer is... they don't.

    47 core columns made of the largest steel beams ever constructed (at the time) ran straight up the middle of these two buildings. Somehow 13 floors crushed 97 floors of these columns without tipping over the side or simply resting on top of the remaining stucture, which is what physics tells you it would do. (For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction, and falling objects take the path of least resistance.)

    If someone could explain this one to me, by overcoming these two basic principles of physics...

    I'd love to hear it.

    1. The dynamic load of 13 stories falling is about 30 times the static load of those floors. No building is designed to take that loading. When the 13 floors crush the floor below there are now 14 floors on the move. The 14 floors now impact the floor below making 15 floors on the move. The dynamic load is increasing all the time. The mass of material is increasing all the time and the kinetic energy is increasing all the time. Once this process starts the building does not have the inherant structural strength to stop it.

    2. And all this happened without the mass slowing down... AT ALL?? Impossible. Those buildings collapsed in about 10 secs. Essentially free fall speed. Where did you get your numbers for the 30 times the static load? Out of your ass? No offense intended but you didn't show any equations or source any specifics tests that proves this number to me so I have no idea where you got it. I've seen way too many failed building demolitions to believe this is how it happened. Steel buildings don't just collapse. That's why we build with steel.

      Also, it would have to be a completely symmetrical collapse otherwise the top portion would fall over to one side and fall off the building. Even if this were plausible there's no way 13 floors of a building is going to crush all those vertical steel core columns. (Because they didn't. Google WTC spire and you can see that the core columns lost their strength because they were cut from the bottom.)

      You're also discounting the very architects who built the buildings who said that the buildings could withstand a collision from an airliner "like a pencil going through a screen door". Oh yeah, I forgot... the fire melted the steel... or weakened the steel... another ridiculous idea. Google the Windsor Building fire and tell me that a simple office fire can bring down a skyscraper.

      How did steel beams get imbedded in buildings over 300 feet away? Because they were falling? Look at still photos of the collapse and explain to me how those steel girders were flung outward so far... if they were just falling.

      Not to mention the many, many eyewitnesses to explosions in the basement and the lobby... and the video of the lobby after something had obviously exploded in it. This was not caused by crash of the plane because the elevators shafts do not go all the way to the top in the WTC towers.

      I could go on and on. Some people just don't want to accept the facts. Explain to me what happened in Building 7. Was that just from fire too? Show me other buildings that have collapsed completely from fire... other than the 3 buildings that collapsed on Sept. 11.

    3. What is your calculation for the dynamic load ?

    4. "You're also discounting the very architects who built the buildings who said that the buildings could withstand a collision from an airliner "like a pencil going through a screen door"."

      Umm, they considered a B707 loitering just above stall speed, empty on fuel, lost in fog looking for a place to land.

      If I have to elaborate on any of the many reasons this makes comparison with the events of 9/11/01 wholly irrelevant, no intelligent discourse is possible.

      Need I also mention what did you expect them to say "OMG we didn't think of THAT, boy did we screw the pooch on this one!" But do they also believe it was an inside job brought down by explosives? No, they don't. So you're selectively choosing the facts you present, aren't you? Borrowing (wrongly in this case)part of their professional expertise but discarding their opinion on the whole story.

      This is also why 9/11 conspiracy theorists have become isolated and marginalized to posting their arguments on internet message boards and these discussions are not being held in any scientific journals or on the floors of the US Capital, (house or senate) and why there never will be a "new investigation". In arenas and avenue where those qualified to publish a scientific report on this actually congregate, such arguments receive wide ridicule.

      You just go right ahead with this kind of thinking that you've enlightened yourself with the knowledge all the sheeple will come to their senses and flock to agreement with you once you've shared it with them, don't let any of us shills on the payroll of the evil conspirators slow you down. Clozapine... it's not just for breakfast any more!

      Those capable of actual reasoning should recognize the "cover up" is about design deficiencies in the buildings themselves, in structural, fire protection, and human egress systems, negligence in maintenance, as well as failures in many levels of government from law enforcement to the FAA and the military. Those who could face criminal liability for any of the above and more certainly breathe a sigh of relief every time a "twoofer" portrays himself as an enlightened prophet and the "sheeple" see the company they'd be keeping looking into any of it.

    5. Congratulations, this one has a grasp of elementary physics that seems to have escaped virtually all twoofers. It's been calculated that merely the stored energy of each tower's mass times the gravity and acceleration of each floor from its distance to the ground was nearly as great as that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
      I'd ask WP Smith jr. if you were to take the first tower to collapse, what was the top section, almost 30 floors? There were 79 in the bottom? Roughly taken, if you took a 900 story building, and oh so gently placed it on top of that 79 story building, then released the size of Rhode Island crane you had been supporting it with... is there any doubt the 900 story building would pound toward the ground instantly, pulverizing the tiny building in its way?
      That's pretty much what we saw when the floor in between the top and bottom sections failed-the top section's load increased 30 times as it accelerated just 3 meters.

  116. This will go down as the biggest sloppy government cover up in history, i think the US Government would get first prize if they were televised on Americas Dumbest Criminals...

    Wake up America and start taking action against the criminals within the Government that has taken so many innocent lives... together we can rise as one for our lost brothers and sisters and the truth will prevail...

  117. oh just because I am an attention whore republican bastard I must post my original rebuttal to a statement that may get overlooked!

    Oh and yes, Bush totally paid me to write all this crap for the last hour.

    ery simple question about Building 7. Why? Were the twin towers not enough as a visual? So the brilliance was to, much later, collapse a building that had a small relevance to the twin towers which had a HUGE visual and death impact for Americans to go to war. The one question they don't answer is .... why ...

    40 min into the "documentary" now and nothing. I mean that would be the most important thing imo. saying FEMA did not get there for a month si insane. Should we let the rubble sit? To say none of the rubble exists is insane because there are warehouses full of it. Yes, TONS went to China but to say none exists is a very incorrect.

    Who SAW all of this? I mean, demolition experts say that to do a demolition of that capacity would take up to six months without trying to be covert. Not only was this covert (not a single person has stated they saw unusual individuals in the building, that's odd ....) it went completely unnoticed by EVERYONE in the building ... day after day after day.

    Plus the cover up of literally thousands of people. From the airplanes and their crew to civilians everywhere. The Pentagon hit is supposed to be a missle although not a person has been witness to it. Zero footage. Flight 57 was supposed to be faked ... Not a person came forth to say it was.

    The beauty of conspiracy theories is that it takes no evidence to create one. The lack of evidence actually proves it further. Conspiracies are fun to distract. 99% are a waste of time but there is that 1% that is very valid and true and the 99% make the 1 look idiotic. Good job guys!

  118. Last comment and then I am just sad. 100+ Fireman heard booms that shook them. 100 out of literally thousands. I will never say they are wrong. Wasn't there. A plane hit a building. Pressure happens. Pressure+fire = boom. To say that a series of "booms" happened makes complete sense.

    Going night night ... enjoy your fear of nothing.

  119. Gotta love the "explosions" arguments. Sigh, it is almost like a plane just hit a building ...

  120. Richard Humen 1:02 is the most compelling. Although he gives no insight. However, prior to that, the gentlemen stating that the above 30 floors would have been stopped by the below 80 floors due to their unaffected heat state is very compelling. However, look at the pictures of the towers after the fall of the towers. The bottom, roughly, 30-40 floors are semi intact despte almost 100 floors of concrete and weight. To think that the heat only affected the floor it was on is ridiculous. The Weight of the plane is moot due to evidence from every "credible" source states the planes were disintegrated almost upon impact and the fuel ignited.

    The way the buildings fell have no relevance unless their is proof as to how the "explosives" were placed. It is all conspiratorial until a single person comes out. To think that not a person or even 1000 would come out for a sheer payday and notoriety is insane. Guess the government, even under changes and extreme differences are willing to cover up the previous failures.

  121. Again, the Purdue test. The 747 hitting the building caused such an impact the fire resistant coating flaked off (if you don't believe that take something that has had a coating for roughly 20 years and (hopefully it is metal; doesn't amke sense otherwise) and hit it hard against a solid brick or metal wall. Does it flake? Does something fall off at all? Now impact that with 900,000 lbs of weight head on at 600 MPH. Excessive burning of JP5 fuel (higher required burn rating) for an hour. IE, no anti-retardant 2000+ degree burning environment ... not the 750 they "guesstimate".

  122. So at 50 minutes in the conspiracy theory is that the theory of wht happened is incorrect ...so the theory was wrong but their theory with zero intelligent information is correct?

    WAIT!!! 49:15 a conclusion of the theory!!

    ALL say it is controlled demolition with Zero evidence other than their "professional" knowledge. Being a 30 year professional is compelling. BUT Purdue university did a computer simulation on the project over a two year period. I am sure they are completely biased and in the tank for Bush, right? Damn government mongers .... (check youtube I had the entire video but obviously cannot link my personal computer; youtube has the snippets :()

    also Thermite is what they use for sparklers for 4th of July. Super Thermite is supposed to be so incredibly secret that no one in the military even knew of it but bob the average Joe knew about it ....

  123. It is a little bit naive the way the psychologists and experts who participated in this movie put the re-investigation of the 9/11 case as part of a "healing" process as if this would just be a case of re-opening the investigation, find the "truth", the ones responsible for the cover up, put them in jail and life goes on as before. It is obvious that the re-investigation of the twin towers collapse will open a Pandora's box, which will expose a major (and I will use a word I don't particularly like for being related to tin-foil-hatted people) conspiracy. I myself have ignored conspiracy theorists for most of my life, disqualifying them for their lack of scientific thinking, their ingenuity and fantasy. But it is time to listen to these theories and pay attention to what they are saying. Let us review ourselves and our way of judging, lets give these theories a chance. I am coming to the conclusion that there is some truth to these theories, and the truth is horrifying.
    I do not want to state anything in particular but my feeling is, there is a major orchestrated effort carried out with subterfuge and in great secret, to achieve a major goal, and this goal is not less than absolute power. And this idea is so grotesque, so ludicrous, that not many of us dare to put it forward for fear of being ridiculed or castigated somehow.
    Democracy and liberty are just illusions. They are only concepts which great thinkers of other centuries came up with, which inspired the foundation of many nations. These ideas are vanishing slowly and we are all witnessing it without twitching. We go on with our lives in denial, living in a bubble of iphones, indulging in entertainment and letting everything happen. I only hope I am completely wrong.

    1. "re-investigation of the twin towers collapse will open a Pandora's box"...

      ... I know how you feel... but you need to get into the habit (as I had to!) of saying "the three WTC buildings" as I reckon 90% of people and 99.999% of Americans think only two buildings were "brought down" :)

    2. Francisco, Much that you say fits with my own current mind on whether or not behind the scenes power seekers are capable of gross manipulation of public opinion/belief in political/economic matters. I've also not wanted to be dismissively tossed into the tin-foil-hat category. I've wanted compelling argument/evidence to convince me that some group may have orchestrated major events for their own ends. One ultra-compelling difference re destruction of the WTC buildings vs puzzling "official explanations" of other shattering events is that the WTC event brings out hard science in a way assassinations, for instance, cannot. (I've heard compelling science on bullet trajectories, etc. re Kennedy's assassination, but there's less of it, leaving political power issues the main arguments - much harder to prove beyond a shadow of doubt.) This film's argument is practically entirely "hard sciences based"! Although there is a line of reasonable logic that brings political power into the WTC event, the presenters are wise to stick to science, wise to leave less measurable explanations (political) for a "2nd level" investigation once the question of how the buildings came down is settled.

      I happen to disagree that principles of democracy and liberty are illusions, only of a particular time/place in history of the past. It's my belief that the principles are "innate", are universal - regardless of the nation in which one lives, and cannot be lost even if tyranny imposes itself. We (Americans) *have* accepted some pretty powerful culturally based illusions for a very long time. This, too, may be "normal" - perhaps exhibited by many Brits during the days of the British Empire; perhaps by many Romans too! IMO, "we" (humanity) will have to become conscious of this in ourselves as part of our shift to more successfully realizing our full potential, which, when found, will include much more compassion toward others and all life than we've shown so far. ... just sharing some of my thoughts. (I believe we an make the shift - but first we have to be more "awake"!)

    3. "This film's argument is practically entirely "hard sciences based"!"

      Actually it's not, since two of the foundations of the scientific method include:

      1. Fringe theory should not be grasped in the face of widespread consensus on prevailing theory. Gage's group actually encompasses less than 1/10 of 1 percent of degreed civil engineers and licensed architects.
      2. Prevailing theory approved by consensus cannot simply be mocked or have holes poked in it by fringe promoting skeptics- these skeptics must produce a complete alternative hypothesis to replace it and have it withstand scrutiny. No such alternative has been published.
      The NIST report on the towers' collapse is exhaustive and thorough.

    4. Batvette - thank you! - not only for your reply to me, but to your posts to others, which I've just (fairly quickly) read. You make what appear to be valid science-based contributions and I'm taking you at your word on those - adding them to a "lean" away from arguments made by the less than 1/10. (Although I'd also observe that I find less than 1/10, (meaning sneaking up on 1/10?), is no small amount of dissenters to a consensus view - am thinking for example, of the percent who might speak up even at risk to themselves to stop an atrocity underway immediately before their eyes. My thoughts on problems with wide consensus are significant to my "world view" as revealed below.

      I suppose I should confess to being in what may amount to a camp of my own re controversies such as the cause of tower collapses, JFK and MLK's assassinations, and a few others. I'm not a passionate arguer for explanations of "conspiracy theorists", but at the same time, I am almost never persuaded by "consensus reality explanations." I rather hold to an opinion that "there is more background information on the story than we have, or likely will ever have." Given that personal conclusion - I sort of "follow along" with conspiracy theory arguments inwardly, and outwardly "go along with" dominant culture "satisfactory" explanation. Perhaps my attitude is more annoying than even that of the conspiracy promoters!

      My own studies and professional work are more closely aligned to insights offered in the film by the psychologists. I've watched and experienced humanity via myself and others for a long time. We humans are masterful "self-persuaders" with multiple motivations for telling ourselves "Story A is more accurate than Story B". I find no evidence that we 20th-21stC humans are more "self-aware" and truthful re our psychology and motivations than were our ancestors. Re conspiracies originating within our borders - I find no evidence that we Americans practice a culture of truthfulness and transparency - especially if we're ambitious to experience great power and wealth. Deception, omission, and half-truths are common fare among us - too seldom called to public question.

      "Going along to get along" (accepting consensus authoritative conclusions- *especially* those delivered by a body of politically interested individuals!) is to my mind unhealthy, not only for our self-governance but for others (i.e. the tragedy of Iraq following the 9/11 tragedy). So I welcome vigorous argument "agin' the common view" if it can make a somewhat compelling case. A least such objection causes us to re-examine evidence, (or should). (In case it's a relief to you - I am *not* a "climate warming denier" - am with the scientists full square on that one!) :)

    5. Just to reference that figure, according to membership in professional societies, there are a little over 100,000 licensed architects and over 150,000 people with degrees in civil engineering in the United States alone. Gage's group boasts 1500+ but actually relaxed their standards to be anyone working in the field of architecture/for an architectural firm (this can include the office gofer or even the janitor) or anyone who holds a degree in some discipline of engineering, not necessarily civil engineering. They do some form of credential checking, a person I know who has a degree in electrical engineering did join them and was asked to fax a copy of her degree. She is no more qualified IMO to do structural failure analysis on the twin towers than your average Joe flipping burgers at McDonald's, though I'm sure if she had to she could go back to college (she's in her 60's) and add some relevant curriculum.
      There is no full list available of their members' individual qualifications on Gage's site butt if you look at the quotations he has randomly scrolling in the sidebars (or did last time I was there) you'll see very few actually hold the credentials he purports to represent. Most are people with a degree in some form of engineering like bio research or electronics.
      As for speaking up at risk to themselves, well that's a somewhat valid point but I tend to be optimistic about humanity and man's propensity to do good. I have a hard time coming to grips with 99.9%, 99%, or even 90% of professionals in any given field lacking the backbone to come out and speak up about something so terrible if they recognized something was amiss about this whole thing. As opposed to 1/10 of 1% (or even 1% giving them huge benefit of doubt) not afraid to be wildly wrong about something due to various reasons, which could be political or even psychologically motivated, who knows.

  124. the evidence is overwhelming - this is an open and shut case - what is remarkable is the audacity of the plan. Whoever planned it knew that nobody would question such an enormous lie. They knew that most people are too busy to look at the details, they knew that none of the media would dare to question such a huge "self-evident" truth (terrorists did it), they knew that to question the official truth would require a level of courage that most people don't have, and for any serious professional, it would mean risking one's career and social standing. And they were right. Despite the overwhelming evidence, people are scared to even consider the facts. The truth undermines so many basic beliefs: 1) a conspiracy of this size is impossible 2) someone would have spoken out by now 3) if it were true, surely the media would have examined it 4) it is impossible to mislead everyone 5) our entire foreign policy cannot be based on a lie etc.... Yet, the facts speak for themselves, and indeed, perhaps for the first time in the era of electronic media, people are all too ready to believe what they are told because the alternative is so horrifying to consider. We live in an era in which people are simply scared to think for themselves, they are scared to think period. 911 really marks the end of democracy. This event proves that shadowy forces can do what they want and get away with it, and that people are ready to believe anything they are told, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Reality no longer exists.

  125. no building ever collapsed of planes,,,,designed to withstand hit,,,,all fuel blew upon impact,,,not seven minutes later,,,,do you really think the fuel would drip down to the bottom then ignite when something in the basement like a wiring panel,,,,dont be so stupid,,,totally impossible,,,people who think otherwise are plain full blown ignorant about the whole thing,,,,do some research,,,google this,,,how many buildings have been hit by airplanes,,,then see if any have fallen,,,and they are built better now

  126. Great documentary. Really good to see one with top notch experts using hard science, and not coming across like fanatics. Well done to everyone involved.

  127. The buildings collapsed because of the way they were constructed, not built like the skyscapers people here are mentioning. The whole center was open, like one big tube, with supporting structures surrounding it. Problem was when these structures started to bend and collapse, the rest fell like dominoes; this is why the buildings crumbled in the manner they did. There was an analysis done on this some time ago. Don't know if it's available on this site.

    BTW I spoke to a man this weekend who watched the second plane plow into the building. He said he will never forget the high pitched squeal of the engines; the suicide pilot had revved them up to full throttle as the plane got closer and closer. It is a sound that haunts him to this day.

    1. nice "BUZZ WORDS" cointelpro dumba22

  128. The steel reinforced concrete elevator shafts cannot free fall that fast from that height. You cannot change physical facts. Most of the jet fuel exploded outside the building exterior as a huge fireball.

  129. OK America, you lost 3,000 innocent victims in 911 & you should never forget what Bush, CIA, FBI, MOSSAD, Air Force etc did, but did you know that 50,000,000 innocent Americans have been slaughtered in America since 1973 & its LEGAL?

    DOCTOR DEATH
    Dr. Martin Haskell giving a presentation at the 16th Annual Meeting of the National Abortion Federation Conference in 1992 in San Diego. It was a gathering of abortionists -- men and women who make their living by killing babies. Haskell was describing to his audience how to do a partial-birth abortion. Listen to his words about how this procedure takes place:
    “The surgeon then introduces large grasping forceps … through the vaginal and cervical canal … He moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities -- and pulls the extremity into the vagina …The surgeon then uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders, and the upper extremities. The skull lodges in the internal os. The fetus is oriented … spine up … The surgeon then takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. … the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull--spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon--surgeon then introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents.”
    Haskell, having described these brutal details, shows his audience a video of himself doing one of these procedures. And at the end of the video, after the sound of the suction machine taking the brains out of the baby’s head, the audience applauds.
    BABY BODY PARTS
    Fetal tissue wholesalers are companies which place employees in abortion clinics to harvest tissue, limbs, organs, etc. from aborted babies. This material is then shipped to researchers working for universities, pharmaceutical companies and government agencies. Although it is against federal law to sell human tissue or body parts, these organizations have devised a system to circumvent this restriction. Technically, all fetal material they harvest is "donated" to them by the clinics. However, they do pay a "site fee" to the clinics for the right to access the tissue. The tissue is then "donated" to the researchers who in turn pay the wholesalers for the cost of retrieval. Profit is realized by the wholesalers' ability to set their own retrieval fees.

  130. Additional piece of info for us not to readily believe our politicians, preachers, religious leaders and others who claims to have our best interest at heart.

    From the terrible experience of 9/11,we need to be more vigilant and wary of political/ideological zealots of all shades, particularly, among us!

    Unfortunately, most of us are made to always look for the enemy from outside, and not the equally deady ones from within.

  131. The only conspiracy theory is the one put forth by the government.

  132. SO SHORT!

  133. What a load of b*llocks! And all of the people that believe this rubbish seem to be missing a vital point: how were three huge skyscrapers filled with enough explosives to demolish them without a single person noticing? All of these so-called experts seem to have glossed over that point too....unless I missed that bit. Maybe I fell asleep - it was a pretty tedious film after all.

    1. uk77 you need a brand new brain!

    2. Heya. who says people didnt notice? most people are blind, but u can see the bombs. There are fireworkers and employees at the wtc that confirms bombs before and after wtc disapeared.( i use disapeared cause thats what it looks like.) Look at the pictures man, it takes more then jetfuel to cause a massive steel construction like that to turn to dust.

  134. No one claims the steel melted. It got soft from the heat to the point it could no longer take its load.

  135. Thank you! I am not an architect, nor my education is even close to it, but if somebody just use his/her brain and some basic physics we all learn at high school, then there is no need to even argue. It is a fact and what is saddening is that many Americans still deceiving themselves, because they do not want to accept that their government was responsible for this tragedy and for the wars followed that.
    Thank you again.

    1. So you i take it you DO acknowledge the wtc got hit by a massive flying fuel tank. Plz do take me through your high school PHYSICS of that not being able to take down a building.

      1. The plane could never have blown off the fireproofing.

      Yup it could and it did....but wait that high school logic!! Picture a 1500lb subcompact car going at 30mph into a bulding, now a 3500lb suv going 120 mph....got it? the devistation inside?

      Ok...NOW picture the 198,400 lb 767-300ER NOT INCLUDING 10,000 gallons of JET FUEL.....at 400mph..who cares if it 380 or 500...what do you think is going to happen to the OPEN OFFICE SPACE inside the wtc when that sucker hit!?

      2. Why am i bothering getting into detail when;

      This stuff is debunked over and over on the net, have the cojones to go to wikipedia and read with a open mind. All the "points" of 9/11 conspiracy are based on the most obvious mistakes and misdirection.

      Oh..and to begin with the plot makes no sense whatsoever, why would america want to invade afghanistan so bad? Did the neo-cons want lots of opium and saddness?

      THINK about it....iraq was mostly about the WMD lie, and it worked well if u remember. No plot to kill our own citizens in the most photographed city in the world and attack our own military headquaters needed lol. The americans are EASY to drum up for a war.You know that..they eat up patriotic propoganda.

      The neo cons took ADVANTAGE of 9/11 to go after oil in iraq. 9/11 was about AFGHANISTAN. Yet the conspiratists never factor that one...thay alway talk about iraq. Why? Obvious,like i said afghanistan is of limited use to american military expansion..making all the effort into a 9/11 staging useless, stupidly misdirected at BEST.

    2. Not just any building we are speaking of a massive steel construction The Towers (at 500,000 tons and 110-stories high each) are immensely harder, heavier, stronger than airplanes dude.

      A large building would chew the plane up.
      The walls of WTC 1 and 2 are 37% steel. Each exterior column is 14 inches square, the spandrel belts are each 1 inch of steel. Planes would not get into the WTC buildings.
      An aluminum airliner cannot disappear into a steel tower. By the laws of physics, the plane must smash to pieces and crumple at the wall, then fall to the ground, creating a pile of plane parts and debris.
      The plane does not decelerate at all. This is an absurd violation of Newton’s 1st law of motion look at pic's and videos, it dosnt look right.
      There is NO plane debris below the supposed impact zones and no plane debris is visible in the gashes. Boeing 757s are 159 feet long. The width of each side of the towers is 208 feet. So a Boeing would be over ¾ of the length of a side of the tower. A Boeing 757 takes up the room of half of a football field.

      The aluminum skin on an airplane is 1/13th of an inch thick. Therefore, aluminum plane has to shatter, crumple or go to pieces.
      the towers could not have collapsed by jet fuel as it says officially. it simply wasnt hot enough. no skyscraper have EVER failed because of fire's even the winsor tower in madrid DIDN'T collapse after 24 HOURS IN INFERNO, which had much higher temps then wtc had.
      At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F)
      The melting point of steel is 2800 degrees F. The hottest you can possibly get from jet fuel fires is 1800 degrees. (Usually they burn much cooler, such as when they are oxygen-starved).

      NIST (National Inst. for Standards and Tech.) inspected 236 samples of steel and discovered only 3 that had been exposed to temps about 500 F (they were subject to temps up to 1200 degrees F only).

      There is alot of evidence the pics and videos speaks for themselves. and noone can ignore it anymore.

    3. "Not just any building we are speaking of a massive steel construction The Towers (at 500,000 tons and 110-stories high each) are immensely harder, heavier, stronger than airplanes dude."

      A bulding is heavier and stronger then a plain!!!?!?? OMG i never thought about it like that! By your logic how big of a plane would i need to get thru? An 100000 ton iron plane? Would that "pierce an inch of steel" i hope so lol. But ur right how the hell can a suv crash thu the wall of a building when the suv is only 3000lb and the building is 50000tons!!!! makes no sense to me! the suv is made up of thin aluminum panels (forget about the engine and frame...even tho planes last time i checked also had engines and frames) why would that not shatter on the outside of the building!!!

      "An aluminum airliner cannot disappear into a steel tower. By the laws of physics, the plane must smash to pieces and crumple at the wall, then fall to the ground, creating a pile of plane parts and debris."

      Says who according to what simulations? And i think it "dissapeared" mostly into the EMPTY OFFICE SPACE not into pure steel lol.

      "The plane does not decelerate at all. This is an absurd violation of Newton’s 1st law of motion look at pic's and videos, it dosnt look right."

      It wouldnt look right to a person who thinks beams of one inch non armored steel and WINDOWS of glass would stop a 200000lb airliner dead in its tracks like a cartoon. And, that said person is A. very missinformed on how strong steel is or B. need to look up there physics again paying close attention to how much more FORCE something has as its SPEED increases. Two good examples being a plastic straw imbedded deep into a telephone pole after a tornado and a water cutter working thru a, oh lets say ONE INCH slab of steel like it was butter. And p.s. the plane DID decelerate just after it pierced the outer layer. The plane hit the towers and crumpled just like u said..u just dont see it because the instant after the parts of the plane that are NOT 1/13 inch aluminum(you know the stuff that keep the plane rigid like its FRAME) started hitting..how is this not common sense.

      "no skyscraper have EVER failed because of fire's even the winsor tower in madrid DIDN'T collapse after 24 HOURS IN INFERNO, which had much higher temps then wtc had."

      no skyscraper has ever been flown into by a plane...so your examples are useless..fire PLUS a bomb would be a bit better...also the madrid building was a dif style of in steel in steel construction and didnt have the destruction of the plane ripping thru a floor taking out the fireproofing.

      "At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F)
      The melting point of steel is 2800 degrees F. The hottest you can possibly get from jet fuel fires is 1800 degrees."

      No one claims the steel melted. It got soft from the heat to the point it could no longer take its load.

    4. Please do not try to disprove this simple fact using those numbers and " picturing"...What I meant by Physics was what all these experts in the documentary trying to explain it for over 2 hours; that, it is not logical and reasonable to believe that the building 7 just came down symmetrically with that rate with no resistance and had free fall, if it was just by fire and plane impact, which was an asymmetrical damage...I bet you even didn't listen to what these people talking about...As psychologists said in this film you are one of those in denial...
      So much for reality.

    5. Very simple question about Building 7. Why? Were the twin towers not enough as a visual? So the brilliance was to, much later, collapse a building that had a small relevance to the twin towers which had a HUGE visual and death impact for Americans to go to war. The one question they don't answer is .... why ...

      40 min into the "documentary" now and nothing. I mean that would be the most important thing imo. saying FEMA did not get there for a month si insane. Should we let the rubble sit? To say none of the rubble exists is insane because there are warehouses full of it. Yes, TONS went to China but to say none exists is a very incorrect.

      Who SAW all of this? I mean, demolition experts say that to do a demolition of that capacity would take up to six months without trying to be covert. Not only was this covert (not a single person has stated they saw unusual individuals in the building, that's odd ....) it went completely unnoticed by EVERYONE in the building ... day after day after day.

      Plus the cover up of literally thousands of people. From the airplanes and their crew to civilians everywhere. The Pentagon hit is supposed to be a missle although not a person has been witness to it. Zero footage. Flight 57 was supposed to be faked ... Not a person came forth to say it was.

      The beauty of conspiracy theories is that it takes no evidence to create one. The lack of evidence actually proves it further. Conspiracies are fun to distract. 99% are a waste of time but there is that 1% that is very valid and true and the 99% make the 1 look idiotic. Good job guys!

    6. Why would America want to invade afghanistan?...you really want to know?
      Why did America want to invade Afghanistan and Iraq???? Why? Because america wanted to establish it's power in middle east area...because control of middle east's energy ( oil) has always been america's interest ..so simple...

      The thing is america is the biggest terrorist state of the world, but the government and media call others terrorists and themselves anti-terrorism....Just think about Nagazaki & Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan....America was also responsible for war against Iran by Iraq...They also supplied Saddam-Hussain with chemical weapons in that war...and also tricking Saddam for invading Kuwait...

      Many americans have been killed in these wars...Many people are suffering from PTSD..Military suicide's growing in alarming rate..

      Sorry to say this, but the government has fooled people for years....the list goes on & on & on.. like claiming they landed on the moon. etc.

    7. What makes the plot even more absurd is (if it were done by Bush/Cheney to facilitate wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) they still had that messy little detail of not being able to start wars without congressional approval. Both of those conflicts had joint resolutions passed by Congress in the House and Senate, the one on Afghanistan was as good as without dissent. Again it requires extreme ignorance to accept without lots of red flags going up in your head.

  136. Absurd. Wow, it's funny to me that so many people nod and applaud at the ineptness of the American gov't to initiate anything flawlessly. Yet, apparently nefarious forces are so brilliant that they devised a scheme to blow up the world trade center towers, while creating (or allowing) the diversionary scheme of 12 hijackers to take over four planes, crashing one into the pentagon...(no, wait, that was a missile according to some)... and another into a field in Pennsylvania.

    A 767 weighs approximately 20,000 pounds. Fully loaded it has 18,000+ pounds of jet fuel. Now, they were traveling at roughly 400 miles per hour.
    You do the physics.

    Apparently some people are so paranoid and neurotic that they cannot comprehend a tragedy for what it really was.

    911 happened. It was awful. Some of us lost friends. 12 A-holes devised an awful plan to kill a lot of people and the CIA and FBI did not prevent it because the two organizations did not work well together, were egotistical and lazy.

    YES, my fellow humans, it's that simple.

    1. How can you do PHYSICS with a rough estimate? Doesn't work.....approximately 20,000, 18,000+ fuel, and roughly 400 MPH......not PHYSICS

    2. Your post is the voice of reason. It is also true about the government agencies. They don't play well together and there is also some jealousy going on. It's unfortunate but the CIA had supposedly sent a report to Bush & Company warning them that informants had told agents there was a plot afoot to drive planes into landmark high rise buildings, but Washington took no action and did not follow up on the warning.

      I will never forget Bush's ridiculous non-expression when told about the tragedy. And how he just let the class continue on instead of immediately excusing himself. The man was a dumb idiot and incapable of leading a Boy Scout troop, let alone a country. He wasn't "in" on it, just stupid. And he finally got his excuse to go after Hussein when it was Afghanistan that should have been the immediate target.

      It was the design of the buildings that caused them to collapse in the manner in which they did. They were supposed to have held up if a plane crashed into them BUT no one envisioned commercial airliners coming full throttle. Who would have ever imagined such a thing would happen?

      All the conspiracy BS seems somehow so disrespectful to all those who suffered that day.

  137. I still get angry that more americans do not seem to have the faculties to understand the physics and impossibilities of the events that took place on 9/11.
    To hell with the conspiracy theories, if we could make NIST accountable for their illegal and improper investigations and prosecute some of them, perhaps, they would be inspired to tell things that they have to know.

    If we could only prove how this atrocity happened, it would lead to the why and by who. I for one believe that there is enough proof.

    Nothing makes sense about this tragedy to anyone who is reasonable and looks at the facts, that would indicate anything but explosives involved.

    Another group that should have been punished and held accountable over this incident, would be NORAD. Their incompetence, lack of protocal, as well as
    their lame excuses, should have been investigated more thoroughly and ended with some people repremanded. Instead, many were promoted or awarded. That usually only happens when you follow orders.

    1. " if we could make NIST accountable for their illegal and improper investigations and prosecute some of them, perhaps, they would be inspired to tell things that they have to know."

      That's a pretty disturbing position- "we don't have any proof of what we believe these people did, so let's lock them up or threaten with same until they start telling us what we want to hear".

      "If we could only prove how this atrocity happened, it would lead to the why and by who. I for one believe that there is enough proof."

      When Gage's group publishes an alternate hypothesis to the NIST report in a peer review journal and it stands up to professional scrutiny, then you'l have something.

      I get the feeling most conspiracy theorists have not read the NIST report, or if they were shown it they glanced at it and said "oh that's all fake they're in on it". The report is ridiculously thorough and is based on good science. If it's flawed, perhaps you can select a few specific points and offer your take on what's wrong with it?

      As for NORAD, their mission was not tracking domestic flights full of passengers and shooting them down without knowing what the intentions were of the people who hijacked them. I don't know what you mean about incompetence.

    2. Mr. Batvette,
      I don't know why, nor do I care, why you think it's you're duty to defend the rediculously incompetent actions of our government investigations regarding 9/11 or the immoral and illegal wars that followed.
      Nor do I know why you think you need to contact, bully and bad mouth people who have looked at the facts, without wanting to be "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists", but only wanting to know why the physics and the stories don't add up.
      You must enjoy rattling the cages of children who want to argue, like your self. To engage with you is an impossibility, your only motive is to anger, deny facts, defend nonsense and insult anyone who will bite on your childish and annoying replies.
      I am an old man that will not be riled by your likes.
      If you do not like what I say in a post, reply as a post, I do not care whatsoever what the hell you think. But I do request that you stop replying to me in the hopes of creating an arguement or drama, apparently your two favorite passtimes, as with most children.
      One must wonder, do you get paid for this? Or is bullying people just more satisfying to you than money?
      I stand on my understanding of physics, and I am certainly backed by many other intelligent people, including pilots, firemen, police officers, engineers as well as everyday working class people who are adult enough to have high IQ's without sporting a title.
      I stand on my own accord, not afilliated with or a member of any organized groups.
      So, Please grow up, or at least stop expecting me to argue with you and find someone like you, who likes to waste their time.
      (unless you are paid somehow)
      Goodbye, and good riddence

    3. Typical of those suffering from delusions, you posit that anyone who simply disagrees with your erroneous position must be paid by the conspirators to do so.
      No how about many of us Americans see our country's downslide like a life raft adrift at sea, we cling to what's left of it yet there's some lunatic off in the corner stabbing at its fabric with a knife by telling the world we did this horrible thing to ourselves just to greedily seize the resources of nations and kill their people. No surprise the world listens to some of you and wants only to kick us to the curb in the worst way. It gives them the excuse they need to steal our patents, pirate our intellectual properties, and soil our reputation at every turn. Yet the goal of you people is not getting to the truth of anything, it's simply playing politics. You so dislike a former President who will never hold public office again you'll destroy the nation just to ensure his reputation is tarnished.
      Wouldn't every fool in human history who spouted off their nonsense in public forums like to see their words stand and not be challenged by those who came along and felt otherwise.
      Not gonna happen anytime soon.

      "I am certainly backed by many other intelligent people, including pilots, firemen, police officers, engineers "

      The numbers of said "professionals" in your ranks fall into the very, very low single digit percentiles of their professions. Well within the occurrence rates of functional but mentally ill individuals in the population.

    4. @bat$!##

      Tell your employers it isn't working. Anyone as stupid as you cannot do or say anything that they haven't been told to say or do.

      You only make a fool of yourself with your illogical punk as$ attidutude and your attempt to discredit anyone who has sense and reason.

      Keep up the good work, you're reinforcing the beliefs of the ones who see your nonsense and attempts to defend one of the most rediculous events in our lifetime, with all the BS and irrational behavior of a government agent.

      If we don't buy their story, we can only laugh at you.

    5. Yep everyone's a government agent sent by the forces of evil to silence you.
      Persecutory delusions much?

  138. After giving all of my attention to the facts I can only conclude that there was prior knowledge of a plan to high-jack and divert flights into buildings 1 and 2..and that our gov used the info to get the door open for war..once again.

    1. Why does everything have to be so planned and known beforehand to make sense?

      Is it not ALOT more plausible that bush and his neocon advisers took ADVANTAGE of 9/11 to crate a climate of fear to forward there goal of re-invading iraq? Dont forget the delay between invading afghanistan and iraq.

      There was no false flag, no need for one. Why? Simple, your scenario makes no sense because why kill the people in the wtc buildings when there is no link to iraq so nothing to gain from it. The link is to AFGHANISTAN. Like i said in my previous post that is a rocky backward drug crop of a country with little to no strategic importance to U.S military hegemony of the world. So...where is the plot? How can you call the freedom fries campaign stuff a "false flag" when your "planned 9/11" doesn't even have anything to do with saddam hussein AT ALL. The WMD scare campaign worked on the U.S. population VERY well for if you remember, bush had everyone feeding out of his hands and whipped into war/revenge frenzy.It was nuts for a couple of weeks... People REALLY thought saddam both had WMDs and was a quote "imminent threat to the U.S." an entirely rediculous claim looking back now but surprise surprise good ol propoganda did the job as it always does on the internationally ignorant americans,they ate it up. No need for crazy plots here.

  139. This particular report uniquivically convinces me, for one that it was a controlled demo. Was it done to prevent some worse case scenario? Why did the people in control of doing this do it? Was it us ( the U.S.) who is resonsible? It has to be. As hard as it is to believe..what other explanation is there?
    I am trying to understand why the press lied to us..and who told them to lie?
    How many MORE lives were taken as a result of this action? COME on America, lets ask, accuse, or point the accusing finger..I am so sick of being lied to..if we swallow this ..what will they try to feed us the next time?

  140. Having been in New York during 9/11 and having helped with the medical fallout, here is my analysis.

    Ever argued with a religious person? It's a lot like arguing with someone that denies ANY sort of conspiracy theory, they are protecting their belief system, opposition is a threat to them, and without even looking into the facts they will defend it till the end. Consider this, would it really be a surprise that 9/11 was an inside job? I mean, we got wwII, pearl harbor, vietnam, 90's trade center bombings ALL PROVEN to be based on lies. Maybe the the deniers of conspiracies are just REALLY really stupid??

    I mean, just in the town I live in, our judge just got into a bit of hot water, due to accepting large amounts of money from local prostitution rings in exchange for turning a blind eye. Now, the funny thing is, this has been the talk of our town for a while now, most people had heard the rumor over the last few years, my response? "wouldn't doubt it." Majority of the public, including many adults that I once considered "intelligent" replied most commonly with "we're sick of these 'Conspiracy' theories trying to destroy the name of a good man! He has been a judge here longer than you've been alive!" there were even NEWSPAPER articles written by, guess who? Members of his own family posing as anonymous writers, to tell the public that "Judge would never do that, this is a big huge conspiracy theory, to hurt his image, he is a good man and anyone that believes this rumor is silly and uninformed." He is now facing trial, after an extensive FBI sting, for his crimes. I'm just saying, everyone is a keyboard warrior know it all, but if you have ANY real world experience, you should KNOW that people will do ANYTHING, repeat, ANYTHING to get ahead in life, and that includes lying, in fact, most of the good liars make the best criminals, hence, why they never get caught, that and their bankroll helps too, it's easy to pull off something massive when there are rich men willing to pull strings to protect you.

    I'm not saying that 9/11 definitely was an inside job, but I'm sick of talking to people that HAVE NEVER EVEN been to NY, did not help with the cleanup, did not help at the hospitals, did not help bring food to people, QUIT ACTING LIKE YOU WERE THERE, those of us that gave 2 craps and went east to help, did so not to uncover a conspiracy, but to help people. IT IS NOT OUR FAULT that we got there and saw things that made us question this story, JUST admit it, if you, like ME, were in contact with basement victims, or ground floor burn victims, maybe you would not be so clueless.

    1. Your point about ww2 being based on a lie is weird at best. Im pretty darn lefty-anti war buuut if there was ANY beginning to a war that was clearcut and non bullshit it was hitlers blitz of europe dude. What was the lie, conspiracy of that!

      Pearl Harbour is an old one that started during ww2. Its been pretty darn DIS-proven by modern research. But lets say its kind of plausible your PROVEN statement tells me your prone to conspiracy without critical thinking. For example i challenge you to provide a link or evidence that (proves) it happened.

      Vietnam ok ya that was all fubar.

      90's trade center bombings...uh i remember that being quite real. I dont even know what conspiracy or lie you talking about here. They caught the guy... but let be guess...he was an agent or a fallguy for agents of the us to blow up the wtc..wow the REALLY hate that building. Yet again i challenge you to give me you sources on that being a PROVEN lie.

      As for your story about the judge i enjoyed it but your linking it to more general nationwide disinformation and propoganda is overly simple at best. Its one think to pay off local reporters. Its another to REMOVE a truth and supplant you own on multiple national newspapers and tv stations in this 24 7 climate.THINK about what it would take for 911. You need to PAY or BRIBE off: ALL the investigators (starting with the plane it would be NTSB the mose independent professional non briby group you could imagine)and the building investigators from both national and local. the nypd intelligence forces. Ultra Black information snooping agencys the PRESIDENT doesnt even know about. i could go on and on. how would you get them all to shup up! Its impossible. You need eveyone on the same page from the get go(like iraq)..or its frankly not possible..this isnt the 70`s anymore. sheesh.

    2. I believe what Jeremy was writing about in regards to WWII was the fact that international bankers funded both sides of the war. In fact, this has been the central focus of the military industrial complex since the Napoleonic era. Oh the glee of knowing the truth behind central banks and fractional reserve banking.

    3. I hear what you are saying and it sounds like the truth to me.

    4. Yes I agree with you about ww2 war financiers and tricky central banks but jeremy said:

      "would it really be a surprise that 9/11 was an inside job? I mean, we got wwII, pearl harbor, vietnam, 90's trade center bombings ALL PROVEN to be based on lies."

      So as far as i can tell he is saying 9/11 COULD be a lie as ww2 and vietnam WHERE lies. Overly simple perhaps?

      I would just say hitler caused ww2.... and american companies had no problem selling him **** and bankers funding him. I wonder could have it been stopped if the banks didnt deal with him? woops now im off topic.

    5. a false flag operation.

    6. Agreed!

    7. WW2 was based on lies? Really? You mean Hitler didn't take over Europe?

      The Japanese didn't bomb pearl harbor?

      Communist North Vietnam did not absorb South Vietnam?

    8. Roosevelt lied about not getting involved into the war if he got re-elected. he gets re-elected and what happens?
      America always make reasons to get involved in european struggles.

      The key to America's early involvement:
      1 When Japan, Germany and Italy signed the Tripartite Treaty (1940). This treaty required that any of the three nations had to respond by declaring war should any one of the other three be attacked by any of the Allied nations. This meant that should Japan attack the United States, and the United States responded by declaring war against Japan, it would automatically be at war with the other two nations, Germany and Italy. Roosevelt now knew that war with Japan meant war with Germany. His problem was solved. the only way he could fulfill his secret commitments to Churchill to get USA into the war, without openly dishonoring his pledges to the American people to keep USA out, was by provoking Germany or Japan to attack.

      2 By establishing a patrol of the pacific- a wall of american naval vessels stretched across the western Pacific to make it impossible for Japan to reach any of her sources of supply, a blockade of Japan to prevent by force her use of any part of the Pacific Ocean is an act of war and besides rooselvelt made it much easyer for japanese to strike pearl harbor by removing theyre navy.
      The Fleet defenses against both air and submarine attacks were far below the required standards of strength.

  141. This shouldn't be in a documentary section.
    It belongs in the Fantasy department.

    1. more like the science section. you mob deserve to think about that while your jumping from the top floor of the towers to stop the burning from thirmite. or be straped to the missile on the bottom of the remote controled plane, the 2nd one. that did not hit dead centre. it looked like the missile made it through the tower and still had propellant coming out the ass of it. havn`t heard much about it on net. a common sence observation,not fantasy.dickhead

    2. OH Yes? What about the official version, fairy tale, sci-fi & propaganda all together then.... :)

    3. The official version is quite good and thorough for its type. There is even a comic book version if you dont want to read the entire thing. Then come here and refute any of its points. You will be destroyed point by point just like everyone else.

      The sad thing is this conspiracy just makes even more americans ignore the REAL conspiracy of how bush took advantage of the climate after 9/11 to invade iraq.

      But lets forget the science for a second. If your making an excuse to invade a country by killing 1000`s of your own civillians in the most photographed city in the world, you should make sure that you can link the event to said country in any way at all. You cant with iraq. Hence the HE HAS WMD`S OH NO! propaganda that whipped up all the yanks into war mode perfectly. You surely remember that campaign (freedom fries, your with us or aginst the troops or anti-american). Soooo that leaves us afghanistan... no oil, a bunch of goats and opium and rocks, very little strategic importance to the U.S. Ya THATS worth plotting this..makes a TON of sense.

  142. What a load of bullshit. This is religion, not science....

    1. Ahhhh, ignorance is not bliss.

  143. You know what? You're right, by God! I'll have to give you a pat on the back for making me see the light. I've found some more evil "top secret" US files that must be revealed to the world!......and here we go:

    1) file # 666-1 "Operation Blueballs" obj: How the US implanted illegal ice cube trays in Antartica".

    2) file #666-2 "Operation Jerrykids" obj: strategic plans on how they manipulated Jerry Springer to donate 1000's of viles of his own seamen to sperm banks across the globe.

    3) file #666-3 "Operation Baconmelt" obj: How the US constructed ski slopes in the African deserts.

    4) file #666-4 "Operation Fullbelly" obj: How the US planted McDonalds ads in starving 3rd world countries.

    And these are only a few of the 1000's that have been recovered!

    1. you still telling folks what a wank you are. this doc pissed you off a bit hey. saw the danger room. makes sence, full of it,if you say you have done time. unless it was in the dog yard(protection) be great place to meet up with a hero like yourself. break the bordem up.keep up the prodinas,unless your the bitch.

  144. can anyone answer me ? did they investigate again about what truly happen or not ??? i mean SERIOUSLY with all these scientifics and aaaaaaaalllll these proofs and evidences HOW CAN they ignore it ??? how did the gouvernement got out with it ?

  145. oh if i am permitted i would like to know who had to gain from these events? another honest question :D , not trying to enrage anybody.

    1. why would your IGNORANCE enrage anyone??

    2. Republicans & 'conservatives'.
      There were too many real issues (poverty, unemployment, starvation, war, disease, etc.) in 2001that needed to be addressed. George W. Bush and his powerful supporters wanted unquestioned power. So, a contrived emergency was constructed. The contrived emergency was designed to be terrorism. The idea was that the American public would be so terrified of terrorism that they would come together in support of Bush(II) and the Republican Party.

    3. Bush & Co for sure, and others...

  146. wow i just read a few of the comments....so much hatred ..we got to start listening to each other and respect each others ideas even if we dont agree..i guess we are all stressed out and react violently to other opinions not realizing that by doing this we achieve the opposite of our purpose (that;s to convince the other guy)...being a little hypocrite cuz i also get carried away sometimes...oh and i am not stoned :D..

  147. i am from europe and couldnt care less if it was a terrorist attack or your own gov..but i am just curious ..in the history of modern buildings in the last 50 or so years did a fire made a building collapse onto itself? let alone 3...is this normal ? what do the experts say ? :) oh and please it's an honest question don't insult me or call me names, all the best

    1. Do some research, no high-rise building have ever collapsed because of fire. there are alot of info about this stuff and check out the plane crash in empire state building in 1945. and oh, we all know that went well :D. so understand that building 7 on 9.11, which they say collapsed because of a simple office fire, is absurd.

  148. The steel trusses were extremely thin for it's time back then. When you want to make a beam warp you don't have to heat the whole thing ...only a small spot towards the middle. That's how we put cambers in them now.

    1. Bullchit. Keep making excuses for yourself. Denial is a mental illness. The steel beams on the WTC were as thick as a man's body. Did you even watch this film?

    2. Yea the core BEAMS were..not the floor trusses.....and yes I did. Ask me something else...Micheal. And what the f*ck is.... "Bullchit"? It's just sounds nasty! Hi I'm Michael, and I was with this chick last year and caught a bad case of 'Bullchit" warts!
      ....."So there I was, right. Just checkin' out the chicks, when all my buddies just looked at each other and started...."Bullchitin'...ballitchin'...bullratin'..ah it's one of those.

    3. I heard those 'bullchit' warts can be bad. Have to use that 'bullchit' cream for weeks! Gotta watch out for 'bullchit' ;)
      I really liked your post explaining the molten metal that was seen in the towers. That's the most sensible answer I've seen to that question.

      What are your thoughts on WTC7? Could those fires have brought it down the way it came down? (I don't know. You know much more then I do about this)

  149. There are many unanswered questions to a lot of things that just don't make sense. I think a full investigation should be done with no one from the Government in the way. Maybe then at least we can get the truth no matter what that may turn out to be. The fact that information is not being released and important evidence was not even looked at and several witness testimony was not considered raises a red flag for cover up. Just to many questions with no answers.

  150. America is a nation of sheep, owned by pigs and ruled by wolves.

  151. I thought watching this would be good, however when you start quoting a liar like Obama the facts change greatly. This is as bad as hearing Obama say Al Qaeda did 9/11 when Hillary Clinton and the CIA both admit they Created the Al Qaeda. (America's Mercenary Force) Sent to Iraq, to Libya and now in Syria. Soon reports will flourish that Al Qaeda in in Iran.

  152. The evidence presented in this documentary is based on the scientific method. Based on that science, logical reasoning concludes that there's an overabundance of evidence that drastically contradicts the "official" conspiracy theory that two planes brought down three skyscrapers on 9/11.

    This documentary doesn't attempt to say who or why it was done; it doesn't need to. Instead, it address something so seemingly obvious - yet mostly overlooked and not examined - nor explained or scrutinized - by officials and/or the media. This video explains HOW it was done.

    Organizations such as the so-called 9/11 Commission, NIST, FBI, CIA, NTSB, the entire US Armed Services - to name a few - have not adequately explained how 3 buildings - defied science - and came down in NYC that day. The findings of so-called "investigations" into the events that took place on 9/11 were debunked years ago by much of the scientific community but most notably by the members of the 9/11 Commission itself.

    This video, however - using science, forensic science, chemistry, physics, eye-witness and expert testimony - as well as sound and video, explains what most likely happened that day and why a REAL investigation is needed.

  153. Now it is 2012. Yes, we are at the point where scientific facts and evidence cry out loudly for a judicial investigation. It is what it is.

  154. look under google videos " Sept 11 Conspiracy theroies explained " IT will tell youthe TRUTH !! for Gods sake lets see an end to this RUBBISH which is an insult to the ,emories of the innocent victims and there families .

    1. The insult is you.

  155. all 3 buildings fell at free fall speed, which means that there was no resistance from the floors below as the towers came down. how can that be? think about it ;) hell, tower 7 wasn't even hit by a plane yet it came down the same way as the twin towers...

    1. " how can that be? think about it ;) "

      Argument from ignorance, very interesting.

      Not scientific.

  156. TO architecturalabdabs:
    It is u that have to grow up, so to conceive the facts written !

    U seem not familiar with the broad details of what was going on, prior & after the 9/11.

    It wasn't my language! IT WAS YOUR BRAIN DISABLED TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS I WROTE ABOUT THE INCIDENT.

    U just know what your media says!

    read & try to improve your knowledge about the subject, and always seek the truth, even it may be harsh on u to accept, that the incident was done by your organized terror Government lead by the killer G. BUSH.

  157. The Israeli's did it. Check out what happened to the USS Liberty back in the mid 60's.

  158. Well, if it was a controlled demolition, Then can you answer my following question:-
    HOW COULD THAT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION (AND PLACING THE EXPLOSIVES IN THEIR POSITIONS) TOOK PLACE without any of the owners, tenants, workers (in thousands) being aware of that process in the THREE BUILDINGS?

    I JUST CAN'T BEAR THAT HAPPENING WITHOUT ANY AWARENESS OF SOME ONE!

    Then, Why were all of you COWARDS for the past 11 years + ?

    1. I think the answer usually revolves around a power interruption of a few hours the weekend before, a Bush relative had security contracts thus anyone could get away with anything, and the material used was a secret super highly concentrated form of thermite that just took a few teaspoons on each floor and didn't need remote detonators and left no evidence on the steel beams but turned to dust that drifted 10 blocks away then sat in a little baggie for a few years waiting to be tested by a truther.
      I go with the thousands of Bush fairies clinging to columns and lighted their farts simultaneously hypotheses.
      Far more sensible, it explains their ability to be right on the spot at ground zero and remove any evidence before it could be found.
      (it was an early theory of Dr. Judy Wood, later abandoned for the more outrageous dustified by DEW nonsense)
      If you squint real hard looking at photos of the wreckage at ground zero, after smoking whatever truthers do when they come up with this stuff, I hear you can see the fairies dancing and laughing in their little "W" logo outfits.

    2. the answer to your question is:
      the twin towers were in the process of being 're-insulated' because of the toxic fire insulator that was used inside the twin towers when they were built, that had now been made illegal. Because of this, not all levels in the twin towers were being occupied.
      In another documentary, staff from one of the towers had filmed footage weeks prior to 9/11 showing large amounts of dust coming from unused floors above onto there level covering all their workstations.

    3. You're making all of that up, that's absurd.
      What toxic fire insulator was that?
      There was no asbestos above the 38th floor of either tower, ever.

    4. Over a period time, like the one guy said having access to elevator shafts for maintenance crews anytime they wanted would be a simple way to do it. No one would even give them a second thought, it's not like anyone would come up with the plan and get it done in a few days. It's not that hard to visualize something like this being carried out. Or maybe you can explain where the molten metal came from, or better yet how is it #7 was the first skyscraper in the history of the world to be brought down by fire?

    5. ........."there are many unanswered questions to a lot of things that just don't make sense."......like what exactly?

      ........."the fact that information is not being released and important evidence was not even looked at".....again, what information and what evidence? If you mean holding back some things for security reasons. I'm sure they did. What? do you want the US to hand out blueprints so this can happen again?

      ........" it's not like they couldn't have planted the thermite in a couple of days." .......That would be kinda unlikely. For every 1lb of molten iron produced..2lbs of thermite would be needed. So it woulda took 60 or so tons (around 120 to 125,000 lbs of thermite for that section.) It would've been the equivalent of about 10 full dump truck loads. I don't f***in' think that would've gone unnoticed.

      ..........."explain where the molten metal came from".......aluminum!
      Flight 175 was 80% aluminum ( about 140,000 lbs of it!) Flight 175 entered the building at an angle..pushing office debris and a bunch of sh*t against the north east corner. The fuselage of the plane entered on the 81st floor. The pile of debris burned for about an hour in the north east corner of the 81st floor which heated the aluminum to about 1800*F. since the floor trusses were already beginning to sag, the aluminum from the 81st floor dropped down to the 80th floor. which is where you see the molten sh*t oozing out of tha window. Alot of people say the color of the molten lava is wrong for the aluminum..ya if you test it at only 1100* and not 1800*F. I'm even going all balls out and writing you a chart to show what color aluminum turns when exposed to heat:
      white____________________1200*c
      light yellow____________________1100*c
      yellow____________________1050*c
      light orange________>>>>______980*c
      orange___________________930*c
      light red_____________________870*c
      light cherry____________________810*c
      cherry____________________760*c
      dark cherry___________________700*c
      blood red_____________________650*c
      brown red________>>>>_________600*c

      This chart shows ya that at 600*c (1100*F) aluminum begins to glow 'brown red'. Now at 980*c (1800*F)the aluminum , which is what you see coming from the towers, is a glowing 'light orange'. Hope that at least helped with one or two of your questions.

    6. They directed a movie and claimed they landed on the moon and many workers in NASA were unaware of that; you are asking how could the controlled demolition take place without awarness of workers and owners?????

    7. @mojyyy a,

      9/11 conspiracy is one thing, but believing in a moon landing hoax requires extraordinary receptiveness to conspiracy stories.

      If you believe that they've just made a movie, then you'll also have to believe that they faked all third party evidence. They're called third party because they do not originate from NASA or USA, nor from Apollo Moon landing hoax theorists just like yourself. Here they are:

      1. Existence and age of Moon rocks;
      2. Retroreflectors;
      3. Photographs taken by Post-Apollo lunar missions, Ultraviolet photographs, SELENE photographs and Chandrayaan-1 photographs;
      4. Apollo missions (8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17) tracked by independent parties (Soviets for example were fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment. Also the missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.)

      To believe that ALL the above is faked, you need to dive in to the full scale world wide conspiracy theory.

      If the conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements, it is likely to be untrue.

    8. I found out there is separate thread and documentary about moon landing in this site, so since we were going off topic here I removed my comments ...I know moon landing's conspiracy is not comparable to 9/11. Thank you.

    9. "If the conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements, it is likely to be untrue."

      But you see, in the mind of most CT's, the number of people and entities involved in the conspiracy and cover up is inconsequential and fully believable. Almost every one else in the world can be bought for a song, or has no backbone and walks in fear of the evil conspirators so they don't stand up and speak out. Unlike the conspiracy theorist and those who share their beliefs, who are of the highest moral caliber.
      Not coincidentally these beliefs about superior morals (while those of others are assumed to be corrupted) are typical of those suffering from persecutory delusions.

    10. Do you mean there are still doubters that man has walked on the Moon? How quaint!

  159. BATVETTE----All differences aside--You might want to get rid of your underling PROUDTOBEAMORON.Clown contributes NOTHING but rants and raves and only re-states what YOU write.He/she is a hinderence to your belief(s) I'll say this in your behalf--atleast you write down what YOU believe while the kid with the IQ of a donut hole just babbles and looks to start senseless BS. He/she is such an easy "target" to aggravate it's funny.So I'll have mercy on that moron--either the KID has PMS or has mistaken this site for Craigslists Rants and Raves section. I won't be visiting this site to comment or reply---I've seen and heard enough with these docs.And NO I'm not a "leftie" or a "righty". Like I told the poor imbecile "proud," just because I'm a VN vet doesn't mean I should or have to agree with all gov stories.I fought for this country along with many other guys who didn't make it back(Nam) none of us questioned we JUST WENT and did what we had to.I suppose by all our(vets) sacrifices from WW1 through today,we helped preserve the rights of US citizens freedom of speech--hence,sites like these exist.For how long?I am dubious the way things are going.Lastly,I sent a reply about Executive Order 11110 and NSM #263 which JFK signed(withdrawal of all US troops from Viet Nam by 1965) He signed them Oct.11th 1963. Peace.

    1. By the way your service in the military has an attached respect to it. It's like a facebook or personal history onr can manipulate for show and 15 others on a flipped over web page?????...some thin' like that..ha haha.

      And just to amuse you, I haven't copied anyones posts. Those are all from my ignorant a$$. The only problem I have is that I can't quite put it into words as well as Batvette. His grammer is well written and focusses on one detail at a time. Were as I get excited and talk about one thing while at the same time become enraged as hell about someone elses comment and sometimes mix them together and coming out the opposite of what I was trying to originally say in the first place. I know what I'm sayin' doesn't make sense to ya, but I know my disabilities.

  160. We never got a independent investigation on the Kennedy assassination, nor Martin L King's, Watergate was halted as soon as Nixon stepped down and Ford took over though he was never elected by the people but selected by Nixon he pardoned him and ended the investigation. Iran Contra affair was investigated but it was hindered by the White House with holding evidence, if we had done that we would have be charged with obstruction of justice. Still Bush Sr. pardoned all those who were involved with his December surprise. The first bombings of World Trade Centers had FBI involvement, believed they had their informant to build the bomb! Then there was Ruby Ridge which the government had to settle out of court to the Weaver family. Waco was another crime scene that was bulldozed over in three days. Still haven't seen the weapons they were suppose to have stocked piled. Let us not forget Oklahoma city bombings, which they again did not investigate properly either mostly cause the ATF was housing explosives in a public building. Need I not remind those who fail to realize that the Vietnam war was another war started on a lie. Our economy is in a shambles and soon we will be facing hyper inflation. Dwight D Eisenhower warned the American public of the Military Industrial Complex. Our government has not earned the right to be trust worthy. They do not act in the best interest of the citizens, they fail miserably at upholding their oaths of office to uphold, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The 2000 and 2004 elections were awful with all the underhanded tricks that occurred. What I do know is the hard laws of science have remained true throughout history for more than a 100 yrs. Gravity has not changed. The hard laws of physics has not changed. This film talks about those laws. Based upon those laws the murders that took place could not have happened as told to the American public. Nano termite does not occur in nature naturally. Jet fuel burns at a temp to low to melt steel. Molten steel was found in the rubble so how did that happen. Anthrax scare went off the radar and out of the media as soon as it was discovered to be military grade. Do you really think congress wrote thousands of pages of law known as patriot act I and II in six weeks, those laws where wrote well before 911. We do not have the government that we are suppose to have according to the Constitution. What we have is the best damn democracy money can buy and the working man don't have enough money to buy it, only big insurance, oil, and weapon manufactures have that kind of money. They pour money into our elected officials runs for office and they expect a good return on their money.
    In a true republic form of government descent is welcome the citizens are not pushed aside and told they are unpatriotic. Government officials don't hide their crimes behind the veil of national security. We are involved in two wars and have been for a decade based upon what. Where is the government's evidence that Bin Laden did this for I have not seen it and don't believe anyone else has either. As a matter of fact the FBI did not even mention 911 on his wanted poster stating they had no evidence to tie him too 911. Let us not forget that he was recruited by the CIA, trained by the CIA and funded by the CIA all under Bush Sr. We owe the victims of 911 a real investigation to get to the truth otherwise their deaths were for what????

  161. You Americans should put George Bush on trial for this crime. You owe it to the people who died.

  162. styrofoam support columns.most plausable answer.these builders are always cutting corners. it couldnt be the government involved or mossad because they said it wasnt them and they always tell the truth.a president got great kudos from admitting he felled a tree.imagine if one admitted he felled three buildings, it might be a paradoxic election winner.pax

  163. does anyone have seismograph data from these events.looking at some of the evidence it looks like thermite or more probably thermate oblique cuts on main members followed by a couple of small dets.

  164. It makes me so angry thinking tabout 9/11. i wish i didnt even watch this ,if it was true that it was an inside job can you begin to relalise the spider web of evil organisations that orchaestrated something like this, how tightly knit it must be and how unbelievably evil it is?

    It isn't something i would like to manifest within me knowing people like this exist in the world we live in, i find it hard to wonder how you can do such a thing.

    another thing If it was actually an inside job can you begin to imagine the state of the world when it was officailly revealed?

    How would it be revealed? Where would these tyrants be? Imagine the panic throughout the world it would be deeply unsettling for a longtime, however i think then we can start to see the rest of the truths.

    Anyhow i wish all the people involved in the truth movement the best of luck!

    RIP to all those that lost their lives that day

    peace

    1. i know how ya feel.watch the fog of war with robert mcnamara if you can get it whole. the mind set he admitted to,clearly demonstrates his regrets and how this corruption has got 100 times worst than his day. in his words, WE LUCKED OUT,it was luck that the idiots,him icluded didn`t start nuclear war.

  165. The evidence is overwhelming it was an inside-job. Only low-IQ Americans still believe the government fables.

    1. Excuse me, what's the evidence again?......just wondering.

    2. Let me guess, you must be a republican, right?.... The evidence is overwhelming! No plane debris at the pentagon, the hole left by the impact of the supposed 747 was not big enough to be made by an aircraft of that size, and we never saw any closeup footage of that site nor of the plane actually hitting the building. Think about it, its the PENTAGON, which is located in our capital and there are cameras every where, but somehow there's not footage of a plane striking the building!?! Also, in the case of flight 93, there was no evidence of plane debris to be found and our governments excuse was that the plane was vaporized on impact. Anyways, those are just a few examples of evidence and i'm not even going to waste my time talking about the controlled demolitions at the Trade Centers. I'm not trying to make you look stupid because has the right to their own opinions and that should be respected. All I ask of you is for you to watch Loose Change/911 and 911 In Plane Sight. Maybe this will give you the evidence that you need and possibly change your outlook about this tragic event.

    3. Of the 4 planes hijacked on 911 , flight 93 and flight 77 are the two that had almost all the wreakage recovered and all of the passengers identified. There is video of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon but you don't need video evidence when there are scores of first-hand eyewitnesses who watched it hitting the building.

    4. First of all Mathew what's your evidence again? Flight 93 had debris scattered all over the place for quite some distance. The makers of that Loose change sh*t did it for $ at the expense of the 9/11 victums.

      Like I asked before, what evidence? You show no examples of nothing except your follow -the leader CT mentality. If you want to talk about how easy steel can warp at only 600*f then come talk to me. Other then that you really havie nothing of importance.

    5. Haha ha haha..Hi Mathew. First of all Matt, I seriously doubt you can make me look stupid in anyting pertaining to 9/11. Now that being said let me hurry up and correct your post.

      1.) The hole left in the pentagon was 30m wide(not 5). A wing span of a 747 (from wing tip to wing tip) is 40m wide. the reason why the hole is a little small is because when the plane hit both wings were wacked off on a generator and a external vent. THERE are photos of a fraction of the planes boost out there. Plus 200 witnesses saw the dam thing!

      2.) There was plenty of wreckage of Fl 93 found. So I don't really know where you came up with that.

      3.) Controlled demolition? Do you have any clue what your saying? Like I said before, I have been a structual welder for a long time and if you want I can go into detail how they collapsed from my own perspective. For them to have rigged the towers with explosives it would have taken at least 60 or 70 dudes 2months to pack in 1000slbs of explos...tuck them around each bearing column and rip out at least 1/4 of the walls to get to them...not likely. On a side note: I have heard from old welders that it was standard procedure to plant explosives during construction for buildings that were 40 floors and bigger. But I can't confirm this.

    6. One thing about the explosives thing is they keep claiming there is no evidence they can show because ALL the steel was carted off to China. That's absurd on every level.

      Wouldn't there be plenty of people in China willing to test these materials and help prove we did this to ourselves just to wage war on Iraq, an event which denied them lucrative contracts to drill Iraq's oil?

      Please explain that!

      If explosives were used what detonated them? These "squibs" which are insisted to be explosions, wouldn't they have propelled blasting caps and remote detonators outward to be found all over Manhatten?

      George W. Bush's cleanup fairies could not have contained the people walking all around that day and weeks later from picking up the forensic evidence that would have been spread all over, yet not a single explosive related device was ever found.

      Please explain that!

    7. Hmmm, this is interesting, I didn't hear the stuff being shipped off to China, but I do know that Chinese have got quite a few oil contracts in Iraq. Thank you @ batvette.

    8. Bush sr raged war in Iraq because Hussein was stealing the weapons we were giving the Islam regimes to. We were storing it in Saudi for the start of the Taliban which formed in 94' to kick a$$ on the Russians..... Oil????? If we wanted oil we would be in Venezuala!

      Its been told to me that Explosives were a standard practice during CONSTRUCTION of buildings 40 stories and higher. Its not something people wouldn't admit to obviously. It's just something I heard.
      I build structual trusses and weld on them for a living and can put a camber in one with a dinky rose bud on my torch in know time. Steel with the thickness I weld with warps at around 600*f. ALL steel turn to rubber at half its melting point under pressure.
      The core trusses had to of folded in, bringing the weaker outer beams with it. I believe there was one floor that had cross braces going diagnally but I have to go back and look at the towers blueprint.

      As for that thermite sh*t doesn't tha stuff only cut sideways? Kind of like a plasma cutter?

    9. The comment about oil was concerning Saddam about to get out of sanctions and allow the French, Chinese and Russians unfettered drilling rights to Iraq's oil.
      Saddam was trying to use oil as a weapon against us, to devalue the dollar and destabilize our economy, he couldn't put all that oil on the market himself fast enough but with the combined petroleum industry assets of those three countries and the petroleum-to-goods-and-cash pipeline he'd established to Paris under oil for food, there was a real danger a dollar crash was being engineered by him.
      Google "Saddam use oil as a weapon".
      Why do you think Chirac acted so pissed in the run up to the war? France and all Europe stood to gain a windfall- note the British are not in the EU and they were our only strong allies.
      If there is an untold reason, that's it. Google "petrodollars".
      With a dollar crash would also come the overthrow of the Royal Saudi family, as their whole economy is heavily dollar vested. The public discontent would be enormous. This was one of the ultimate goals of both Saddam and Bin Laden. Saddam regains his honor, can walk into Saudi Arabia if he likes OR let Bin Laden have it, who cares. The US influence in the region is reduced to almost nil, Saddam holds the world hostage over Persian Gulf oil exports....
      We could not allow that to happen, so yes, this was IMO about oil, WMD would not be unrelated.
      After 9/11 Saddam goes on TV to boost his terrorist rewards for Palestinians. He was asking to be attacked.
      We used Iraq as a trap for all the Al Qaeda rats that fled Afghanistan. Invited them to the cheese of the prize of having their own country if they defeated us. Since a terrorist is almost unidentifiable until he straps on a bomb, you can only control where that happens and I believe that's what we were doing in allowing the insurgency to go on. Better there than here.
      Pick your reason. The invasion of Iraq had so many good ones, it's puzzling why Americans are so stupid they think they were lied to. All the above can be found if you look, you won't see it on CNN. You might have had hints dropped on Meet the Press. (TIm Russert, RIP- you were the best!)

    10. I agree with everything your saying only it would've made more sense to invade Iran as well. All the muslim/islamic nations are tied and they can't say their not. The ISI breeds regimes like the Haggi network in every country over there( mainly Pak) Iran breeds more terror groups then all of them. They have since before the 70s.

    11. Iran has more terrorists within but there really was nothing to gain with invading them. (in fact the Al Qaeda members that fled Afghanistan when we went in were in Iran for awhile) The Saddam problem was its own issue.
      He took that Arab Male Honor thing to an extreme and would try and get under our skin until the day he died.

    12. RE: the Pentagon:

      There is a hilarious clip on youtube (several parts long) that uses dozens of eyewitness accounts verifying they saw a plane, photographs of poles it knocked down, etc, and computer aided analysis to argue a shift in the trajectory of that plane to the other side of a gas station and a few degrees in a different heading...
      to then try and claim a plane never hit the Pentagon. I was truly baffled by that one.

    13. pooprodinUS did not like your comment. why does the fool even read the comments let alone watch the doc(i dought he does) it is just the idea he finds hard to live with. a new comer to reality.

    14. You say "only low I.Q. Americans believe the government fables." I don't know what country you're in but I assure you there's people there by you who still believe the "Official investigation." Don't pidgeon hole people in one country.There's morons in every country--that's why governments continue to try and pull the wool over citizens eyes. The shit that was pulled in America on 9/11 is yet another sickening deed--fortified with lie's,BS and blatant cover ups.I can tell you this: Many,many Americans are fed up with the state of things in general--economy,inflation,wars and ridiculously inept,loser politicians who've infested Washington FOR YEARS.The "System" is shot--PERIOD. I see where people from other countries constantly take shots at Americans in general--WRONG! Ridicule the Washington machine and all it's big business interests--NOT the average citizen.Make sense? By the way,the United Nations is nothing but a sham--take a look at your government in whatever country you live in--are they not part of the grand scheme of deceit? Take care.

  166. Read another of BATVETTES comments WAY DOWN the page here about JFK being a very dangerous man in the White House in 1963. Really? Dangerous to who?? Seems to me and probably others who read that statement BATVETTE is a real Capital Hill boy all the way down to his bloomers.Reads like he's condoning JFK'S demise--SO...who's "side" is he on?? I'd say in all likelyhood BATVETTE is a hired disinformation artist trying to spread more BS for the sake of...????? lol

    1. A personal attack on me is not evidence supporting your conspiracy theory, positing another reader here is a "hired disinformation artist" merely for having opposing views IS evidence of my own theory 9/11 CT's are usually suffering from persecutory delusions combined with a general feeling of powerlessness over the world around them. As if omnipotent, unknown villains from Washington DC wait for you to comment on the internet and try to silence the message only you, Joe the trutherboy, have been ordained to deliver to the world!
      As for my comments about JFK, well I don't fall for the dopey belief that if only JFK had lived the world would be such a great place. Those that do seem to have distorted the history behind several key events to make him look like the hero when the events only arose because of his reckless pursuit of vanity and lecherous personal behavior.
      He purposely tanked Bay of Pigs out of fear of the political backlash from within his own party, yet didn't have the backbone to call it off entirely and look weak to top leaders in his cabinet and the chiefs of staff. He started the missile crisis that only his brother got him out of before he started WW3. Sorry the facts make your hero out to be a zero.

    2. JFK?? You know EVERYTHING ABOUT JFK---what is it you DON'T know??lol So we can assume you rooted for his demise?? Uh-huh. You're THE man/girl ! At first I thought you were delusional but now in all honesty,it's safe to say YOU REALLY ARE DELUSIONAL.SEEK HELP ASAP lol

    3. LOL, If I don't drink the "JFK was the second coming of Christ" koolaid I'm a hired disinformation artist? Get outta here! Despite the efforts by his supporters to alter historical accounts, most people recognize his lecherous behavior and reckless leadership for what it was. His brother Bobby was the real deal, the other two, not so.
      Our involvement in Vietnam only escalated in his administration and there are no indications had he lived the war would not have proceeded.
      He started a countdown to WW3 over Kruschev putting missiles in Cuba, even though we had huge strategic advantage with the sub launched Poseidon missile system and we had already put Jupiter missiles in Turkey, which is the same distance to Moscow as Cuba was to Washington DC.
      It was stupid and dangerous and only done because he felt he needed to prove he was tough after failures at Bay of Pigs and Berlin. Bobby and Nikita worked out a compromise which made it look like only Nikita backed down that allowed John to save his vanity, which secretly removed the Jupiter missiles from turkey 6 months later.
      Those are the historical facts, spin at will.
      Oh and it's estimated he hit it with about 50 women(wild estimate, could even be twice that) besides Jackie in the three years he was in the White House, I know that's good for extra points from you lefties. I'm no fundie but I will point out that leads to a terrible situation of leadership in the workplace when the boss behaves like a little boy in a candy store.

  167. should be in the science catogory

  168. most discussed documentaries. this doc is not treated fairly(in the order it should be) have a look.anything that debunks U.S religion is going to have a lot of comments and upset a lot of nuts. didnt watch this one but richard Gage and barry zwicker should have recived the noble peace prize for their work and guts. obama is a bigger false cheat than tiger woods.

  169. When I watch any documentaries dealing with 911, I can`t believe that there is such incontrovertible evidence of controlled demolition. It is astounding that the world just keeps revolving around this subject, the world unable to see its true cogitations. We all "know" the official story, but what about the true story; the truthful explanation of the sequence of events that unfolded before all our eyes on Sept 11. As I thought about what that would mean for the average American?. To do this I had to put myself in their shoes (personification) and being that I'm from Niagara Falls Canada it wasn't that hard to imagine lol, all I had to do was change the health system and bango! there I was sitting in America. As an American I would feel completely abandoned and somehow, even though nothing really changed in my little corner of the world; something significant happened to me as an individual. Post 911 I was a functioning member of society, now I am an expendable commodity. I say commodity for the simple reason that it was money that fueled this disgrace. There is no doubt in my mind, you just have to follow the money and I think we have successfully done this.
    Post 911 I had morals and values, I saw my government as we should, it was erected for the people and by the people, but now I look to see only Tierney and the unjust forces that command. I have to remember that these were professional people that were slaughtered in the name of evil, these weren't criminals, or people set lower among societies standards, they were people with families at work one day and then gone the next. Somehow all their lives didn't matter, didn't count for anything in "someones" eyes (I'm using quotations but we all know who committed this offense) and what does that mean for me?; Is my life counted as valuable, or am I expendable like those poor people of 911?. I feel lost, scared and my entire belief system is ruined, paranoia runs my existence for the reason that if it can happen to them it can happen to me.. So what am I left with? NOTHING. The system as a whole has been distorted and fed upon by savages, it was merely a veil that the powers that be installed, there was no government for the people and by the people, it was all and act and therefore since nothing changed, my life didn't have to change.

    And that is my personification of the American. It has to be correct and precise because nothing significant is being done about this travesty of justice. The world just keeps on revolving like nothing ever happened, but I highly doubt that the families of the 911 victims or the people of Afghanistan and Iraq feel the same do you?
    No one's life changed!!
    I'm telling you as a personified American I am so pleased to have the right to bear arms because I now see ,that it is I, that will protect my family and not the government, we are expendable in their eyes and I will not stand for that!

    Thank God I'm Canadian and that the Anti Terrorism bill doesn't affect me. People have been taken and never heard from again for less than what I imply here, which requires full scale anarchy and an eventual upheaval of the government as it stands today, it's proven itself due for and overhaul. but that's just a personified American's views lol.
    %1

    1. The "world" knows it was a controlled demolition. It's the Americans who were brain washed in the days following the false flag attack that can't see it.

  170. Professor Mark?? You're a scientist at some university? Are you visually impaired or just jaded to commen sense? All one has to do is look at BUILDING 7's collapse--THE WAY IT CAME DOWN. Seismic vibrations caused it's destruction?? I'm laughing so hard Prof!! If that was the case why didn't some of the OTHER buildings around the WTC crumble?? Bldg 7 was imploded--NOT by fire(lol) NOT by planes but by carefully placed explosives.ALL ABOUT MONEY PROF--pure and simple.BY the way--ever been in an earthquake? I was and I can tell you this: Buildings DO NOT DROP DOWN NICE AND EVEN IN THEIR OWN "FOOTPRINT." You sure you're a Prof??? I'm still laughing--only harder.

    1. Explosives that left not an iota of forensic evidence. Got it.

    2. Easy there champ---believe what you want! Personally I don't give a **** what you or ANYONE else thinks--GOT IT? I came to MY OWN conclusion. All the EYEWITNESSES saw and heard--that includes cops and Firemen--are you calling them liar's?? This is the same **** that was pulled when JFK was killed--THE WITNESSES ARE WRONG! Hell,Jackie Kennedy even stated "what was in the Warren Commission report wasn't what I said." So who's BS'n who? Get a grip Bat.Just cause people are government officials doesn't mean they're angels.There's criminal bastards in gov just like anyother business.Doesn't mean they're ALL rats.Ask yourself this: Who stands to gain from a war or "conflict?" the average citizen or BIG BUSINESS INTERESTS?? By the way do you know that the scrap iron and steel was SHIPPED TO CHINA? Do you know what THERMITE is and how it works? Do some investigating before you slam doors.Take a REAL close look at Building 7 coming down(no planes,no raging fire) and tell yourself an "earthquake" brought it down.Silverstein collected SEVEN BILLION BUCKS on those buildings coming down. By the way,the city of New York told him BEFORE 9/11 they needed 1.5 billion in renovation because of the asbestos insulation.He leased those buildings 6 months before 9/11 and TWO WEEKS BEFORE the attack he had them insured for terrorist attacks.Go figure huh?

    3. No raging fire in bldg 7? Nonsense, a number of clips on youtube show just that.
      The scrap iron and steel shipped to China? Not all of it, there is plenty left at Fresh Kills landfill if you'd like to finally show the evidence of any explosives or other outside influences. The NIST kept plenty too.
      As for insuring them from terrorist attacks, gee, after 1993, why would he do that?
      The FACT remains there is not a whiff of actual evidence to support any of these insane conspiracy theories, they are driven by ideology first and anecdotal points are assembled to reinforce your beliefs.
      When you finally concede the faulty logic behind this and are in therapy you'll have a good laugh over it all.

    4. Logic?? I'm laughing already--AT YOU AND YOUR RAGING FIRE BS lol Not a wiff of evidence?? lol Go keep your BATBOY head in the sand. LIke I said batty--I don't care what you believe--tell it to the cops and fireman--see how long they listen to your ridiculous BS.By the way,who said the WTC cite was safe and NO chance of illness?? Answer that one.lol Make sure you tell the surviving first reponders and families of the ones who died it was all safe for them to breathe that f-----g air.Yea tell them it was just their imagination that caused it. Seems to me the only one needing therapy is some batboy/girl.

    5. " Do you know what THERMITE is and how it works? "
      Yep, it's not an explosive and would take several minutes to burn through a column like in the WTC, and that is not what we witnessed that day. What we witnessed is thoroughly supported in expert analysis in the NIST report, which offers detailed images taken that day showing how the collapse initiated in the floors affected by the impact. You can see the columns bowing only at those floors, as they became weakened by the fire. All the photographic and video evidence completely contradict any theory of controlled demolition using thermite.

    6. Also....f*ck it. these pr*cks are just going to bash the US and turn it around to where my posts are the ignorant ones. Their right ,my nation killed its own and we all laughed that day. As a matter of fact we should make a f--king holiday of it. Nothing funnier then seeing our own jumping out the tower windows. They made nice splatter stains that covered up the pigeon sh*t very nicely.. ..cool

  171. one thing, out off line:
    why where those hijakked planes not shot down by us airforce, seemed they had plenty of time?

  172. I am so ashamed that I ever believed 9/11 could be a hoax, it just goes to prove that everyone needs to hear both sides of the story before making or speaking out about an opinion. I watched various conspiracy documentaries about 9/11 and thought they made perfect sense, the arguments they brought up seemed valid and I though I had a right to some answers. Then I watched the 3 hours 'screw loose change' documentary, and I realized how terribly mistaken I was for thinking those answers had long ago been offered to the public and they were sitting right in front of my face. The problem is that I made the incredibly wrong assumption that the people who made loose change and other videos actually wanted the truth and not to hold on to some irrational beliefs. I assumed that if there was a reasonable explanation to the objections presented, the writers of such documentaries would feel happy that their call for the truth led to the release of such information and they could sleep well at night knowing they made a difference in the world.

    I learned the hard way. Not until I actively went looking for answers outside conspiracy sites, on neutral 3rd party sites and websites aimed directly at explaining what happened, did I finally get the truth that the conspiracy sites claim we never got. How ignorant do the majority of 9/11 deniers have to be that they can't go out of their way to read some REAL peer reviewed papers and see that every objection has a rational explanation?! .. don't answer that. The purpose of real peer review is for people who don't necessarily share your views on a topic read your argument and then, from a neutral standpoint, determine whether the research and logic behind it is structurally sound. In order for this to be the cover up deniers claim it is, there would need to be a conspiracy that injects idiocy into 90% of scientists, engineers, and people who are generally regarded as smart in order to make them blind to the truth. No, it seems like the 10% of people who may have at one point been smart have become confused and unable to accept the truth of the matter: this conspiracy has become way too big for it to be even remotely plausible.

    What pisses me off the most, the reason I am taking the time to type this instead of rolling my eyes and moving on, is the incredible hatred I feel towards those 'deniers' after re-examining Loose Change.. or watching the new version of it, really. You disrespectful, ignorant sheep have absolutely no respect for the families of those people who died in the planes on September 11th. What pisses me off even more is that those people, regardless of if this was a conspiracy or not, could have died regardless, but deniers still have the audacity to drag the families of those that were lost into this and claim that they are living in a beach off Tahiti enjoying the profits of however much they were paid off. Do you ever stop and think that regardless of if this was a conspiracy or not, those people were still victims? Because you have a hunch..those were REAL people, put yourself in the shoes of those people who lost their husbands, wives, and children. Those terrorists could have been paid off by our government, for all you know, WHY would you drag those poor souls people who died into this circus you call a conspiracy?

    This documentary, by the way, is a sham. Any person can get a degree offline, anyone can say they are smart, but it takes a lot more to prove it -- like REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. All of the 'critical questions' of this video has been addressed, yet the responses to these questions have received no attention or rebuttal from these 1,500 "professionals".. Do you realize how small of a margin 1,500 people represents? And out of those, 1/4 at best hold any positions of respect in their fields.. directly in proportion to the rate of paranoid schizophrenics in a given population.

    Unless you examine both sides of an argument, you don't get to call yourself smart. Unless you are able to change your opinions based on new information presented, you are ignorant. If you think you are doing the world a favor by ignoring evidence and disrespecting the brave people who lost their lives that day, go crawl back up the birth canal you came out of because we have enough ignorance in this world.

    1. As a footnote to my rather heated statement, I do want to say that it could be possible we do not know the whole truth about what happened that day, and even I still have my doubts about certain smaller issues, but I am not an engineer or architect..I have no evidence to put forward except what I have read from people who hold REAL positions of respect in their fields. So far, all the credible sources have been been the ones that examine 9/11 objections closely and address them successfully. I am open to changing my mind about some issues if new information is presented.

      I am not, and will never be, open to discussion about the people on those planes still being alive. Ever. And anyone who believe the opposite..well.. read my comment below.

    2. I agree that there is two sides to every story. You have a relevant argument if in fact your summations were correct but they aren't. You must be an American, am I correct?? I can't stress enough that I empathize with you. It is much easier on your mind if you just dismiss it and go on with your life. I understand, I do, more than you know. I was sexually assaulted by a special constable in ----------- Ontario Canada and sub sequentially sued the region, police board that hired him and the city that the station resided in. I won said lawsuit but before I knew it I was literally being hunted and harassed night and day, it was almost like my van had a bull's eye on it, for whenever I went out, I was being pulled over for no reason, charged for no reason (even though all charges resulted in acquittal every time) and at a later date my life was threatened (lawsuit #2). I had a crash course in governmental rule, regional and federal. I know what it is to feel left outside in the proverbial cold with no help with a realization that the one's that are "supposed" to protect me are now against me.
      That is what you must feel; lost and expendable, that your life doesn't count.. I GET IT! but it doesn't give you the right to seep into a state of denial. You see I didn't have the opportunity to deny, deny, deny at all costs like most of American's must be doing, I "had" to see the truth of what was in front of me as ugly as it was, I was slapped in the face with it. Please do "more" of your homework and follow like you stated: from a third party point of view and I guarantee that you will land at the very same conclusion every time. it's only common sense.
      An interesting comment may be needed here, to understand what may be most of the population. It is as follows: Common sense is a God given gift and when operating outside or separate from God it makes perfect sense that it is not something a lot of people have...

    3. Very well put. I don't know what to say about people who keep asking the same pointless questions and asserting they amount to evidence, when the questions were long ago given satisfactory answers. Right now we have another user claiming all the jet fuel burned up on impact.
      Utterly absurd and countered by reams of evidence. Why would people pursue asserting lies like that as factual to try and convince people the gov't is lying?
      Delusions.

  173. I am a scientist at a research University, and one thing that I don't see in the explanations of the structural engineers is the presentation of possible scenarios for which they cannot account. Regarding building 7, they do not acknowledge one obvious possible cause affecting the collapse of this building and that is the structural integrity of the ground beneath the structure. The collapse of buildings 2 and 1 released seismic forces in the area and how those forces were absorbed, focused, amplified or affected other underground structures surrounding WTC 1 and 2 is not really explored. This could explain why WTC 7 failed from the central supports inward, in an apparently controlled implosion.

    Similarly, the older electrical engineer gave insight into the possible implosion of WTC 1 and 2 when he states that the radio towers began to collapse downward prior the catastrophic failure of the building. When the planes hit the building, much of their fuel actually went down the central elevator shafts. We know this because of the burn victims that were engulfed in flames in the lobbies of the buildings. Could the fuel that dumped into these shafts, fed by oxygen sucked up through the underground complex and subway tunnels, reached temperatures capable of causing central support failure? I don't know, but as a researcher, I am constantly reminded of that which I do not know. I find it somewhat bothersome that the engineers shown never acknowledge that there could be factors which they have not considered.

    There are many examples where structural engineers have learned from catastrophic failures of large buildings and bridges. I am equally willing to examine data suggesting government conspiracy as a possible cause. Although, given the Bush administration's subsequent performance (and incompetency on many fronts), and the lack of any corroborating evidence or suggestions in the volume of data released by Wikileaks, it seems implausible that the US government could have orchestrated 9/11 and covered their tracks so completely. I guess time will tell. I just wish I heard a little less certainty among all of the engineers and a little more acknowledgement of what is not known about this horrible day.

    1. I can tell you are not an Engineer or Scientist. New York has bedrock underneath. Soil samples are taken before any skyscraper is designed.

    2. What fuel? are you talking about the fuel that was burnt up on impact?? another disinformation scenario I surmise..

    3. The fuel from the fully-fueled jets that hit WT1 and WT2. The fuel that went down the elevator shafts burning people in the lobbys of both buildings, including a friend of mine, who worked there. Not all of the thousands of gallons burned upon impact, despite the "expert" testimony.

  174. Conspiracy theory often has the misfortune to travel a road of ever expanding fantastical explanations, all the time becoming more and more elaborate, this serves only to distract from the real issue, and give the very notion of conspiracy a bad name. Clearly there is conspiracy in government departments, countless factual documents from decades past, show it is a very real concept to assasinate and replace leaders of countries, and to initiate war with countries based on some perceived non-existent threat, the Iraq war being a recent prime example.

    It is a stretch of the imagination however, to believe 9/11 was a staged incident to initiate war with middle east countries.

    I do not believe planes did not hit these buildings, clearly, they did, i do not believe those on the planes are alive and well, clearly they are not.

    There is however, something wrong about 9/11, one can find as much information to suggest wrong as can be found to support the official account, without delving into the realms of fantasy. Veteran airline pilots with huge experience on flying the planes which hit these buildings, cannot perform the same manouevres in flight simulators, they conclude, these terrorists, with no experience on such planes, could not have performed this, they also conclude the jumbo jets were not capable of massively exceeding there design specs, without becoming totally uncontrollable, and even breaking apart in mid air. It is rare indeed for such experienced pilots to speak out like this. An example of a plane which exceeded its design specs is the China airways flight 006, which was badly damaged and very fortunate to have survived, i believe this plane fell at about 350 mph through thin air, yet the official 9/11 report concludes the planes which hit buildings were travelling far faster than this in dense air, which is clearly impossible.

    On 9/11, i was like the rest of the world, stunned and speechless as i watched events live on tv. I think what fanatical conspiracy theorists fail to realise is that if this was a deliberate act to instigate a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the act of crashing these planes into these buildings was probably enough to justify such a war, but the reality it seems was not, the coalition of the willing, was almost laughable, it was clearly only an Anglo-American force. The question is, pre 9/11, how could it have been known what amount of damage and loss of life was worthy of a declaration of war ? Little was required by Bush senior, to invade Iraq in the gulf war, and it would have to be assumed, this was something of a yard stick, to gauge public oppinion and support, a dummy run if you will.

    The so called 'smoking gun' of 9/11, has been WTC 7. There is no doubt whatsoever, it looks like a classic demolition, but is it ? I think the jury's still out, as indeed they are still out regarding JFk and his brother. It 'appears' unlikely fire and fire alone, as the report suggests, brought down this massive structure, yet the report concludes the building was sound, was not badly damaged by the fall of the towers, and had fires on only certain floors. It is interesting to note a comment made by the owner Larry Silverstein many years earlier, upon him leasing many floors to new tenants, in which he said, 'floors can be removed to accomodate new tenants, without affecting the structural integrity of the building, it was designed this way'. This remarkable comment by him many years earlier, suggests entire floors can be removed, without affecting the integrity of the building, and indeed entire floors were removed to accomodate his new tenants, and the building did not collapse.

    To believe the NIST report is a giant leap of faith in anyone's book, seasoned architects have come forward to express 'real' doubt, as to how such a building could collapse so catastrophically as a result of isolated fires, and i have to agree. I have on and off over the years, looked at all the available information on both sides, with an unbiased approach, what i have found of interest to me, is how desperately my mind 'wants' to believe the official story, and yet, the body of evidence on the other side is quite overwhelming, once of course, you filter out that which is quite simply ludicrous.

    I have merely tried to put forward an explanation of how WTC 7 could collapse so dramatically, i am not such a believer of 'exotic thermite' or explosives, however, it is odd to say the least, how there was such high temperatures as recorded even by NASA's flyover of the site in the weeks post 9/11, and of course the iron spheres in the dust. It simply seems to me, that the steel structure of this building must have been compromised, even giving the NIST report the benefit of the doubt, its conclusions only warrant a partial collapse of the building. There has been much talk of freefall, and it is remarkable how fast and complete the destruction of these buildings were, especially when one looks at the surrounding buildings, which all had fires, were hit with much more debris from the towers collapse, and showed results which were typical and expected, ie: partial collapse and fire damage.

    It would be good to be able to believe NISTS report, but it makes no logical sense. Questions have been asked by learned people of high status in there chosen fields, and professionals in other industry, this is quite unprecedented in conspiracy theory, never before have such people spoken out, and the reason is simple, it does not make sense, and when something cannot be understood, science quite rightly, wants to find the answers.

    There are clear laws in physics, and when these laws are seemingly broken, science always instigates an investigation to find out why, one example would be the gamma ray bursts, which initially seemed to be defying known laws. It's entirely possible there is a logical explanation of the collapse of these buildings, and why they collapsed as they did, but at the present time there is not, even NIST, failed to recreate the conditions in there own experiements.

    1. Clearly Craigzz is sorely afraid his whole paradigm of belief about the world is about to come crashing down. And then what will he do? There is nothing to believe in or against the presence of thermite as this substance has been objectively found in the ruins. Therefore it is a fact to be explained not a hypothesis to be believed in. The idea is to construct a theory that fits the evidence not to find evidence that fits our theory. This requires courage to consider what we might not want to hear. Do you want truth or do you want comfortable lies. Which is it? You decide.

    2. I completely agree.. People want the comfortable lie because it means that they do not have to change, we as a human race fight against change at every opportunity, in our lives and globally.
      What these documentaries do, is show you without doubt, what the government is doing, have been doing and continues to do to this very day. It's been 10 years since I sat comfortable in that 911 commission lie; I hated Osama Bin laden as much as the next but then the veil was taken off I saw what lay underneath.
      Government is shockingly like the movie "Alice in wonderland" in the fact that we are supposed to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

    3. "To believe the NIST report is a giant leap of faith in anyone's book, seasoned architects have come forward to express 'real' doubt, as to how such a building could collapse so catastrophically as a result of isolated fires,"

      LOL, "seasoned"? Were we preparing them for thanksgiving dinner? If you're talking about A & E for 9/11 truth the number of "seasoned" professionals in their given fields amount to perhaps 1/10 of one percent- well within the established statistics for the prevalence of mental illness within the general population, which would explain their deviance from consensus in their profession.
      The fires were not "isolated" and they were fueled by thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and transformer oil, and left unfought for most of the day.
      A gash was torn into its face twenty stories high and 1/4 of the way into the structure by a huge section of one of the towers.
      The fact that firefighters on the scene described the building as "not right" and making groaning noises all day- as well as city engineers sighting it with a transit and observing a pronounced lean and bulging in the outer columns of critical lower floors hours before its collapse, completely contradict every posited scenario of it being a controlled demolition.
      Our Iraq policy in the '90's cruelly starved a million Iraqis, mostly children, to their deaths, and allowed Saddam Hussein to skim oil for food to the tune of $13 billion. Why look for anything other than that for motivation for this?

    4. An interesting note is that the professionals you are seeking to hear from do not want to commit career suicide. These people are literally questioning the status quot which others may not have the gumption to do so. The people that speak out are ostracized and some have been targeted federally/charged and had to relocate to a Country with no extradition treaty!. It is questionable that people of general intellect can still above all odds lower themselves beyond belief, well below operating standards of intellectuality. Most of these comments with the gift of graphology indicates that these aren't just unintelligent individuals but are educated, which suggests a type of disinformation maybe on a paid scale corporation style ~who knows~.
      So what I'm saying is either your very stupid or very,very smart.

    5. You CT's never break out of the self important/righteous mold, do you?
      1. The reason virtually an entire industry and profession has not come forward to complain about obvious glaring problems in a hypothesis CT's are not at all qualified to, is because they lack "gumption".
      Which of course you think you have the market cornered on.
      Sure! 250,000 building industry professionals all remain silent and watch 3,000 die, our country changed forever, rights taken away, wars waged at a cost of billions, because they lack "courage and initiative" as Websters define gumption.
      NO how about it's GUMPTION that motivates debunkers like me to get online and try to knock some sense into you people who are telling the world we did this to ourselves to wage wars for profit! Do you know how this makes us look? What it does to our image, and over time, our economic strength?
      2. People who oppose you, like me, do so because we are either "very stupid" or on the payroll of the criminals.

      Now I have to tell you this is where it becomes obvious that psychologists have it right about this . This whole movement is about 1 thing: People suffering from various forms of paranoid and or persecutory delusions. How else could individuals be so delusional to assume that making baseless allegations against government officials without a shred of evidence and declaring them guilty without a trial, amounts to them having superior morals or "gumption" others lack?
      A trait of persecutory delusions is that everyone around you is evil and conspiring to get you, and that you have inside knowledge of things others do not.

      That fits what you think about me. You think you have far more knowledge about this than I or I''m just plain evil.
      Never mind what level of delusions are required to imply I am paid to spread disinformation while at the same time you're posting:

      "The people that speak out are ostracized and some have been targeted federally/charged and had to relocate to a Country with no extradition treaty!."

      Complete disinformation

      If you take nothing from this but one thing let it be this: Most debunkers, like me, are motivated by two things:
      First and foremost, we're tired of you shooting the country and all of us in the foot telling the world we did this to ourselves.
      Secondly it's hard to walk away and not want to beat some rhetorical sense into the heads of anyone who is so wrong but yet insists how right they are.

    6. You're obviously an *****. Ever heard of cognitive dissonance; gestalt theory.

    7. When examining something like this you really have to go the rule: When all else has been eliminated no matter how implausible it seems, it "must" be the truth. The simply ludicrous is included in this theory...

    8. What happens when you first eliminate the truth?

  175. The truth is heart breaking

  176. The Problem with all this, is its too late.
    The damage is done, the rights and freedoms of the western people are lost.
    I think the truth is too scary to think.
    What if Israeli Mossad did the false flag Op to get the US into a middle east war?
    Just as scary if the US government was to blame.
    Just way to scary a truth to accept..How would the world react, how could we live with this?
    It would be like finding out Aliens came to earth and created Man and not God..
    This truth is too heart breaking to know and so it will never be known.
    We dont want to know.

    1. James,

      Here is a quick rundown of the strategic situation: Republicans are boosting the incumbent president's chances for re-election everytime either Romney, Santorum, and Ginrich, open their mouth. The remedy to a increasingly demoralized U.S. population, is to impeach President Obama, for violating the U.S. Constitution nine times: And, we must urge Ron Paul, to wipe out his rivals, by calling for a return back to Glass-Steagall, in his campaign, and in future public debates: The Federal Reserve system, is hopelessly bankrupt, which is why President Obama must be impeached now, to restore the 1933 Glass-Steagall standard of banking to put the federal reserve system through Chapter 11 bankruptcy re-organization: The re-organization process begins with a contingency of U.S. Marines moving the books of the Federal Reserve to the U.S Department of the Treasury. Followed by an act of Congress, to create a [clearinghouse] of U.S. public credit through a semi-private Federal facility.

      The first bank of the United States, that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton created, did not function as a bank. Hamilton's design of National banking, formed state banks and commercial banks as auxiliaries to form a National banking system to steer public credit financing of 50 year overdue advance infrastructure, designed to withstand extreme weather events of space weather from our Sun acting up.

      As the Sun did in 2011, when the Sun triggered the earthquake Tsunami that struck Japan, and continues to act-up 2012 in the recent strike by Tornadoes that swept through the Midwest on March 1 2012, as precursors of an eminent geomagnetic storm , which will hit the United States as early as 2013, to knockout the U.S. power grid to 180 million Americans along way to a mini-Ice-Age.

      The issues with Ron Paul's Republican rivals, and the incumbent president, must be moved to the side for now, to instead focus on the impeachment of President Obama. Or, risk the lost of your United States this year to bankruptcy, and world war. Your republic survived the 2008 global financial meltdown, but not this time, and I do not exaggerate. The culmination of the unconstitutional Libya war, Super Congress, and NDAA. Removed the separation of powers from the Article I, II, and III branches of your republic, after non-stop interference of the Article I and III branches by President Obama since the illegal war in Libya.

      A war that Congress did not authorize. President Obama, in not seeking authorization, and to date has not been impeached for committing a political crime, a crime that opened the door to more secret wars that Dubya Bush started. And the political crimes continued with the assassinations of U.S. citizens abroad, and abolishing your Bill of Rights under the National Defense Authorization Act, which in 2012 opened U.S. civilian airspace to 30,000 or more aerial drones.

  177. The millions they spent on the "operations bunker" for the mayor in building 7 were actually used to prep it for the demolition.

  178. I think its probable most of the steel bolts were removed from WTC 7 steel structure, and replaced with explosive bolts, ie: the connections all failed simultaneously as explosive bolts went off, such bolts would be less evident than explosives, and could be rigged to all explode by sending high voltage through the entire steel structure, thus no need for detonation cords.

    Something is very wrong with the official report.

    1. something is very wrong with the official report which details the collapse of building 7? Explain what, please?
      Admit it, you've never even seen it.
      Something is very wrong with the thought processes of people positing such crazy ideas as all the bolts in a building switched around for some magical exploding bolts to explain a collapse of a structure that has a plausible explanation given by experts.
      These "bolts" are buried behind walls, suspended ceilings, painted over many times, encapsulated by fireproofing materials, and such construction techniques find as much of the structural components joined by welds as they are fasteners.
      Occam's Razor Failure. Why is there not a shred of evidence of such bolts found?
      Lemme guess. George W. Bush sent his cleanup fairies into the rubble pile and removed every trace of them, and then they packed up every scrap of wreckage and sent it to a foreign country. Am I close?

    2. Don't you know that we see you as an obvious troll, saturated with the koolaid. Gulf of Tonkin; Kennedy, Jack and Robert; MLK; Malcolm X; the Federal govt has been getting us into messes for a helluva long time, for insidious reasons. Do you really think that we live in a just and free society. Wake up!

  179. First off...ah Pierre is it? Don't even talk about the US in Vietnam since we were originally there to help the French protect there colonies. France. Was fighting them since '45 or so. The US sent top military heads to advise the French around 1950 or so. Its true the US was in fear of a Communist world view though. But France started that whole Vietnam sh!t. And when things got a l