Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

2009, 9/11  -   197 Comments
Ratings: 7.66/10 from 334 users.

With the departure of the Bush Administration and the arrival of an era of transparency, opportunities are arising for the disclosure of new information that may shed more light on the events that took place before and after 9/11/2001.

Dramatically narrated by Daniel Sunjata, an outspoken advocate for the First Responders, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup first examines mysterious and infamous events that reshaped world history from the Reichstag Fire in 1933 that catapulted Hitler to dictatorship - to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 that led to the Vietnam War, and then takes viewers on a turbulent journey through several pivotal moments in history before delving into the most significant catastrophe in recent memory, 9/11.

Loaded with powerful, new footage and in-depth interviews with the likes of Steven Earl Jones, an American physicist who has discovered undetonated explosive material in multiple samples of dust from the World Trade Center collapses, this documentary presents a wide array of evidence both known and unknown.

More great documentaries

197 Comments / User Reviews

  1. How this site is still alive?

  2. The columbine report released may 2001 and before that klebo and harris were going to take plane and fly to NYC.

  3. Everyone looks at the facts of 911 when all I have to do is look at what happened as a result. Our government more than doubled in size, we got the awesome "Patriot Act", homeland security, the TSA, etc etc etc. Dont look at the incident, look at what happened as a result. That's the real rub.

  4. I like this guys voice and narrative

  5. Smedly Butler was a Highly Decorated Marine... Not in the Army as this Docudrama states.... How many other inaccuracies are there.... ????

    1. Who cares

  6. Last commenter was correct. Once in awhile the original / real video surfaces. It’s definitely not easy to find.

  7. Why does this video leave out the following?:

    Pres. Roosevelt didn't merely withhold info of where the Japanese would "most likely" strike, as this video says. It's much worse. It came out 30 years after the War that US Army scout planes flew right over the huge Jap. steaming armada, at such low altitude so as to be able to identify the types of warships. It was steaming on a direct line straight for Pearl Harbor. When the fleet was spotted, and reported up to superiors, the fleet was still a day away from Pearl. The reports were squelched and nothing whatsoever was done. The video shows part of Admiral Kimmel's testimony, saying that the navy & army at Pearl Harbor were given no information as to when and where the Japanese WOULD PROBABLY strike. Kimmel was vastly understating the problem, either for the sake of his own career, own neck, or because he was part of the plot to get US into the war himself. Documents & interviews now show that the US government knew EXACTLY when & where the Japanese were striking.

    The atomic bombs US dropped on Japan were unnecessary mass murder of civilians. Japan had hardly any navy left. The Japanese mainland could have been stormed, after the usual bombing & naval cannon barrages had obliterated Japanese defensive implacements. No atomic bombs needed to be dropped on the large civilian cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The real purpose was to "shock & awe" the world, make everyone fear the US. For the purpose of US imperialism.

    The omissions I'm mentioning here would be no big deal if the video simply didn't discuss these topics. For example, if the video didn't discuss Pearl Harbor. But the video discusses Pearl Harbor in detail and the omitted items are the key elements in the Pearl Harbor story, it is strange indeed that they were omitted. Ditto the below omissions.
    From 1913 to 1917 the US & its lapdog press lied that the Germans were bayoneting babies, raping women, etc. in order to get the US to declare war on Germany, Austria, & other countries. The Germans were no worse than their opponents in WWI.

    This is not a complete list of important facts not included in this video. Some inches below the video is a picture & link to the original Loose Change documentary. Watch it to see most of the things I list here as omitted from this video.

    The man posing as bin Laden in the 2006, and his voice, have been PROVEN to not be Bin Laden. Bin Laden had to have debilitating kidny dialysis machine cleansing of his blood supply daily. The US gov't claims they were hunting for Bin Laden but it came out that he was hospitalized in the American Hospital, in Iraq I believe it was, and while there was visited by a CIA agent.

    The FBI published the list of "9/11 hijackers" within a couple days of 9/11. So fast, and so complete a list, as to look suspicious. It seems like the list never changed all these years, despite the fact that as the years went by many of the "hijackers" surfaced alive and well throughout the Middle East, professing their innocence. Some gave alibis of where they were on 9/11, but to me the alibis were unnecessary since all the hijackers, according to the US gov't, were blown into a million bits.

    The video does not state that Janell Bryan, the Flordida USDA loan officer, ever reported Hani Hanjour's suspicious behavior to anyone else in the US government.
    The video shows & discusses Andrew Card leaning into Bush's ear at the FL schoolhouse, during My Pet Goat, but does not disclose that Card was telling Bush the 2nd WTC tower had just been hit. Nor does the video point out that Bush goes on reading My Pet Goat for many more minutes after Card's whisper.

    The video says the gov't has given us "no clear images" showing the alleged passenger jet liner heading toward or hitting the Pentagon. This is an understatement. It should say we've "no images showing anything that remotely resembles a winged aircraft of any kind."

    Video doesn't mention that the day before 9/11 Sec'ty of Defense Rumsfeld gave an interview (see it on YouTube) where he bemoaned that $2.2 Trillion had disappeared at the Pentagon, and that the exact place where the "jet liner" hit was the office auditing the books to find the missing trillions. The accounting computers etc were destroyed and from what I saw, no further mention was ever made of the missing trillions; at least, the money was never found.

    The video does not mention that the 9/11 truth debunkers claim that Flt 77's wings "folded back" on impact and entered the 20' hole along with the body of the plane. This is important because it shows the debunkers admitting that the hole was only 20' wide, and shows that they have no explanation of the missing wings and engines other than the absurd "folding back" assertion.

    I'm too tired to finish this list. The above omissions occur in the first 44 minutes of the video, and there are probably more in the rest of it. Why did they name this video "Loose Change"? It's stealing the name of the real Loose Change. Could it be to divert people who want to watch the real Loose Change into watching this, a weak sister? It seems unlikely that the author(s) of this video, who went to so much trouble to make it, would have been so negligent to omit the above gravamen elements in the 9/11 story.

    I noticed tonight that the several editions of the real Loose Change have almost all of them been removed from the internet. Why, after so many years? Is the USG getting ready for the next false flag op, against Iran or Russia, and doesn't want such a detailed & damning documentary as Loose Change to be available to the public?

    Last week there were 4 young US Army men in camouflage fatigues just standing inside the local super market. I was appalled to see 4 different people go up to them and say "thank you!" Americans just don't want to see that no one is attacking the US, the soldiers are not "keeping us safe." It's we who are droning, bombing, invading, and occupying them. Those Middle Eastern people & soldiers who resist our aggression are mislabeled "terrorists."

    - - - Do NOT Support Our Troops - - -

    1. Leave the USA ??

  8. The anthrax is probably the least mentioned aspect of this happening. Building Seven didn't make the official story. I took physics. People believe what they want to even when the facts say otherwise. The ruins of those buildings were riddled with nanothermite.
    Truth will out? We'll see.

  9. These relations, under Confucian principles, were bonded by filial piety. Because members of a family remained strictly loyal to one another, they were considered responsible for crimes committed by any member due to guilt by association. Lets wake up Americans and bring it back for the Bush's, the Clinton....more it wouldn't be hard list the rotten seeds in America deserving the "Confucian principles" like the banking cartel, am I right, of coarse I'm right. It wouldn't be hard to carry out this excellent plan either since we have great military forces. Huh our military working for the people not just to help kill and cover up the people.

  10. loose change is literally the dumbest movie ever made. notice i didnt say documentary? almost every element of evidence put forward is based on a high school understanding of science and engineering. this piece of ass is an insult to all intelligence and free thinking. if you believe this nonsense you ate a *****, plain and simple.

    1. he gave evidence with each of his claims. Showed documents and detailed everything. Sorry if your intellect won't allow you to absorb truth.

  11. if fires can consume a building, then we need to make buildings out of the passports they found in the rubble.
    If things falling at free-fall speed is such a constant occurrence, then we need to revisit the LAW of physics.
    I was there, I heard the planes, saw the bodies, and wiped the f*cking dust off my body. I also heard mini explosions before the collapse, I was across the street from building 7 in Fitterman-hall a section of the BMCC campus.
    Why was Fema there the night before, I SAW THEM WITH MY OWN EYES.

  12. B. I wholeheartedly feel for you and the fact that you had to experience such a thing. It is very important to ask the question How and Why and question everything. Like you there are survivors who had an experience which mainstream narrative has completely ignored. They too like yourself, deserve to be heard.

  13. Just tell the truth. Please. We don't believe Kennedy murder and we don't believe that building can fall straight down. Who can blame us for being angry while our faith is so challenged. So many lives lost and hearts broken. Now a world at war. Dear God forgive us.

  14. Video has been taken down by the copyright owner. =\

  15. Seems like We are not ready for the truth

  16. Found this after seeing the description on Netflix. Don't think I'll be seeing the documentary, because nothing that is said and done... whether by those who survived or "Truthers"... will undo the events that occurred that day. Shouldn't the focus be on a dialogue to overcome blind hatred, racism and xenophobia? Once we stop projecting our own fears and insecurities on others, the world would be a much better place, I think.

  17. As a survivor and someone who has obviously done extensive research on 9/11, I am shocked at the callousness of so-called truthers. No one seems to want a real conversation. I have been mocked and truthers try to knock me down because I won't feed into their conspiracies.

    At the end of the day, humanity must reign. So if you are searching for the "truth", make sure you are not doing it at the detriment of those suffering as a result of 9/11.

  18. i dont really buy the crooked stories of "bystanders" and "eyewitnesses" ... cause some asses just wanna be on the news!!! dont believe me google the lady who didnt have nobody of her die and still managed her way upto the "media sensation" and she has been missing ever since!!

  19. WTC tower is 60m by 60m. A 767 has a wing span of 48m. At approx 33mins when the first plane hits I can't see 48m of Boeing. I know the camera resolution is poor but we can see by referencing the WTC what 60m looks like. The initial impact is a tiny area. Am I missing something?

  20. It's pretty funny that people would insist something produced by college dropouts who intended to make a fictional movie until they realized the value of making a film they could say was fact is something that is factual. There are so many holes in the Loose Change theory that it's really an embarrassment to proclaim it as fact.

    1. Absolutely this MOVIE is total horse****. After about an hour I couldn’t take the stupidity anymore. And it’s so obviously trying to guide you to a conclusion instead of just giving you facts. Actually it gives you half of the truth and the other half lies. Can’t believe people believed this f*ckery

  21. I don't need a video to tell me who did 911. It was a Jew thing cooked up by Mossad and finger prints galore for this Zionist outrage that launched a war against Muslims enemies of the Jews of course. That is the story of 911. Dig that!

  22. Documentary? Well...nope.

  23. I strongly suggest watching Loose Change Second Edition. It's very, very good and very detail orientated.

  24. When u invent things to prove a conspiracy you really are making idiots of everybody that does question these things. wtc hit by jets cut 1/2 - 2/3 of their supporting beams located in centre of bldings fire did the rest. fact. U guys are just stupid & make idiots out of yourselves & everyone else. thermite between your ears

    1. "When u invent things to prove a conspiracy you really are making idiots of everybody that does question these things."

      It's so ironic that you should follow up that statement, with this,

      "wtc hit by jets cut 1/2 - 2/3 of their supporting beams located in centre of blding"

      You should contact NIST and tell them this, so they can change the official story.

      According to NIST only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2.

      This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

      I'm sure you know who NIST is, and that they are the ones who prepared the official report on the collapse of the buildings. Based on the government's official story, your claims that " 1/2 - 2/3 of their supporting beams located in centre" is incorrect.

      Again, I'm only going by the official story, maybe you have more accurate information

  25. Doubters that it was an "inside job" demonstrate that the idiocracy is in full bloom. You do understand that the NIST report is a "conspiracy theory," no? "19 hijackers... blah, blah..." This is a theory of multiple players "conspiring." Get it?
    There are 47 documentaries RIGHT HERE under the section titled "9/11." Do a little research - you are not required to begin hitting those keys on your computer machine every time you watch a film on a topic you clearly have no depth in because a thought bounced around your head.
    Doubters, dig in and hold on to your seat as your world turns upside down - there's a truth movement sweeping the world that is ready to catch you when you're ready to let go...

    1. that's why you're openly discussing it on the internet.

      Chelsea 'Bradley' manning, Edward Snowden, Alex Jones.

      three people who all claim to have exposed government secrets.

      One is in solitary confinement, one is in exile in Russia, the other is sitting comfortably on a 5million dollar a year multimedia industry.

      one of these things is not like the others.

      don't you lot always say follow the money and find the liar?

    2. a_no_n, your comments are "perplexing" until I see that you've just cut and paste from days prior from your previous 6,000+ comments (3 days ago around NWO).

      Maybe, just maybe, you might want to evaluate material evidence presented in these documentaries you are commenting on so prolifically and apply a bit of critical thinking? Can I recommend 911 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out? Over 2,000 Structural Engineers and Architects have signed on... the mountain of evidentiary material on this topic presented in this documentary and others is worthy of your time and consideration - or you can keep racking up comment points.

      As to "one thing is not like the others...", you're clearly not aware of the hundreds if not thousands of "whistleblowers" and/or truth advocates that have shed dramatic light on many topics. I won't waste my time here - but "following the money" (which I clearly did not advocate, nor am I a part of a "lot"), would dictate following other paths that involves trillions of dollars - also the topic of well documented material and presented here. So, dig in, "follow the money" my friend - the end-game of truth is still the same destination.

    3. oh no i use disqus...how awful of me.

      signitures aren't evidence...And 2000 structural engineers aren't that many when you consider how many haven't signed up...Your 'mountian' of evidence has been pretty much debunked thouroughly by multiple sources, and your sychophantic apologetics for Alex Jones don't actually do anything to dismiss the point i have made.

      rather than trawling through my history until you find something to attack me with, try thinking about what i've said and attack that.

      I actually laughed at your attempts to dance around my point...obvious strawman is obvious.

    4. a_no-n, I think I just did attack "what you say" - which really didn't say anything in relationship to my comments and had no relevance to documentary above. And as I mentioned, your string of interconnected syllables was a cut and paste from your library of previous "comments." Clearly, you're not attacking what I said above - do you randomly pick these out as "classic repeat comments" or do you thoughtfully go through your library to carefully select re-run commentary? You do realize that this section below labeled "comments" is directly related to the videos in the boxes just above, right? I won't recommend again that you spend any time actually watching the documentaries as I'm guessing that would infringe on your "cut and plaster" commenting time - but you haven't yet come close to referencing even the topic (Loose Change 911: An American Coup), much less the specific content of this documentary.

      I'm guessing you didn't even read my posted comments above either - I didn't waste a single letter of the alphabet "apologizing" for Alex or anybody else, nor have I flattered him, or you - otherwise, excellent use of the term "sychophantic" (except it doesn't seem to actually apply here).

      Is there a disqus comment tournament going on that I should know about? Am I being punked - is that you, Steve? AAAhhh!

    5. oh look, another wall of ranting text...i see lots of opinions that basicly boil down to "no you are" type arguing.

      i end up repeating what i say a lot because there are a lot o m*rons like you out there who need repeating to.

  26. I love this part about ushering in "an era of transparency" with the election of Obama. Ha ha ha ha ha, what a joke! Obama has been the most un-transparent president ever. And here I thought Bush was secretive. But I guess they couldn't have known that back in 2009 when this was made. Everyone (including myself) thought that Obama would be different, that things would change. The only thing that's changed is the presidents name - he's just as corrupt and dishonest as Bush ever was. It makes me sick to think how many people he fooled. There's a special place in hell for you Mr. President. When Matt Damon (who was a huge Obama supporter) says Obama "has some explaining to do," then he knows he has serious problems.

    1. couldn't agree with you more about this administration,Ricardo. Transparent in one way, for I see completely through their brand of politics, not transparent in another way, for they have got 98% of the media covering for them.

  27. The two most interesting things as of late have been the conclusion from Richard Clark that the CIA probably had a few of the hijackers in their sights and were trying to bring them to their side, funded them and then had them not switch and use the funds to carry out the attack.

    And the other, the admission that the CIA now claim that Abu Zubaydah had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda, or OBL. This is extremely problematic, as the 9/11 commission mentions him several times and the CIA cites him as the source of their intel that OBL and Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks.

    CIA seems to think they can have it both ways...maybe they're right.

  28. I am just giving and idea as to how it could have been done. It ia a reply to your saying that it could not be done. So if I say it could have been done is not proof but you say it could not be done is proof.The elevator shaft gave anyone access to the center support columns and out of view from the public.The possibility that it could be done was there which is more evidence than you saying it could not be done. Keep on sleeping in the NEW WORLD ORDER,of fascism

  29. Any war is a great money maker, those that finance, finance both sides and profit from both sides. All governments are puppets of the global war machines. This is man the most educated mamal on the planet. God still sits around and watches. LOL

  30. Take it easy on batvette his contradictions go both ways pro-gov and anti-gov just loves to contradict

  31. As for the flights, I guess this is where the real CT comes in. In order for any agency to do this and not commit mass-murder at the same time a mass cover-up and or mass brainwash program must have taken place. In the original version of "Loose change" made in the wake of the event, they briefly touched upon this. Now remember, we are talking about trillions of dollars at stake. A war-machine and intelligence center of the world such as the US would most likely have able programs to cope with handling 2 half filled flights of passengers (Around 400 passengers, though in the case of these flights I believe they weren't even half of that if my memory serves me right). In the original version there was a theory that the air-crafts were exchanged to empty ones, and the original passengers were all relocated and supervised.

  32. Although I am more of a humanist than engineer - I cant but agree with slpsa's conclusion through viewing the collapse on the structures in multiple videos. I wouldn't think myself biased in anyway either, since I too am an EU citizen (albeit with part-american origin). To most educated people in Europe at least, it would just seem ridiculous that the towers would be hit and then fall first an hour afterwards, let alone fall at all (That tower 7 would fall due to debris is just a bad joke, lots of other buildings should have fallen then too). Apparent demolition, just too apparent.

    As to how did they set it up. No witnesses. It isn't too difficult to imagine a very keenly intent governmental faction to be able to cover its tracks if they had some years to prepare. Lets not get too hyped about secret agencies, but who watches what cleaners do up the towers all day long? Or who looks after all shifts of security guards all night long? According to one account there actually were witnesses of extra security going through the buildings days and weeks before the incident. No proof, but weighing likelihood - my bet is on inside job rather than some unheard of international terrorist group managing a tightly arranged attack with military precision. Just hitting the pentagon like that is not easy, that takes a long education and years of preparation if it was piloted. The point is, its out of any actual terrorist league. The gain of such an act for any terrorist group is next to nothing - whereas the cost would be putting yourself at international wanted list no #1. The economy and organization required for such an operation is more or less an impossibility for a terrorist group much different from what main media wants you to believe. The terrorist label is like a bad novels title - which is exactly what ran through my head when I saw it 12 years ago. I could go on about Bin Laden being a puppet, but enough of controversial claims.

    The only comfort Americans can get I suppose is just that most likely the intention by whichever secret faction of the government who orchestrated this, was for people to escape the building during this hour. Though this is speculation, one could think that if there was a fire, for instance, in the building there must have been some sort of protocol stating how long it would take for the building to be evacuated in a crisis. Probably no one (or at least as few as possible) was meant to be harmed... we all know the tragic outcome however.

    1. Google wtc collapse close-up. There are numerous videos that show a tower buckling at the plane crash site of the building. The section above the impact site lurches somewhat to one side and then starts to fall straight down. It crashes into the floor below it. As this top section comes down every floor it crashes into collapses and it continues on its downward path. Watch a film with a more distant view of the collapse. The buildings come down from the top and progresses downward one floor at a time. If you look twenty floors below a spot where the building is collapsing you will see this spot has not moved or collapsed yet. It doesn't begin to fall until it is hit by the top section. Both towers fall in this manner. This would suggest that every floor had to be set up with explosives. This would have been a major project...not one that extra security guards and cleaners could have handled. Dry wall would have to taken down so support beams could be exposed and cutting torches employed on the support columns to direct the collapse. Explosives put in place and thousands of feet of wire installed so the explosives would go off in a co-ordinated fashion. Then the drywall has to be replaced, taped, mudded and painted so it would not be noticeable. Anyone who has done this kind of work will tell you that it can't be done. The replacing of the drywall and the taping, mudding and painting is at best a two day job. This procedure would have to be repeated all over the buildings. To suggest a job of this magnitude was done in three buildings and no one noticed it happening seems almost unbelievable. It is human nature to wonder why there are renovations are going on their offices and people would surely have talked about it and many complaining about the inconvenience of the construction crews and the inevitable mess that people always believe renovators leave behind. Yet, no one talks of this and no witnesses say that this happened.

    2. We now know that plans for this false flag was planned years before the bush administration was even in office. And we know that the security company that worked at WTC was owned and operated by a BUSH relative, so access to the building was no problem. The work could have been done over the years prior to who ever was elected and ready to go. The WTC was powered down the weekend prior to the 11th, that gave them 30 hrs to finalize the operation. It didn't matter who won the election because BUSH and KERRY are cousins and connected to the same corperate powers that run our government. It is a proven fact that most people that are conned would rather not believe it either out of shame or pride of ego. The facts are there look them up all our wars including our civil war are planned by the global banks of their times and those in power that would profit from it. God, Flag, and Country is the drug that each country feeds its children to have them ready for slaughter. WAKE UP PEOPLE. ;)

    3. Securacom was not owned by Marvin Bush and was not in charge of security at the WTC. The Port Authority was in charge and they subcontracted work to Securacom. They had to answer to the Port Authority. Bush left Securcom a year prior to the attacks. On 9/11 George Bush's brother had nothing to do with security at the WTC and was never in charge at any time for the security of those buildings. He only worked for a company that subcontracted from the Port Authority, who was in charge.

      "The work could have been done" is not evidence. It could have been done by green Martians. If you want to prove something you have to show that it was done. "Could have" is speculation, or guesswork. The rest of your post is an incoherent rant that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. They must be guilty because they're all crooks is fodder for a kangaroo court and intelligent, thoughtful people would never resort to that line of logic as evidence. Youtube evidence is not evidence, either...and I wish the truthers would quit telling everyone to wake up as if they're the only ones with the intelligence to understand the ways of the world. Most don't even understand the meaning of the term "rules of evidence".

    4. Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.

      That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

      That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.

      That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.

      That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.

      That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled, demonstrates nothing more than the accidental virtue of being in the right place at the right time.

      That the company PTECH, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America’s Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, had access to the FAA’s entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, means he must not have been such a threat after all.

      That on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney took upon himself the job of co-ordinating a response to domestic terror attacks even as he was crafting the administration’s energy policy which bore implications for America's military, circumventing the established infrastructure and ignoring the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, merely shows the VP to be someone who finds it hard to delegate.

      That the standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked aircraft was altered on June 1, 2001, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, is simply poor planning and unfortunate timing. Fortunately the error has been corrected, as the order was rescinded shortly after 9/11.

      Keep on sleeping in the NEW WORLD ORDER

    5. Yes, it is absolutely interesting that OBL continued on US CIA payroll till 9/11, and off, the day after. [according to my memory of] S. Edmonds (FBI whistleblower). But, those dots probably don't connect. Coincidences happen all the time.

    6. There have been many hijackings in the United States over the last fifty years. Not one of them has been shot down. In Oct. 2009, a Northwest Airlines plane flew past the Minneapolis airport by 150 miles and was out of contact with the ground for over one hour. The plane was on radar and the ground tried to contact the plane without success. They had no idea what was going on with this flight. Yet, this plane was not shot down. This was after 9/11 and the standing order to shoot down hijacked planes was not enacted. Not shooting down the planes on 9/11 is not evidence of a plot by the government.

    7. I have been studying and studying it. No way three steel framed towers fell without explosives. There is evidence in the rubble, sulphur, temperatures that melt steel, etc. That is scientific evidence. WTC7 falling from fire only, falling in that manner, breaking science and history, has got to be evidence.

      Forget all the theories, forget all the emotions. Only study the science. If we could just get a study of Building 7, if we could investigate that. Don't we owe it to all these people, just to investigate the fact that nobody besides us 9/11 geeks knows that a third tower fell without a plane, jet fuel or anything? I JUST found out about Buliding 7 in 2013! What!!??

      That is criminal, that is why I am mad, I don't have a theory, you don't need a theory, you just need a full fledged investigation of the science. Give me a group of architects or engineers that believe Building 7 was not demolished, and I will give up with studying this...

    8. it was demolished. as were all three of them. <---- Accredited engineer with over 35 years of employment as such in several fields. You get it. I wish that everyone would. And if they doubt, id also wish they go and get an education in any or all fields related to building construction, design and safety. Then return to this thread after being educated, and then post their thoughts. Ive listened to this nonsense for 13 years now. Still, people doubt the science. Its sad. it really is.

    9. I'm partially with you on that Jack. Both towers 1 and 2 obviously start their collapse at the point of impact from the jets. It's clearly visible, and their fall doesn't look at all like a controlled demolition.

      The problem is and has always been (for me anyway) WTC 7, and the debris field from both the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes. Those just don't add up.

  33. No matter what you think of Obama - he is a divider - by race, by religion, by class warfare....it may have been plausible at one time for him to blame Bush, but now we know that Oblama just blames....anyone....worst President ever.....

    1. "Worst president ever" REALLY, even Bush? The only thing that prevents President Obama from being viewed as one of the most effective Presidents of the modern era, by the enemies of the middle class, known as the republican party, is because Obama is a "Black Man". They will never admit it. it's the 800 pound gorilla in the room having a beer. They live in a constant state of denial.

    2. um, no, Godsun. We live in a state of constant amazement that fools like you can't get past the 'race'issue and see Obama for what he really is, a divider and a liar. Would LOVE to ask Obama how he would have handled 9/11.Not for a minute saying that Obama is the first president to everlie. Just saying he is the first president to have 98% of the media cover for him.

  34. " This is un-possible. " @ 00.28.10... Maybe not correct wording....

  35. Too funny "era of transparency" ... 0bama ... really ..... I do not think he knows what transparency means, he seems to think it means the opposite of the dictionary definition with a heaping helping of propaganda.

  36. Ali G asked Buzz Aldrin (second man on the moon) - you know those conspiracies and all... and Buzz was already: yes, we went there... - but Ali G asks him: Does the moon exist?

    so I ask the same: Did airplanes really exist?

  37. Here is the plan: lets demolish a building in middle of NY, with all potential witnesses, blame it on Afghans, and then go through all the loops to attack Iraq.
    Wouldn't it be easier to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
    Very poorly planed conspiracy, if you ask me.

    1. No. We are expected to believe that they planted the explosives and arranged the hijackings somehow, a very elaborate plan, and yet found it too complicated to fly some WMDs into Iraq to find.

  38. PRIOR to either Tower collapse, Barry Jennings made it clear that WTC-7's lobby detonated; later (in the week of the release of the NIST WTC-7 report) Mr. Jennings (New York City Director of Emergency Management) disappeared...only to be later confirmed that his death was a police matter. Plainly put: Barry Jennings was murdered; remembering that neither his testimony, nor even WTC-7 was addressed at all, in the 9-11 Commission fraudulent Report. Danny Jowenko, a leading world demolition expert from the Netherlands (also murdered in...July 2011); in his interview, confirmed the implosion demolition of World Trade Center 7.
    Ted Gunderson former FBI also confirms before his death that the government was involved with the 9.11 attacks.

    Even Larry himself admit they had to "pull" building 7 in the end of the day.

    Many people seem to have come forward but payed the ultimate price to tell the truth.

    NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse,
    including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, and the original collapse has never been shown to the public.
    If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?
    We are actually being asked to believe the impossible - that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone!, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate. The building collapsed in 6 seconds that is free fall, i believe floors have more resistance than air.

    This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a “new phenomenon” was responsible for the collapse.

    1. Barry Jennings was one man in WTC7. He heard explosions below him and there would have been all kinds of things heating and exploding in intense fires. The explosions required for a demolition would have been simultaneous and Jennings would never have survived. The claim that he was murdered is pure conjecture and there is no evidence of its veracity. WTC7 was damaged more to the bottom of the building so that is where the fire activity would have been...below him. Go to the debunking site already referenced earlier and then go to the WTC7 option and it will tell you about multiple witnesses who saw the huge gash in the building and that the building seemed bowed and looked about ready to come down. That was why the building was evacuated and all firemen told to get out.

      WTC7 did not collapse due to fire alone. It was struck by debris from the collapse of the larger towers, causing extensive structural damage. The subsequent fires caused the warping of the main columns which lead to the collapse. It was the structural damage caused by the debris and the subsequent fires that cause the collapse and not the fires alone.

  39. Why would Larry Silverstein lease buildings that he knew he would have to pay at least 3billions for asbestos abatement?? because the towers were iun due for some major upgrades and the buildings could not be destroyed and because of the asbestos they could not be upgraded. WHO WOULD WANT THAT BURDEN? lol

    1. Since when does an insurance company pay out for intentional damage? If they believed for one minute that it was a planned demolition Silverstein doesn't get a nickel. Buildings with asbestos have been upgraded for years and that includes schools and hospitals. I know people who worked for companies that did this. People buy buildings and upgrade them all the time. Quite often it becomes an excellent investment.

  40. 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. Flight attendants Betty Ong and Madeline Sweeney who were on American flight 11 were in contact with ground employees of American airlines. They described the hi-jackers as Middle Eastern and even relayed their seat numbers. Google "Betty Ong call". A quick look at the passenger list and the names of the hi-jackers were known.

      If any of the alleged hi-jackers are still alive then why is it that none of these conspiracy documentaries have found one alive and put them in their films? What a coup that would be. Quite likely because the reports of their still being alive had to do with people who had the same names. A quick investigation confirmed this. CT claimants won't investigate any deeper because they know where it will lead.

      The CIA had identified many of the hi-jackers as members or associates of Al Qaida. These men should not have been allowed into the United States. Fishy? Maybe...but there are millions of people in the U.S. illegally. It's not that hard to do and is almost routine.

      Almost immediately after the second plane hit the Tower, everyone thought hi-jackers or terrorists. The first thing you do is look at the passenger lists to look for possible suspects. Passenger lists are required by law and they tell you who was on the flight and their seat number. A high school reporter writing for the school paper could have figured out the identities of the hijackers before he went to bed that night.

      You have to do better than this.

  41. SO how come NORAD couldn't manage to take down 3 planes when they were doing Simulated attacks a year in advance with the same scenario that happened 9.11??? and all the planes during this test's were taken down!

    1. Norad would not have shot the first hijacked plane down to start with. They would have no idea of their intent. At 8.41, five minutes before the crash air traffic controllers declared flight 11 a hijacked plane and believed that it was heading to Kennedy airport. The outrage would have been incredible had Norad shot that plane down on the suspicion that it might fly intentionally into buildings. It was not the procedure for hijacked planes.

      Eighteen minutes later the second plane struck. The shock of the first flight had not even set in yet and it wasn't fully realized that it was intentional until after the second plane struck. Eighteen minutes to change protocol and start shooting down passenger planes. It doesn't seem likely.

      On October 22/09, A Northwest Airlines flight from San Diego, California, overshot the Minneapolis, Minnesota, airport by about 150 miles. They were out of radio contact with the control tower for an hour, including 16 minutes after they flew past the airport and intended destination. They were not shot down. This was after 9/11.

      Norad is a defence system to guard against foreign invasion by missiles or enemy planes. It is not normal or routine for them to attack domestic passenger flights.

      This argument doesn't wash either.

    2. You're seriously asking why the military thinks it can accomplish something in a simulated exercise it could not do in real life?

  42. people in new york in the world trade center, have offices, and consider it work throughout the day. some of them, or a lot of them may have had computers, and a telephone. so that is considered middle class for most, but some had less, so they were considered lower class inside the world trade centers.

    those middle class people and the lower class people were in charge on september the 11th 2001, and especially in charge of airplances around there office space.

    next up was the passengers who did want to fly around new york on september the 11th 2001. mohammed atta, was in my opinion, one of the poorest passengers on that flight. he spoke of god in a book, because i think he was hearing someone on a satellite link, above the air traffic controllers, about how he did not care what mohammed did, he was an atheist.

    mohammed had some partners, with him, for support.

    next up, was betty, a flight attendant. she handle some equipment for the passengers. had a pretty voice in my opinion. to me a chinese woman, with a good american accent, meant that they was another transmission on that flight american air 11, that made her voice carry especially rich. i feel sorry for her.

    then john and his co-pilot were in charge of the airplane. but i think they heared someone over the air traffic system telling them, quote "don't those guys look like terrioist on his flight?", and his reply was, "john, don't take off you have terrioist on board". and john's reply with his lips closed so his co-pilot wouldn't hear it was, "you are not in charge of my plane, i am". and john took off, just barely with airleron control, that could have jammed after takeoff. then the same voice as before told gene "you better give those 2 pilots a good shot, so they will know we mean buisness". so gene said "ok", and shot them both in the cockpit on takeoff, so they could not move there arms or change any of the controls in the cockpit.

    gene later in 2004 or 2005 came to longville, as he married my friend next door. he let me drive a van, filled with pipe fitter tools to do some work he had a contract for. i drove him and helped him for a year or two before he left longville, and went back to lake charles.

    i forgot to tell you, that i possible could have been connected to this link, with a camera link, but i did not have any of the audio, i am telling you. my story comes after the fact. i was home here in longville,louisian, at this time, most of the time with little of nothing, exept a lawn chair outside. i was also followed in lake charles by a man, who was president of the policy jury in lake charles. his name is gene whittler. he had a surveillance link in lake charles, that shot me in the back of the head after he saw me pick up a girl on the side of the road. he would shoot me in the back of the head when i got home. it felt like a lot of bb's hitting me. i finaly gave up on the girl and moved back to longville. i was in transition from moving from lake charles, to longville. i was on the same level as the people in the trade centers that morning.

    so a man i call curtis dove, was the one who told john ogonoski, not to take off that moring, after a man from scotland, named paul mccartney mentioned to curtis, "don't those look like terrioist on board his flight?". i tell you there names because these voices are talking to me right now from a satellite link, since 2006. they are also shooting me like they did ogonoski on his takeoff from boston. the whole 9-11 scheme was made up by a man from scotland, who had equipment made in the u.s.a. and he had a game where if the pilots, plus mohammed could not disengage the auto pilot then 9-11 was bound to happen. but i don't think he realized that gene's shot did let them do anything to change the controls after they were shot in the heart.

    this all started with john lennon and mark chapman in 1980. when someone told paul i was a conspirator in john' death. he saw a clip of me in a practice session here in louisiana at that time, and that is when mark had to shoot his way out of there. paul, had a special doppler like spot light surveillance camera, supposedly to get john inside his apartment without any air interference from night to night.

    so now paul tells people he is a atheist and that is how he hooked up with mohammed atta, and also i think he set up the passengers and crew of american airlines 11 to make fun of mohammed as he turned off the transponder, to there key satellite, and beamed a signal that took over there auto pilot systems and pin pointed point b to the world trade centers.

    people on the ground, are the most responsible. they can cast blame on episodes like this one. but i hear, people like paul and curtis, trying to blame me,mohammed,and mark chapman for all the trouble. these guys curtis and paul are behind satellite systems, and are at the back of the pack, and have not right to blame anyone but themselves. but they are trying to fool people into thinking they are in charge. but they are rich with electronics and do not control anyone. and they cannot blame anyone either.

  43. 9/11 theories are ADDICTION!

    1. You know why? It causes conflict and division. People are addicted to it.

  44. I am so thankful to G-D that I live in Canada!!
    People are wakeing-up now and are now realizing the truth.
    Isn't it insane how many times the American Goverment has declared war on it's
    own people and still there is no justice no one held accountable.
    Thank G-d I live in Canada.
    But I am sure YE SHALL OVER COME.

    1. Merrlynn, I think you have been missing The Right Honorable Mr Victor Toews and his vaudeville act in parliament if you think we are any different these days. Harper and his ilk are rewriting our stuff to mimic our neighbors. The omnibus crime bill should scare the pants off people in this Country, but it did not even rate front page coverage apparently. As the Patriot Act goes, so do many of our same laws here at home. The terrorism angle alone and the new laws accompanying that farce says it all. Not a whole lot of freedoms left. Vic thought it necessary for law enforcement to be able to get our online history's with no warrant to help fight the " terrorists " and for carte blanche to be given to any law enforcement who wanted our emails, passwords, you name it, with no judge saying it was ok. That was until a liberal insider accessed his private files and made his very messy, very questionable divorce public information by posting it online. What was good for us, was apparently not good for Mr Victor, he back pedaled pretty quick and said they had to look into changing some things. It is still going to go through, but with provisions, so he says. The True North Strong and Free is not what it used to be. My parents are in their late eighties and early nineties. They agree with that assessment.

  45. There is obviously emotion involved, but from the outside and another country one is somewhat incredulous at the volume of individually highly improbable events aligned on the same day. Albeit a statistical argument, how reasonable is it that a multitude of highly unlikely 'firsts' occur on the same day in the process of the same attacks? It is sound (not conspiratorially driven) to ask reasonable question regarding events and investigations, the latter presumably of the highest possible calibre historically given the unprecedented and enormous importance of these crimes (applying open minds and the best investigative and forensic approaches, leaving no stone unturned as it were). To close the case, is it scientifically verifiable and/or reasonable that:
    i) not 1 but 3 steel structures (designed to withstand significant damage) collapsed roughly into their footprints at or near free-fall as a sole result of aircraft impact and brief kerosene fuelled fires, arguably for the 1st time in history and with WT7 never impacted by an aircraft?
    ii) the official analysis of the destruction of the towers/ WT7 (based on forensic data and scientific modelling - the pancake hypothesis) soundly and effectively explains the free-fall, small footprint collapses?
    iii) the official report concludes no explosives were uninvolved when this was never forensically tested?
    iv) physical evidence available for forensic interrogation of 'collapses' was removed, against procedure and law?
    v) investigations concluded there was no evidence/reports of explosions prior to collapses, despite emergency staff, survivors and other witnesses reporting such explosions (and who were not interviewed)?
    vi) a 757 was maneuvered by an inexperienced 'pilot' at high speed, a handful of feet above the ground, precisely into the Pentagon?
    vii) this 757 collapsed in upon itself to leave a small penetration of the Pentagon, devoid of visual evidence of wing, tail and engine impacts to the building, with little debris?
    iii) of the many cameras, and the film footage taken into custody, only a single largely illegible video purporting aircraft impact is publicly released?
    iv) the attacks fortuitously occurred at the same time as multiple military trials, negating aerial intervention despite a prior history of effective intervention for 'missing' aircraft?
    FLIGHT 93
    v) an intact aircraft ploughed into a field leaving little to no debris, evidence of explosion/fuel consumption, or groundwater fuel contamination
    vi) that debris be located >5 miles from the site if the craft remained intact to the point of impact.

    The attacks occurred, the questions are how they occurred, how the physical evidence and damage came about, and ultimately why? Investigations do not solely test the obvious, nor are pre-determined in outcome, are required to test multiple hypotheses (eg. was destruction facilitated by means additional to aircraft?), and must seriously question - for the public good - why such buildings physically responded as they did. Crazy conspiracies aside, the number of physical improbabilities, historic firsts, and apparently biased official explanations, do not appear to eliminate reasonable doubt.

    1. "not 1 but 3 steel structures (designed to withstand significant damage) collapsed roughly into their footprints at or near free-fall as a sole result of aircraft impact and brief kerosene fuelled fires, arguably for the 1st time in history and with WT7 never impacted by an aircraft?"

      they did not collapse into their own footprint. they shot debris EVERYWHERE. they did not fall at free fall speed. free-fall speed and close to free-fall speed are two very different things when talking about the physics of an object falling. the math and the computer models are there for you to see how the buildings collapsed.

      the fires were in no way brief or merely kerosene fuelled.

      WTC7 was hit by tons of debris...you know the debris that DIDNT fall into its own footprint. the building had most of its corner support taken out as well as the fires inside burned for more than 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing the skeleton of the building.

      "the official analysis of the destruction of the towers/ WT7 (based on forensic data and scientific modelling - the pancake hypothesis) soundly and effectively explains the free-fall, small footprint collapses?"

      there was no free-fall or small footprint. that is bull**** and easily seen in every picture and video.

      "the official report concludes no explosives were uninvolved when this was never forensically tested?"

      we SAW planes fly into buildings...i dont think we needed to test for explosives. it was very evident what brought the buildings down to most logical people.

      "physical evidence available for forensic interrogation of 'collapses' was removed, against procedure and law?"


      "investigations concluded there was no evidence/reports of explosions prior to collapses, despite emergency staff, survivors and other witnesses reporting such explosions (and who were not interviewed)?"

      seismic reports show no explosive blasts. and anecdotal evidence from witnesses in the chaos is some of the worst evidence to go by.

      "a 757 was maneuvered by an inexperienced 'pilot' at high speed, a handful of feet above the ground, precisely into the Pentagon?"

      yes it was, and just because he was inexperienced doesnt mean he had 0 experience.

      " this 757 collapsed in upon itself to leave a small penetration of the Pentagon, devoid of visual evidence of wing, tail and engine impacts to the building, with little debris?"

      OF COURSE! look at any video of a plane hitting a reinforced concrete wall designed to stop bomb blasts. the hardest part and most reinforced part of the plane will make the most damage. that is the fuselage. it made the hole. the wings and everything else are light thin material that would have disintegrated upon impact. there was plenty of debris. just look at the pictures. try to avoid the bias websites that claim conspiracy.

      "of the many cameras, and the film footage taken into custody, only a single largely illegible video purporting aircraft impact is publicly released?"

      because of the amount of cameras on the pentagon they only capture frame by frame more slowly because of the amount of data they would require to keep all the recordings. also im sure some of the tapes are confidential due to security concerns.

      "the attacks fortuitously occurred at the same time as multiple military trials, negating aerial intervention despite a prior history of effective intervention for 'missing' aircraft?"

      this could be a coincidence (they do happen) but it could also be good intelligence on the part of the enemy.

      "v) an intact aircraft ploughed into a field leaving little to no debris, evidence of explosion/fuel consumption, or groundwater fuel contamination
      vi) that debris be located >5 miles from the site if the craft remained intact to the point of impact."

      False claims. especially the one about the 5miles debris:

      Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells Popular Mechanics no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater—not 6 miles—easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest—toward Indian Lake.

    2. I appreciate the feedback/response. To explore further (only looking for some clarity, beyond knee-jerk labelling of alternate possibilities as ludicrous):
      ".....the computer models are there for you to see how the buildings collapsed".
      It seems a common indication is that the NIST modelling only 'explains' the collapse when extreme data is inputted regarding heat and periods of heating, and condition and degree of degradation of steel supports. Considering different dimensional locations of aircraft impacts, and different floor involvements in the 2 towers, is it also reasonable that the model explains the same outcome for both towers?

      "the fires were in no way brief or merely kerosene fuelled"
      This remains an arguable point as well, I suppose - 1-2 hrs is brief from a historical perspective (re. prior fires in steel-structured skyscrapers, that failed to collapse); though not merely kerosene fuelled (yes building contents combusted), what volumes and types of hotter burning fuels were consumed and contributed significantly to the conflagration and structural degradation?

      "WTC7 was hit by tons of debris.... the building had most of its corner support taken out as well as the fires inside burned for more than 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing the skeleton of the building"
      Is it reasonable that destruction of one corner, and 7 hr of 'uncontrolled" fires felled a steel building in a uniform or symmetrical pattern of collapse, at what NIST confirms was free-fall for over 100ft, rather than a skewed collapse (eg. led by the destroyed corner)?

      "there was no free-fall "..... This point appears reasonably contentious (did NIST not belatedly agree free-fall speeds were observed?), and as such requires further validation - for what periods and heights of fall were the collapses at free-fall velocity (or not), and is this evidence consistent with a pancake model, central cores to the towers, the structure of WTC7, and predicted heats and times of heating?

      "we SAW planes fly into buildings...i dont think we needed to test for explosives. it was very evident what brought the buildings down to most logical people"
      Having clearly witnessed aircraft impacts, the question is how these impacts caused the collapses. Consideration of a single pre-determined cause might seem in some ways logical (myopically) yet precludes investigation of possible contributing or mitigating factors relevant to the investigation, and to future building engineering. Official conclusions that other possibilities (eg. contribution from accelerants, explosives etc) are not involved, despite not having been tested for, are at the least very misleading (though perhaps made in earnest). To unequivocally state there was no evidence of explosive involvement, there would normally be scientific validation of this conclusion (ie. an absence of molecular/physical evidence of explosives after testing of debris). Conclusions should be supported by evidence, and in the absence of evidence, a conclusion of 'no involvement ' remains an untested opinion only. I still find it difficult to grasp why reviewed evidence from the analysis of external scientists (eg. regarding thermite-like materials) has been entirely ignored in investigations? Is the response that these individuals have vested interests, or are intent on deceit?

      By ".....available for forensic interrogation of 'collapses' was removed, against procedure and law?" I refer to removal of the steel and debris from the WTC building. I am unclear how much of the building debris was subjected to scientific scrutiny (and what type of forensic scrutiny) prior to its removal?

      " anecdotal evidence from witnesses in the chaos is some of the worst evidence to go by"
      Considering that anecdotal evidence from witnesses is some of the worst evidence to go by, we should either consider all witness reports as of limited if any value (regarding any model of events), or alternatively one could accept some value from eye-witnesses and canvas a broader selection of witnesses to develop a similarly broader view of events. Which witnesses should we listen to?

      "yes it was, and just because he was inexperienced doesn't mean he had 0 experience"
      Clearly there was an impact. The question is whether it is credible the said 'pilot' accomplished the manoeuvre (why the manoeuvre was performed is also of some relevance, but it seems best not to ask), and does this mesh with aeronautical principles and the opinions of expert witnesses.

      ".... most reinforced part of the plane will make the most damage. that is the fuselage".
      Visual examination suggests the most reinforced and energetic (kinetically) individual components of the aircraft - the engines - left little to no impact to the building. However, I would like to view video of similar aircraft impacts upon reinforced concrete for comparison - can you direct me?

      "because of the amount of cameras on the pentagon they only capture frame by frame more slowly because of the amount of data they would require to keep all the recordings. also im sure some of the tapes are confidential due to security concerns"
      I understand the frame-rate argument, which is sensible for a few cameras. I do not know how many such cameras were trained on this aspect of the building, and if more than a handful why the frame rates of all would be temporally synchronised in such a manner as to preclude further visualisation of the impact - is there an estimate of camera numbers? Out of interest, what potential security issues captured in video footage of the Pentagons exterior would reasonably prevent their public or legal release?

      "This could be a coincidence (they do happen) but it could also be good intelligence on the part of the enemy" Again, the point I attempt to make is how many such "coincidences" can we reasonably expect to occur on the same day before one raises questions? If on the other hand simply good intelligence, was this investigated in terms of how it was acquired, and is it reasonable that such knowledge could be acquired in a time-frame appropriate to the planning and select implementation of the crimes on that date?

      "False claims. especially the one about the 5miles debris"
      Sounds reasonable. Is the physical evidence and appearance of the crash site then consistent with a highly volatile/explosive impact (eg. large burned areas, high levels of carbonised/burnt material)?

      Curiosity more than anything, and a knee-jerk (sorry, guilty of the same) incredulity at the sheer number of simultaneous improbabilities, many of which do not appear to have been effectively interrogated. That is not to say the events did not occur as officially outlined......

    3. Wrong, They fell in freefall. 1 and 2 were obvious. 7 is irrefutable. NIST says there was a period of freefall. They dont explain how that happened. I read that book of lies. The official report. Lies period. Read and crunched the numbers. They dont add up. At all. as far as your claim of a large damage radius. Negative. 70 metre damage radius from 7. That is very small for a 47 story office building. It was artful. As for 1 and 2. They fell into dust, mostly straight down, in under 13 seconds. If you knew a thing about building construction. You understand in order for them to fall like that. All the material under them have to disappear. And it did. Kaboom.And as far as your claim that it was a wide damage radius for 1 and 2. Again, negative. High speed ejections of debris, superheated as well flew far. The majority of those buildings turned to dust. for 110 story buildings, that radius was very small. The debris that was ejected traveled pretty far. The majority of material fell down. Straight.

  46. To the makers of this doc:
    When are you going to understand that 'no plane at the pentagon = no planes at the twin towers' in the minds of the average person who has not looked at this issue. That there is a well funded disinformation campaign associating 911 truth with misdirection and nonsense. (i/e 911 Hoax= no planes, holograms nonsense etc)

    If you were a lawyer you would not mention such a thing. You be familiar with large body of evidence that shows that flight 77 did hit the pentagon. Regardless, You would focus instead on the most cogent facts: the large body of well corroborated and documented evidence that prove wtc 1 2 & 7 came down in controlled demolitions as a result of preplanted explosives.

  47. I find very very little that I agree with about the official story, with testimony from people being there, video images being used by scientist to show how its possible to do a controlled demolition on such a massive scale. It makes me sad to feel that 911 wasn't what the media portrayed it to be.

    So many questions never to be officially answered, I guess that's what the people deserve. NO. But I will always side with the people (everyday man) then government/media spinsters. Peace to all who suffered as a result of 911 and your government who spin the truth to you.

    Peace and love to all scientist putting there neck on the line for what they believe, even though its cost some of you your livelihood. xx


    1. My outlook, is respected amongst my peers in my own Country, we have had many discussions over 11 years about this. I have never been threatened with loss of my accreditation's or loss of any job. That may ring true if I worked in the US, but I do not and only have once in my life. Since 2001, I have refused much work there just on principle. 95 per cent of the professionals I have spoken to agree with the judgment that those buildings were brought down, this is in my own Country and the EU and a few Middle Eastern and Asian countries. They are on the same page, for the most part. You would be hard pressed to find many in Canada who believe the official story. More importantly, the way they say those three buildings fell. You would find even less of those, in the EU and other continents, they are not afraid to speak the truth and be ostracized by Americans. 11 years of traveling the globe and having talks about it over drinks and dinners with peers, tells me what I already knew. In the US, it is not like this. People just cannot admit the truth and refuse to take the science by the throat and embrace it. I understand being afraid and why they would be, but I do not understand mass ignorance and mass stupidity when it comes to the numbers and engineering concepts. I am also sad Jomo. When supposedly intelligent people, ignore the truth so they may sleep well at night and continue to think all is well, there are no bad people on the earth, and that their Government always tells them the truth and makes decisions in their own best interest. That is what it boils down to. Fear and denial. Sad man, just sad.

    2. Although I am more of a humanist than engineer - I cant but agree with your conclusion through viewing the collapse on the structures in multiple videos. I wouldn't think myself biased in anyway either, since I too am an EU citizen (albeit with part-american origin). To most educated people in Europe at least, it would just seem ridiculous that the towers would be hit and then fall first an hour afterwards, let alone fall at all (That tower 7 would fall due to debris is just a bad joke, lots of other building should have fallen then too). Apparent demolition, just too apparent.

      As to how did they set it up. No witnesses. It isn't too difficult to imagine a very keenly intent governmental faction to be able to cover its tracks if they had some years to prepare. Lets not get to hyped about secret agencies, but who watches what cleaners do up the towers all day long? Or who looks after all shifts of security guards all night long? According to one account there actually were witnesses of extra security going through the buildings days and weeks before the incident. No proof, but weighing likelihood - my bet is on inside job rather than some unheard of international terrorist group managing a tightly arranged attack with military precision. Just hitting the pentagon like that is not easy, that takes a long education and years of preparation if it was piloted. The point is, its out of any actual terrorist league. The gain of such an act for any terrorist group is next to nothing - whereas the cost would be putting yourself at international wanted list no #1. The economy and organization required for such an operation is more or less an impossibility for a terrorist group much different from what main media wants you to believe. The terrorist label is like a bad novels title - which is exactly what ran through my head when I saw it 12 years ago. I could go on about Bin Laden being a puppet, but enough of controversial claims.

      The only comfort Americans can get I suppose is just that most likely the intention by whichever secret faction of the government who orchestrated this, was for people to escape the building during this hour. Though this is speculation, one could think that if there was a fire, for instance, in the building there must have been some sort of protocol stating how long it would take for the building to be evacuated in a crisis. Probably no one (or at least as few as possible) was meant to be harmed... we all know the tragic outcome however.

  48. Lastly on this subject, I want to say I am saddened, that many posters, many of whom I have the utmost respect for and value their opinions on many subjects, have bought the official story, and maintain there is no evidence to the contrary, to suggest the official story is anything but factual. I am just sad. I can tell you, unequivocally, there is. Some of the most basic laws of physics were changed. To suit whoever was telling the story. It just makes me a little dark inside to know people who have no clue about engineering, or even basic physics, cannot spend the time to educate themselves on the impossibility of what they say happened. I leave it to you people now. The debate will never end. Nothing else to add. There is no fixing peoples lack of knowledge.

    1. just because we dont believe the conspiracy theory doesnt mean we believe every claim in "the official story"

    2. We? Who is we? They all stink to high heaven, all aspects. Norman Mineta's testimony? How do you explain that away? I would like to hear anyone's version of why Mr Mineta said what he did and defend it as anything other than truth. Regardless, If there is one murky area, it is the collapse of 7. That is the smoking gun for anyone with physics or engineering backgrounds. Perfect demo, artwork in the words of some experts. 70 metre damage radius. Very impressive work. I cannot ignore that building, even if 1 and 2 do not make sense to the non engineers, 7 is classic. The way that thing falls, you would have to be pretty much an un-intelligent slug to not see that was a demo. Classic twist, and other normal actions, like the penthouse falling first{ as they always do in controlled demos}. Man, what is wrong with people? it is in your faces, the video spells it out, so do calculators and a few simple engineering calculations.

    3. the VAST majority of engineers dont see anything wrong with what happened to building 7. only a small fringe minority.

    4. I can only say this to you as politely as possible. You are offended by my assertions. I can only tell you this, I can not expunge the information taught to me over a lifetime of my work. I cannot ignore basic laws of physics, engineering and gravity. If you choose to think that most engineers think it was as they say it was, then you have not directly spoken to them. You are playing with half a deck of knowledge, the rest is trust in others information and what you are told by the media. I would expect an outcome and comebacks like yours from someone who does not know basic engineering concepts. That is how they have pulled this off. Too many people, know nothing about it, therefore, pulling the wool is simple. Take the ones who know and make them look foolish, aka, you attempting to label me as " fringe ". Again, you are in no position to tell a credentialed expert that most of his peers disagree. You assume that. Because some people said so? FOX News anyone? Anyways, with all due respect, I get pretty worked up about this, and this is not meant to be personal as always, when I disagree with people whose opinions I respect, aka, yeah, you, most of the 99 per cent of the time, I say this, we can agree to disagree and move on. Old topic, same outcome, I refuse to argue or take it personal anymore.

    5. "You are offended by my assertions"

      not at all.

      I dont watch Fox News. I get my view that from the fact that the list of engineers who have come forward saying it looks like controlled demolition represent a tiny fraction of engineers who have an opinion on this.

      I would also add that not a single one of my engineer friends or colleagues believe that it was an inside job.

      What is your education in this field if you dont mind me asking?

    6. Approaching 35 years in the engineering business. From buildings, bridges and highways, and now mines of different flavors. I am not a young man Epicurus. All that aside, from what I can tell, you are not a stupid person. I cannot fathom you watching 7 fall, watching that penthouse fall in first, the thing classically twist, and fall into a neat little pile as far as 47 story buildings go, and not see what I see. Ignore the steel columns that need to be taken apart all microseconds apart to make it fall straight down, ignore the video evidence of explosions before it fell, I cannot reconcile people telling me that looked like a fire damaged building falling. Even when lined up on video with other known and televised demolitions. Falling exactly the same way at the same speed. You argue minor tweaks of speeds. Buddy, free fall, is free fall, you say there are huge differences? There sure are, what they claim happened and what really happened! I cannot swallow someone of your intellect telling me we both see different things. Forget the letters after my name. I cannot understand it. Again, man, let us just agree to disagree and make it a small deal. I figure we will just end up saying your friends, my friends, my colleagues, your colleagues, he said, she said. Waste of debate to be honest. I will not call you what I reserve for most people who play the game. I respect your input 99 per cent of the time, as I mentioned. This topic is not one of them. Cheers man.

  49. he never started with poland at all now what bull****, he walked into austria before ww2 started

  50. "9/11: An American Coup first examines mysterious and infamous events that reshaped world history from the Reichstag Fire in 1933 that catapulted Hitler to dictatorship – to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 that led to the Vietnam War, and then takes viewers on a turbulent journey through several pivotal moments in history before delving into the most significant catastrophe in recent memory, 9/11."

    Oh that makes a LOT of sense, like a prosecutor building a case against a murderer by describing all the crimes committed by the accused's neighbor's cousin's dead grandfather!
    As this seems typical of all too many truther arguments I hope this isn't a compelling point about anything other than how silly all this conspiracy theory nonsense really is.
    You people must really think that once someone becomes part of "government", either by elected vote or working up the civil service ranks, they get a membership card to the evil deeds club and start plotting ways to murder Americans.
    You people just. don't. get it. Whatever actual misdeeds and negligence that are really perpetrated by people in power are only provided with cover with all of the comic book paranoia being preached by truthers, because reasonable people are turned off by the company they see they'd be keeping.

    1. And, you are the second reason for the invention, "Bonehead Stew". Obviously incapable of understand how to draw a conclusion from a parallel example and even though, responsible people might be turned off by the company I am seen with, I'll help you out of kindness. You see, the reason for including the German Parliament building and the Tonkin Gulf incident were to show that a situation such as the Northwoods Document could very well have been a similar situation to what actually happened on 911. It is called a False Flag Incident, Hitler wanted war with her neighbors but needed a pretext, the Pentagon needed a reason to go into Vietnam but needed the Presidents approval oh, and there was the Northwoods Document. That was where the Joint Chiefs proposed we hijack airlines, fly them remotely and explode them; killing all on board. as well as staging other horrific scenes for a pretext at attacking Cuba.
      I'll bet, if you searched really hard, you could find many things that point to a possible need for a pretext in this situation. No? Need my help again? Well, sure I'll help but don't tell the responsible people. On second thought, I'll only give you a few clues because you'd learn it better if you actually did the research. Okay, ready?
      Clue #1: - P.N.A.C. and the need for a new Pearl Harbor. (Next time, I'll teach you about that incident an how it got us into WWII)
      Clue # 2: - Iraqi oil, Afghanistan Poppy's and Daddy's unfinished war
      Clue # 3: - The missing 2.3 Trillion Dollars from the Pentagon
      Clue # 4 - The SEC's documentation on cases involving ENRON and the Texas connection as well as information on insider trading which threatened Wall Street. Coincidentally, this data was housed in Giuliani's impenetrable fortress in Building 7
      Clue # 5 - The stupefying number of PUT options placed on the events of that day in September.

      You're Welcome.

    2. LOL, "do the research"... thank you Mr. Cruise.

      So to cover up all this wrongdoing- clue 3 and 4- they did 9/11. Ya that will work people will forget all about those things after we do this much larger thing.
      What was hidden by 9/11?
      But that's still pretty funny you'd point to things done long ago by other people (now dead) to prove someone else did this.

  51. Too many questions. One note. Never trust the government. They should always be forced to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. The US gov can't do that. Governments should all be scared of their people, not people scared of the gov.

  52. Just a couple of issues I have always had a hard time with
    1.Donald Rumsfeld=We need another Pearl Harbor.Where did 2.3 TRILLION dollars go to from the Pentagon?
    2How can any building that is so tall literally fall in on itself and the concrete is all powder?
    3 One of the hijackers passport is found after the collapse,Something wrong there.
    4 NORAD Minetta,Cheney,The forces were all around the Washington area yet not one was even close to any of the scenes,Cheney should be held accountable and should have been subphoenad to testify,His statements on National television as well as G Bush telling congress all lies about possible W.O.M.D. and invading IRAQ knowing full well Saddam had nothing to do with it.The war on IRAQ was and still is an act of aggresion and war crimes,Yet they are protected from the constitution of the U.S.A
    5.Nearly two years to get hearings underway.Certainly alot of time to get rid of evidence and silence those who knew more than we do
    6. How in the world does red hot metal flow like lava thirty floors down in the corners of each building.
    7.Finally the hole in the Pentagon is certainly not the size or even near any resemblance of a plane crash and if The Pentagon was the most secure building on the planet yet they only release one camera image when there are hundreds that surround the facility
    7.Why would The President allow some ninety or more people with last names like BIN LADEN leave on private jets hours after all planes were grounded
    This was a grizzly horrible way for The Government to make the world feel sorry for them.Now they are hated and are becoming more hated.In the end all who participated in this crime for POWER and MONEY have a far more gruesome fait when they die

    1. Why would Donald Rumsfeld throw suspicion on himself by signalling fore knowledge of a Pearl Harbour type of attack? Why announce the missing two trillion dollars when he knew the following day the Pentagon would be attacked and and this missing money would go unnoticed? Keep his mouth shut and know one knows.

      It fell in on itself because of the tube in tube structures of the buildings. The debunking site gives a very clear description of how and why it happened the way it did.

      This passport was allegedly found on the street. It was not necessary in the least to identify the hijackers as all their names were on the passenger lists as required by law. Stewardesses on the flights gave a description of Middle Eastern type men and even gave the seat location in phone calls during the hijacking. This passport would be something that a government conspirator would not like to have found as it would lead people like yourself to ask questions.

      Norad was designed to warn of an attack by enemy forces and was not its function to fight commercial domestic passenger planes. The invasion of Iraq was wrong but the American administration may have taken advantage of a situation. It doesn't prove involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

      It took a lot of time for the largest investigation in American history to complete and collate. Ordinary crimes can languish in courts for years. Nothing extraordinary about it.

      That lava was quite likely aluminium which has a much lower melting point than steel. Burning plastic can also resemble molten lava when it is allowed to pour.

      The claim that the size of the hole in the Pentagon is all wrong is an arbitrary claim. I can say it is and you can say it isn't. It is hard to know exactly what that hole should look like given the speed and entry angle would have to be considered. A picture on the net tells us nothing. Also, why hijack a plane and then not use it for the purpose claimed? If air defence is told to stand down, as you claim, why wouldn't you just let the plane do its job? Why complicate things by using a missile? A plane flying at little more than treetop level would be unlikely to be captured on film. A stationary camera would only capture a blur. A clear picture could only be taken by a camera that was following the flight of the plane. Surveillance cameras do not do this.

      After the royal family, the Bin Ladens are the richest and most influential family in Saudi Arabia. Osama was the black sheep of the family and was a wanted man in Arabia and a complication for the Bin Laden construction and communication empires. After the attacks, some of the Bin Laden family members in the States called their embassies fearing a violent reaction from the American people. The Arabian embassy arranged with the American government to have the Bin Laden family flown out three days after the attacks, not hours, when airports were allowed open for business. It could have led to a diplomatic nightmare if something had happened to any Bin Laden in the States. A prudent move by the American government and nothing suspicious about it.

      The Americans are hated because of their invasion of Iraq and the unethical practices of some American corporations. It doesn't mean they are guilty of every tragedy that ever happens but they could surely clean up their act by a great deal.

  53. I believe what is stated in this documentary to be true. I believe it with all my heart because the facts are there, there is tangible scientific evidence telling me so. What can i do about it? How many people have to be convinced? Is there an end game, for us ,for them?

    1. I would bet, however, that you have not gone to the debunking site that has been referenced earlier in this comment thread. If you had you would have seen the scientific evidence that validates the official story of Muslim extremists hijacking four planes with the goal of flying them into prominent American buildings. If you compare the CT evidence and the evidence presented in this site the CT evidence cannot stand. But, of course you believe it with all your heart...which would seem to indicate a predisposition to believe only what has already been accepted. An unbiased view would now be out of the question as your heart will never allow this to happen. Science is not of the heart and evidence has nothing to do with emotion.

  54. The second civil war started here and a lot's more to come soon..Good thing is USA has not won a war since 1945 and won't win this one.

    1. The United States isn't at war at the moment. They won the Gulf war as they militarily forced Iraq out of Kuwait. That was the objective and they succeeded. They also invaded Iraq, occupied the country for a time, and then left on their own timeline. If that isn't winning a war I don't know what is.

    2. I can see you side with the pro-government Jack1952. That's okay. There are way too many conflicts of interest, questionable "investigation" practices to leave me to believe the government's "version". It is entirely possible for an open society to become closed. I want to see real justice. Those "terrorists" should be held accountable if they helped perpetrate these acts. As should anyone on "our" side that was complacent in their actions.

      Conflicts of interest:

      1) Business of war. The US has 4.7% of its GDP spend on the military. If the US stopped buying war toys it would hurt the economy, let alone if the others stopped buying them from the US. Way too much money is made on the business of war. That needs to change.

      2) Revolving door. From government to any business. I'm sorry, this is important. No Business / State relationship, just like no Church / State relationship. Government is for people. If business owners with to express their "business" needs, they can do so as civilians. It should be illegal to "lobby" anyone. ( This will likely just move under ground). You worked in a high position in a major corporation, not allowed to run for government. Work in government... not allowed to start a business for "x" number of years, to be sure all your friends are out of office.

      3) Main Street takes the fall, Wall Street gets the check. I don't even want to start getting into this one. Yes, let the freakin' banks fail. We'll get by and maybe have to start living on something other than credit. Take the power of money creation back out of private interests. Private interests don't always have the interests of the many at hand.

      4) Lack of education. You may not see this as a conflict of interest, but I do. With the amount spend in the world on war and rebuilding after, we could feed, clothe and educate pretty much everyone. If we did that, we'd not likely have to go to war.

      I could keep going on, but why bother. I think you should question EVERYTHING. Especially what a government is going to tell it's people. Anything of real truth and value with stand up to your questions. I've seen enough holes blasted into the official 9/11 story to question it. I don't believe the US government "did it all". Nor do I believe it was just the "evil doers" (who is the US in some people's books). Rather, it's likely to fall somewhere in between.

      Terrorists are fighting because they don't want McDonald's and Playboy in their countries. They attack the US. The US government may have simply used this action to further their administrations ends.

    3. You are making assumptions about my beliefs that are just not true.

      First of all the American government could spend that 4.7 percent on infrastructure, education and health care and it would be as good or better than spending it on the military goods. The military creates nothing. It only consumes. Unfortunately, there has to be some military expenditures. The American government spends way too much and would be well advised to cut back on its bases on foreign soils. This would help to put them in a better light around the world. The gunboat diplomacy they are now engaged in is self perpetuating and will only get worse.

      The lobby system so prevalent in the States is a system which invites corruption. We don't allow it in Canada and it works. The big money elections only allow certain individuals to run for office. That means only certain types of individuals run for public office. They are the ones with money and the influence and are in the same stratosphere as the corporate structure. That is why you never see a labour or socialist type government gaining any influence in the States. That would suggest only the interests of a very few are ever met or considered.

      The bank collapse fiasco in the States is nothing but a disgrace. The banks in Canada are forbidden by law to engage in the activities that those Wall Street banks were involved in. Canadian banks emerged unscathed through that whole banking crisis.

      The public education system is another disgrace. There isn't much more I can say about that except that the uneducated don't vote. Only the middle to elite classes receive the education and they will vote for the candidates that will look after their cushy position in society. The unwashed and uneducated stay home at election time and end up perpetually living in the same substandard lifestyle they always have. They don't realize they have the power to change things but their lack of education prevents this realization.

      There is a lot about the United States that I don't like. That doesn't mean that I take an automatic stance against them no matter what. I have read and watched all the material on 9/11 and I have come to the conclusion that a group of fanatic Muslims, filled with hatred towards the United States, hijacked four jets with the intent to do harm. A lot of CT stuff is just a lot of "how comes" and "what ifs" and suspicious questions with not one concrete answer. These are the facts. My personal opinion of the American government has nothing to do with it and neither should anyone else's.

      If the people of those Muslim countries don't want Playboy or Macdonald's in their homelands, then those magazines would sit, unsold on the magazine stand and those hamburger joints would sit empty. Someone is buying those products. It is a case of one group of people trying to tell their countrymen how they should live. I would think that in a free society the people would decide for themselves.

    4. "and it would be as good or better than spending it on the military goods. The military creates nothing. It only consumes. "

      It appears that way at this point because we are the evil empire all the lesser nations gather around to throw stones at as a common enemy. For over 4 decades after WW2 our military might allowed our continued growth, we put our ships in harbors of countries who gave us favored nation trading status so we sold them coca cola and marlboros and had best access to their natural resources in exchange for our alliance against communism or regional rivals.
      Europe walked around with their noses stuck in our sphincter during the cold war, glad when we rattled our saber for them. That had real economic benefit.
      You really can't think of it like "let's take the money we wasted on f-22's and build schools instead." just like you can't say "let's not pay the power bill and we'll buy a better car with the money". America's prosperity is because of our global influence and reach and we only have that because of our alliances with others.
      Of course there is room to trim the fat and cut corruption but hell that is how our entire government runs. Pity the congressional district that elects an honest congressman, their district would be cut out of all kinds of spending bills and projects as the good old boys saw their guy wouldn't play ball. That's why crooks get re-elected, their constituents don't care if he's on the take as long as more fed money pours in than the last guy- this actually encourages electing MORE corrupt people, who cares if he's a thief if he's doing it for/with us? So it's not all bad if the congressman and contractor fill their pockets as long as it brought jobs to their district.
      (not promoting this system just accepting the reality of it)

    5. The world is a different place than the Cold War days. Back then, the world was polarized along basically three fronts, Communism, Capitalism and the third world or everybody else. Today, those lines are not quite as clear and are changing all the time. Traditional enemies, the Soviet Union and China, either don't exist any more or have become economic allies. Third world countries, India and Indonesia, are enjoying economic growth. Western enemies are shadowy terrorist figures who have no nationalistic loyalties but can live right among us. They receive support from rogue nations but these countries do not have the military strength to engage the United States or NATO in any other way but through terrorist type activities. A strong military presence by the United States has become less a deterrent to these activities and more of an irritant to many and encourages the hotheaded to join these religious terrorist groups. Many others become sympathetic to their cause because all they see is American military and economic bullying. This is why I think the United States should rethink its approach to the global war on terrorism. Terrorists must be reduced to the criminals that they are and the ordinary world citizen should see them this way and should never feel an obligation to shelter them. The military presence has the effect of giving those citizens the us vs. them mentality. That is not conducive to any type of lasting peace.

      The voting disparity in the United States is divided along economic and educational lines. When Obama was elected, many saw him as some type of socialist who was going tax all their hard earned money and give it to the shiftless, lazy poor. The response was the Tea Party, a bunch of right wing, everybody for himself types who would only perpetuate that growing gap between the poor and the economically viable. Many of them have witnessed globalization and productivity shrink the job market and do not want to become the next victims of this seeming unstoppable trend. The poor become angry and bitter and the well off become stingier and stingier. It is a vicious cycle that the political world of the United States had better solve.

  55. OK,it was an inside job,but the question is why they did such a lousy job with so many evidences left for us to see them?They don´t care obviously as we all are irrelevant,cause what do we gonna do about it?You gotta love NWO...

  56. what if it's something creepy, like all buildings over 30 floors have to be ready to be demolished in case they get hit, so they fall straight down instead of crushing other buildings...

  57. There is no terrorist like the terrorist, who preaches conspiracy theories, and feeds the people from his own limited perspectives and ideas. Were you there when the planes hit? Do you think the airlines love conspiracies so much they are willing to go broke attempting to protect passengers? Maybe there was no plane, as some claim? It was trick photography? The 19 bums who killed passengers in order to get into Allah's harem forever, were just victims of the CIA? What a copout!

    1. There is too much questionable circumstances, to leave the "official" version unquestioned. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that North American governments are highly questionable. The truth hurts. I will not doubt that there are those who would with the US harm. I'll ask a couple things. Why do they hate the US with such passion? What can we do to come to understanding? Bombing them will only show them they're right (from their point of view). Please question or government. Please hold them accountable. Conflicts of interest are far too apparent for me. Not only here, but in so many other aspects of government/business coalitions.

  58. conspiracy this, conspiracy that... let's drop the word conspiracy. theory alone is sufficient entirely. if anybody was conspiring anything, then the ones pulling the strings within/behind the US-government. They have admitted doing so on multiple occasions throughout history. It is perfectly logical and intuitive to question their story first.

    1. Nothing wrong with questioning the story but many are just plain denying the story, in spite of all the evidence that says it happened the way the 9/11 Commission has claimed. These deniers do not rely on evidence. They don't like the American government so they believe their version no matter what. Strange thing is, I'm not a big fan of the way the American government operates either and yet I don't believe they are responsible for the attacks. Not liking someone doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to accuse them of duplicity every time something untoward happens.

  59. The biggest surprise of this whole documentary is that sales of "My Pet Goat" weren't higher.

  60. Only 1 fact need be examined. No building can fall ar 100 + feet per second without having all there steel beams cut, Common sense. Not rocket science/

    1. Do you realize how big a job it would be to cut all the steel beams in both towers? It would take a large crew months to do the job. Yet not one witnessed this type of work in spite of the thousands of people who work and visit these towers every day. Common sense says that this is highly unlikely.

    2. you need to intensify your research. there are several witness reports of entire floors being closed for months, with construction-site type noise audible. the actual cutting of the beams was obviously done almost instantly via thermite, as is the common procedure for destructions of buildings as such

    3. There are two witness who claim power downs the weekend before the collapse. The claim being made is that the power went down late Friday afternoon and was turned back on Sunday afternoon. Not months...three days. Only two witnesses out of all the people who would have been affected and known about this. There are no work orders, no paper trails that show planning of this power down, no warnings to save computer information (very important with a loss of power) and two witnesses. Also, if there had been floors closed for months before the collapse, people would have been laid off and there would have been records of people making unemployment claims and that is not in evidence either. Not exactly what I would call a substantial case.

      There is no evidence that thermite can cut instantly through steel and it is never used in demolition. The claim of common procedure just isn't true.

      If you have evidence to back up your claims please show it as I would be interested.

    4. " the actual cutting of the beams was obviously done almost instantly via thermite, as is the common procedure for destructions of buildings as such"

      And now we reach the point of making up silly things as we go along, hoping people are just dumb enough to believe it.
      What's funny is that surely most other truthers saw this and knew it was just wrong but would never criticize one of their own.

    5. You're promoting a position of ignorance, because you do not understand the mechanics of the structural failure you believe that alone is evidence of outside intervention.
      Let's not let the pesky little detail of finding no beams cut in the rubble stand in the way of the truth, eh?
      There have been a number of peer review journal published research papers which include in their analysis the speed of the buildings fall, I am sure you are free to submit your qualified rebuttal to them. Maybe when you're done there you can write some rocket science papers too!

  61. Choose your words carefully friend. How many facts does it take before a conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact? The effectiveness of the system's disarmament of mind is very good. As soon as someone suggests a "conspiracy theory" all of those adherents to such a label relieve themselves of the personal responsibility to check for themselves the facts of the case.

    In essence applying the label "conspiracy theorist" to anyone is the ultimate expression of blissful ignorance. Would you rather call each other names than to conduct your own investigation of the facts? It seems so but the most powerful thing that can be held in this regard is a viable account of the facts and the fact that truth is easy to defend.

    "Truth is an adequate defense against the charge of paranoia."

    1. I have investigated the facts. The facts say that nineteen Muslim extremists hijacked four passenger jets. Two hit the twin towers, a third jet hit the pentagon and the fourth crash landed in a field. That is my conclusion after exhaustive research. I found no evidence that conclusively points anywhere else. No solid evidence of explosives, no missiles, its not a hologram, the twin towers were not empty shells, no evidence that points directly at anyone but those nineteen Muslims.

    2. Also,

      Before you can have evidence you need a theory, (hypothesis). Evidence on its own is meaningless. its nothing. without a theory and abstract observer to measure and guide evidence it is meaningless.
      If all the evidence for you points to the Muslim hijackers than don't blindly accept it as being legitimate.
      Question it, check its validity, dig deeper attempt to find inconsistencies.
      do some scholar academic research on your own time and attempt to examine both evidence from a scientific and objective standpoint.

      Whether you blindly believe in the evidence hand-fed to you by news corporations or crack conspiracy theorist preaching about lizard aliens. if you've evaluated objectively both stances giving merit to both equally will you be closer to finding the truth.

    3. The unfortunate truth is that if I can claim that I have investigated all areas of a topic like this there will still be some who will not believe it. The only way they will believe that I have done a thorough investigation is if I say that I agree with them.

      If an hypothesis is offered and upon research I find that it has no merit the theory is no longer valid. That is the scientific method. I have been able to find serious holes in almost every claim 9/11 CTers have made. To be able to do this I must have examined these claims.

    4. You have missed a lot of evidence then. Ten years of investigations all over the world and this is all you have come up with? What are your sources?

    5. The same sources as anyone else. That includes the sources that claim that this was an inside job. There is not enough evidence to net one government agent or politician one day in jail. A first year law student would rip the evidence I've seen to shreds in ten minutes and no self respecting judge would allow what passes as evidence to a CTer into his courtroom. None of it complies to the standard known as the rules of evidence. That is the reality of it. Questions and gut feelings just don't cut it.

    6. Perhaps you are missing the covering up of any real investigation. Perhaps police and investigative procedure do not apply to 9/11. You cannot conclude that any of what was told to us is real. You cannot ignore detectives making a fuss about the ignoring of protocol. You cannot ignore the collapse pattern of the buildings. You cannot ignore the "vaporization" of the aircrafts' engines, fuselage and everything else in it. You cannot ignore the several thousand architects and engineers who all share the same conclusions that the buildings, all three of them mind you, collapsed in a demolition fashion. Your assessment of the evidence of this case is simply rejection of reality. There are too many anomalies, too many paper trails, too many videos, too many experts, too many witnesses, too many subsequent actions taken to reduce our liberties and the closing of our way of life. You claim that a first year law student would tear the evidence to shreds which sheds some light on your understandings of the investigative process. I do not wish to be unkind but if you wish to remain in blissful ignorance and to reject the facts then so be it. But the evidence is overwhelming. People have been calling for an independent investigation but there is no need. The continuous investigations have been going on since the event first occurred. The informed conclusions all point in the same direction and it isn't the one that you suggest. I cannot convince anyone who doesn't want to see the truth so I will not press the issue any further. Thousands and thousands of people have spend valuable time and efforts constructing documentaries like this to do that job. Sadly it seems that they have failed you. But not me. Good luck in your search.

    7. 9/11 was the largest FBI investigation in American history. Thousands upon thousands of witnesses watched the planes fly into the Towers. There were many more who saw the plane flying extremely low towards the Pentagon and the subsequent crash and no one has seen the plane continue after the crash. Passengers on flight 93 talked to family members on the ground and there were witnesses to that crash. Those planes have disappeared as have the passengers and crew of those planes. Something happened to those planes. There are multiple videos of the second plane crashing. There are crash sites, four of them, that coincide with the missing planes. If the crashes did happen, why hide the engines or pretend they were vaporized? If those conspirators wanted to convince us of the truth why not show the world a planted engine? Why allow the loose ends to exist? Hijackers have been identified from the passenger lists which is required by law. How can anyone still deny that this was part of the ruse?

      The buildings in New York collapsed. It was all filmed. Some think they should collapse differently or not at all. If it was a controlled demolitions the CTers ignore the fact that setting those charges is a huge undertaking requiring months of intense labour. Yet, no one, I mean no one, has found any credible evidence or any witnesses that any of this took place. You cite witnesses but witnesses of what. Anomalous eye witness accounts have to be taken with a grain of salt and their accounts have to be compared to all the evidence to prove its veracity. As for paper trails, I have no idea what you are talking about. Paper trails leading to what?

      Those architects and engineers add up to less than two thousand and they come from all parts of the world. Less than two thousand from the hundreds of thousands, maybe into the millions, of people with similar credentials from all over the world. Some of the credentials of that small number are dubious at best. Why would anyone take the opinion of such a tiny percentage seriously?

      Have you ever even read the NIST report or studied the conclusions of the 9/11 commission. I have done this and I have watched all the CT videos and read a lot of their material. Place the evidence of the divergent accounts on the balance beams of justice and the CT evidence would lose...considerably.

      I do not take everything I am told be the government as truth but I don't automatically dismiss it or call it a lie without any true investigation. Subsequent reaction to these events by the government doesn't prove anything either. That is a cause and effect scenario that is quite tenuous.

      Please, don't insist that anyone who thinks things happened the way mainstream believes it does, are living in ignorance and are some kind of brainwashed sheep. It is an argument that you cannot prove and is arrogant in nature.

    8. I don't know what really happened on 911, But I do know this, there's a lot of questions that need to be addressed. For instance,the supposed plane that hit the pentagon. Now there has never been a plane crash in recent history, where major pieces of the plane such as landing gear, Jet Engines, Seats, wings and other parts were mysteriously absent from the crash site. Where's the crash debris? There's something wrong with this so called jet crash. Regardless of the official story the corporate media has tried to force down our throats. They ask us not to think for ourselves, but just take their word, even if it the story doesn't even make any sense. This can't be explained away.

    9. Google pictures of plane wreckage at Pentagon. There is your debris. You can claim fakes or that is was planted but you have to prove this. For example, I can't just call you a liar in public and then walk away. I have to justify my claim. If I can't, no one should take me seriously. You're not the liar. I am or at best I'm a deluded loud mouth.

      Google witnesses of plane crash at pentagon. There are over one hundred witnesses who saw the plane flying low towards the Pentagon and crash. Read their accounts and watch interviews with these witnesses. There is even one guy who, as part of the interview, describes the plane as a missile with wings. Truthers have latched onto this as proof that it was a missile but if you watch the entire interview it is abundantly clear that this was not meant as a fact. It was a description and he says "like a missile" not that it was a missile. He clearly says that it was a passenger plane.

      Those who followed the plane on radar said it made a wild turn so it could be on course to hit the Pentagon. It was a maneuver that no pilot would ever make. Doesn't mean it is absolutely impossible, as some truthers claim. Its a bad move. Not something a pilot would do except under extraordinary circumstances. I would say this event would qualify.

      Four planes took to the air that morning. You can see umpteen videos of the plane that hit the second tower. There are thousands of witnesses who saw these planes crash, maybe even a hundred thousand that saw the second plane crash as every one was looking at the results of the first crash that had just happened. Why crash two planes and then fake the other two? Why not finish the job as per plan? They have a stolen plane. Fly it into your target. They have already demonstrated that they have no regard for life. It makes no sense to steal a plane and then not use it for the purpose they claim.

      What happened to the crew and passengers? Any investigation will show that the plane that hit the Pentagon took off and there is crew and passenger list. Airline officials, airport workers, friends, relatives and co-workers will attest that they dropped off passengers or they were waiting for them at the other end. Where did they go? There is no evidence that the passengers and crew are anywhere else.

      The plane took off and never landed at any destination that anyone knows of. Radar types follow the path of the plane as it flies toward Washington. Witnesses watch a plane hit the Pentagon. There are pictures of debris. It looks like it flew into the Pentagon.

      If it is indeed fact, that a passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon, how is that ramming it down anyone's throat? They are then just reciting the facts as it happened. It is only described as ramming if you decide that all the investigators, airline officials and employees and witnesses are all liars. Please read what I say about calling someone a liar in my first paragraph.

      Truthers can give a convincing argument of their side of the story as they believe it if you only listen to what they have to say. Having questions is no evidence of wrong doing. Only the answers to those questions if proof. No answers, no proof. It's quite simple.

  62. I can appreciate the criticism of the idea of explosives, and indeed it's necessary to criticize in order to clarify what's known or can be known so facts can be shown. I just wonder what those who dismiss all ideas contrary to the official story SEE when they watch WTC7 fall???

    1. We all watch the same thing when we watch WTC7 fall and it is not enough to tell us what really happened. So we investigate. A total investigation. We find evidence of fire fighters who claim there was a twenty story gash on the side of the building facing the twin towers. There were intense fires and smoke billowing out of this hole. Floors appeared buckled and firefighters were "pulled" out of the building hours before the collapse. This buckling caused firefighters to believe that the building was in danger of imminent collapse. It was Dan Nigro Chief of Department FDNY, who ordered the evacuation of the building, not Silverstein. All this, and more, is on the record and does not indicate any type of controlled demolition.

  63. One of the best films on this subject with much stuff not seen on other documentaries. Ask yourself why the official explanations don't make sense - ask yourself what the US military has done globally since 9/11 - and finally, ask this one simple question, why have no other steel-framed buildings collapsed due to fire damage anywhere else in the world, both before and since 9/11?

    1. Why do all CTs says collapsed due to fire? Why omit the other important factor? You should say "No steel framed buildings have collapsed due to being hit by a passenger jet and subsequent fires." That would be accurate. It would also be correct since no other high rise buildings have been hit by jets. It also means you can't use this statement. Maybe that is why you neglect to mention the jet crashes.

    2. How many building fell on 911?

    3. I know what you're referring to and it doesn't wash. WTC7 was struck by the debris from WTC1. WTC7 was 610 feet tall and WTC1 was 1400 feet tall. When 1 collapsed steel girders struck 7 at the bottom going almost halfway up the building. A fireman described it this way. " but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good." Other firefighters say there was a bulge in building 7 and they knew that it was going to collapse. They also heard creaking and groaning, sounds which suggest great strain on the supports. Also the Bankers Trust building was struck by debris leaving a huge gaping hole but it did not catch fire so it did not collapse. Building 7 was not hit by a plane but it was hit by massive steel girders. This, with the fires, has not happened before or since.

  64. Why do you use that vimeo player, it is unplayable, even after pausing for 5 mins it still stops and starts every second, i can only assum you use to to stop people watching it or wind them up, i have recommended this site to lots, but if you use that vimeo player i can't, as it is pure crap.

    From now on when i see vimeo i will just click the red cross in the top right corner, this was such aa good site once, i can only assume that vimeo greased some parms of people on short term contracts and don't care if they kill this site, pity was a good site once.

    1. all we do is link to videos on other sites. there is no connection to vimeo and us.

    2. Sorry i was a bit over the top, i was just fed up trying to get it to play, i don't have a great link, 3 meg, but i live far from an exchange and a lot of people are in the same boat as me, bt have promised to increase it if i change my package, that i will do at the end of the month, they say 17 meg for my area so we will see what happens next month, sorry i was so harsh.

    3. i understand how frustrating it is when you want to watch a doc and it just doesnt play properly. I hear ya.

  65. Awesome! An hour and a half long "documentary"(if you can even call it that) providing no real facts!

  66. what is more easy? blow up wtc or dismiss few people? why maniacs who did the hard part cant do the easy?

    1. You ever heard of a Martyr?
      acknowledgement or imprisonment of lowly respected conspiracy theorists would only give credence to their beliefs.
      Instead powerful interest groups use a more subtle approach to dismiss potential truth-Sayers.
      Just like the word 'Propaganda' is no longer viewed in a positive light within our society, So too is 'conspiracy theories'. ingeniously, anyone simply labeled as such bring to mind a host of negative associations that repel social acceptability, and equally maintain the status quo of mainstream thought process.
      For example, Imaginative portrayals of men with 'tin foil hats', cranked alien abduction stories from mad men, and deranged men holding signs entitled "end of the world" all aid in attacking the credibility of the few that do offer a legitimate Theory of a conspiracy, a.k.a. "conspiracy theory".

    2. Conspiracy theorists not being incarcerated proves that their allegations are correct. Makes sense in a convoluted way.

    3. @Jack1952

      First I think you mis-interpreted what I said, I never said that all conspiracy theorists allegations were always correct. These types of tactics against conspiracy theories work so well precisely because so many of them are wrong, as it de-legitimizes those few that are right.

      In other words there is no need for incarceration/assassination. they in effect are being character assassinated based merely on their being labeled as conspiracy theories.
      It works, as individuals such as your self attack conspiracy theories as an negative linguistic identity and not what it truly is an abstract theory which should be judged on merit.

      The fact that there are websites that dedicate themselves perpetually on debunking theories on 9/11 speak volumes as the truth is not easily discernible.

      If you choose to believe in the claims by debunkers or the mainstream rational than that is your choice. It is no different than those conspiracy theorists who advocate a different polarizing view. (both argue scientifically, with somewhat logical rational.) T

      Finally, if you havn't noticed in both my posts I'm taking an objective stance on the nature of conspiracy theorists. I'm not claiming their ideals have merit. and you can learn something than merely classifying anyone who doesn't agree with your particular views as "Conspiracy theorists".
      The fact that your so defensive in your judgement as claiming that I was advocating that all CT's are correct suggests a deep regression and closed mind of thought in your part.
      Open yourself up to new polarizing ideas, understand why people think they way they do, especially those that are completely foreign to your way of thought. Its how you learn and grow.

    4. One reason for the debunking sites concerning 9/11 is that these are extremely serious allegations. If the people who are making these allegations are able to place themselves into powerful positions it could be the start of a witch hunt that could rival McCarthy-ism or worse. Already in this discussion one poster accused another of being an agent of the government just because he strongly believes the government had nothing to do with this tragedy. No evidence...just a wild accusation. People like this are scary

      The debunking site that has been referenced earlier has done a thorough job in its investigations and has shown exactly how the hijackers did this deed and has shown why these allegations are false using strong evidence to back their views. Some actually refuse to go to this site claiming that it is just government propaganda. In other words they will only accept evidence that confirms their views. Once again, people like this are scary.

      Before anyone accuses me of accepting only the evidence that confirms my bias, let me assure them that I have watched numerous films and read exhaustive material claiming a government inspired plot. The evidence they use is weak and relies too much on gut feelings and suspicions of something fishy. Not evidence at all.

      I have thoroughly investigated all kinds of conspiracy theories...chemtrails, ancient aliens, 9/11, etc. If the people who offer these claims had the evidence to back up their claims, I would accept it. Quite frankly, they don't. Just because I don't believe every unlikely claim made does not mean I'm not open minded. It means that you have to prove it to me.

      If I misinterpret your meaning, I apologize but it does seem as if you believe the CT claims concerning 9/11 has some merit.

    5. could say the same for the Reichstag Fire that Hitler used to whip up support for a war on russia, blamed a communist terrorist, wasnt even russian. this happened, this is fact. now im not saying that 911 is a fact but the similarities are remarkable.

      twin towers - reichstag (german parliament, an amazing historic building)
      fire - (debatable) demolition.

      support for war on russia by blaming a communist, - support for war on "global terrorists" by blaming muslim extremists.

      As well as this the scape goat of each is such that it gives each government the ability to declare war on anyone that comes under these vague parameters. seems to convenient for me personally

    6. Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton and Russell Williams are rapist-serial killers. They are all Canadians. I am a Canadian. Therefore, I must be a rapist-serial killer.

      Your logic is no better. Hitler's actions have nothing at all to do with 9/11. Interesting comparison but not usable as evidence and proves absolutely nothing.

    7. Hitler did not blame the destruction of the Reichstag on Russian communist, he accused the German communist party. They were his strongest political opposition and he used this allegation to arrest their leaders and break up the german comm. party. Hitler wouldn't use the Reichstag to gain support for a war with Russia because he never asked for support for any of his military actions. He lead and expected Germany to follow. Besides, he signed a nonaggression pact with Stalin. It'd be hard to gain support for war against a nation you are negotiating a nonaggression pact with don't you think.

  67. Bottom line. Something is not right, meaning something is very wrong. There is absolutely no way to dispute the fact that the 'official' story of 911 is definitely fishy. A must watch.

    1. That's your "bottom line"? 11 years later, "something is not right"?
      Just once I'd love to see a truther who mocks that "ridiculous official story" attempt a credible pointed rebuttal to the NIST report. Virtually none of you will even look at it.

    2. If it matters, I read the thousands of pages of nothing and ran some of the supplied numbers Bat. I came to the same conclusions that many have. They are fudged numbers and do not represent even closely, what our eyes saw that day. You can think what you like. Even schills, at some point, have to admit, you cannot shut everyone up or win a debate with an expert. You may reply 10 thousands times, you have not the skill, knowledge, or expertise to rebut one single thing I say other than reading a bunk website, supplying others supposed findings, most of them employed by or related to the US Government and their rich friends ( see Billionaires and Ballot Bandits - 9 Ways to Steal an Election as a guidline to connect a few dots} and quoting other so called debunkers. I could spend hours upon days posting numbers for you to crunch, and you would be in the same place you are now. Clueless and misinformed. You can ridicule all day long if it pleases you, I have some thick skin and really enjoy listening to non engineers tell me about engineering. Not everyday, but sometimes I need entertainment from know nothings, just to have a good laugh, or cry, depending on how my mood is.

    3. Argument from authority = no argument.

      "You may reply 10 thousands times, you have not the skill, knowledge, or expertise to rebut one single thing I say "

      You seem to be caught up completely in this argument from authority thing. We don't know who you are and any piece of paper hanging on the wall of your house doesn't mean spit here. You haven't posted anything of merit that needed replying to, instead feeling that blathering on about your hatred and distrust of the US government as if that is supposed to be mistaken for evidence of wrongdoing. So keep up the nonsense about engineers, maybe someday you will find a degree in a box of crackerjack and you'll finally be one.
      Because let's not forget this was your answer:

      "Approaching 35 years in the engineering business. From buildings, bridges and highways, and now mines of different flavors. I am not a young man Epicurus."

      When asked about the field of your education. Magna cum laude in
      BS engineering, no doubt.

    4. Upon revisiting this thread. Your reply made me laugh. I could spend all day long trying to explain engineering concepts to a person like this one, and again, no farther ahead. I didnt post numbers to argue about, because you cant explain them to an uninformed individual. When someone like this demands numbers, i might as well post in Cantonese. Because the numbers would look that way. You havent a clue about buildings. Period. Why explain to a fool....

  68. Don't watch this, it's all lies. And never mind who I am. Got it!

  69. 2009....not worth watching in my opinon.
    Good for argumenting not much else.

  70. propaganda

  71. Um, ya, this guy is a fraud. Stephen Jones is facing charges for fabricating evidence to make, if I remember correctly, paint chips appear to be explosives. He was wrong, this doc is wrong, sunjata deserves a fist in his face for continuing to lie to everyone to make a buck.

    1. Hmm, I never heard this. Direct me to where you read he is facing charges. Thank you. I seriously doubt that, he is a mormon and not a crazy man. I have read his work more than once, the man is no joke. I question what you say here in the strongest terms. Prove it.

  72. whodunnit?- whoprofitit.

    1. Follow the money. I hear you. But I have never seen the documents or proof other than the directors of this and other docs, and the people they interviewed say that a certain group or individual had to be involved. I just cannot say who did it, what one person or group of people. I am an engineer, not a detective. There are supposed to be people doing that job, actual detective work. What followed this day was nothing short of a farce, it was nothing like detective work. Destroying evidence to boot and not doing a proper fire investigation either. Anyways, I like many people, have my suspicions, but speaking them would be unfair, I do not know, like the rest of you. None can say definitively that they know, although one could surmise Mr Silverstein had to be involved, following that on air gaffe where he spoke the truth and had to back pedal to say he meant something else. I do not believe in coincidences and this one was to me, not a coincidence or a slip of the the tongue. Pull it means one thing. Nothing else, nice try though Larry. Anyways, I only know the numbers. They do not add up. No engineer worth their salt has ever argued that. If some have, I have yet to meet them in 11 years. They may not say so publicly, but it is what it is, the majority of professionals understand that. Those buildings were imploded. Why and who, that can be answered by others in time. I cannot change a thing or peoples mind, but I do sleep well at night knowing whoever did this, did not pull the wool over everyone's eyes, especially credentialed professionals who know better. That is the only satisfaction I have over this event. The rest leaves me with a very heavy heart, and has for 11 years. I do not feel bad feeling's alone. If whoever did this would go to that level, how far would they go?

    2. Very good responses. In 1993 we know that "terrorists" set off a big bomb to bring down one of the twin towers at TWC. Since explosives were used in 1993, why would the NIST not even check for explosives after 9/11?

    3. That's explained in the report, the reason they felt no need to check for explosives or even consider approaching this from a controlled demolition aspect is because all the eyewitness, photograph and video evidence- which they lay out in detail in their report- make it all too obvious that the collapse of the towers was a structural failure caused by fires as they describe.
      It's like demanding to know why the police didn't look for a gun in a murder caught on camera by a guy stabbing the victim with a knife.
      Please, go read the report and see the details they describe about the collapse which eliminate the possibility of controlled demolition. Otherwise it is nothing more than arguing a platform of ignorance.
      I'll also mention that the teams used to clean up the rubble at ground zero are the same companies used to clean up at controlled demolitions. Thousands of experienced workers, most of them who live in the area and have seen the financial and emotional devastation brought upon the city by this event. If something was amiss they would be the ones to recognize it and would certainly have every reason to say something.

    4. I don't know what your alleged degree of engineering's field is in but those with disciplines relevant to civil engineering, structural failure analysis, etc, overwhelmingly concur with the NIST report.
      What is your point about "credentialed professionals who know better"? If you are talking about Gage's little group statistically they represent about 1/10 of one percent of people in their field. Are you saying their voice should be considered significant (even though they have NOT published an alternate theory to the NIST report, they merely question it- quite unscientific) not rejected as a tiny fringe? Or are there more "credentialed professionals" lurking about who are so confused they believe they can argue from authority without publishing their work through appropriate channels?

    5. The reason most do not bother, is people like you to be honest. Talking to the wall is time better spent. I have no interest on carrying on a debate with people who not armed with the proper knowledge. You are set on your opinions and I will not be the one to enlighten you or teach you engineering online.

    6. You may get away with spreading the bull thick and deep with others but don't think I didn't notice you were asked this:
      "What is your education in this field if you dont mind me asking?"
      To which you replied:
      "Approaching 35 years in the engineering business. From buildings, bridges and highways, and now mines of different flavors. I am not a young man Epicurus. All that aside, from what I can tell, you are not a stupid person. "

      You have NO "credentials" as you condescendingly treat those who similarly lack with contempt. You have no degree in relevant fields- however I didn't need to see someone put you on the spot to have you furnish a revealing answer to know this, it was apparent by the lack of any substance to your arguments here.
      As I said before if you actually were someone with the professional qualifications you allude to holding you wouldn't be wasting time arguing on internet message boards with talking points less substantial than air itself, you'd be submitting research papers to professional peer review journals and convincing your colleagues there really is something to your ideology motivated nonsensical conspiracy theories.
      I guess some people like to pretend they are something they are not behind the anonymity of internet handles, but the one identity that's hard to mask is being completely full of poop.

  73. Another 9/11 doc. How long before the first insult flies?

    1. When everyone wakes up. I already seen this, is it old if I am not mistaken. I do not subscribe to the whodunnit, I have no idea and do not claim to know. I only know my end of it. Buildings do not fall that way, without help, physically impossible. The laws governing physics cannot be changed. That's my story, I'm a stickin to 'er.

    2. actually slpsa, yes they do. no laws of physics were changed that day. everything has a completely perfect simple explanation.

    3. I would assume Epi, you are saying so in jest. I can see many instances, where my eyes see what they see, and my knowledge rejects any and most claims by the powers that be that those collapses were due to fire. Balderdash! Bloody impossible. Could not be done the way they said they fell. They blew up, to dust, they did nothing else. Ejections sideways at super high speeds, squibs, pyro-clastic dust flows from superheated debris....BAH!, see here I go again. I just get worked up at mass stupidity, when really, I must keep the lid on tight, lest I see the world around me completely out of context. Not a chance, anyone with a degree or experience as an engineer, that is not in Government employ, agrees with the official story. I have said in the past, I will go to my grave knowing deep down in my gut, I and many others, know. We just cannot do a darn thing about it, So why bother. People with no knowledge will think what they will. Nothing will change that.

    4. It took an hour and two minutes. Jeremy wins.

    5. I'm going to send Jeremy a "Honk, if like me you've got way too much testosterone" car sticker.

    6. I'm actually a really chill guy other than when people lie for financial gains, then yes, I can be a real ass. Sunjata, Avery, Alex Jones, and all of their ilk are parasites and should have the words "fiction" stamped on all of their work.

    7. For all these 9/11 conspiracy theorists fault, and there are certainly a few.
      The exploitation of financial gain is certainly not one of them.
      All the material they provide from my knowledge is non-profit, and they aren't selling anything besides their theories.

      So please explain to me how they financially exploited these theories? Are they selling survival packs, t-shirts, subscriptions, etc... ? What is their financial motivation? Just curious.

    8. On the point they are profiting from this, I am on the same page. We agree on that. It is wrong. But nonetheless, not everything they say is BS either. The numbers are what matter to me. They do not add up. I do not need Dr Jones to tell me that. I agree with him and many others, this was not a natural collapse of any of those three buildings. Impossible according to the official story. I need say no more. I work in related fields if not the fields associated with buildings, design and code. I cannot erase my knowledge to make peoples happy or anything of the sort. Lately, I just leave the topic alone, there is no satisfaction talking to non engineers or non experts anymore. It is a waste of breath. I just sleep well. That's that.