September 11: The New Pearl Harbor

September 11: The New Pearl Harbor

2013, 9/11  -   319 Comments
Ratings: 8.57/10 from 898 users.

On the very day of "September 11" several commentators drew a parallel with the historical events of Pearl Harbor. But there was also someone on the same day who offered a prediction. In fact the more information that's been emerging about "September 11" the more we've come to realize that many different aspects of the two events bear a chilling resemblance to each other. While both events were needed by the U.S. to go to war, in both cases the ultimate goal was not the one initially stated.

Roosevelt knew a surprise Japanese attack would enrage the public and jumpstart the American war machine. In this way F.D.R. would get backdoor entry into what he really wanted - war with Hitler. According to their own documents, before 9/11, authorities knew that surprise attack like new Pearl Harbor would enrage the public and start a war against Afghanistan. In this way they would get the backdoor entry into what they really wanted - the war with Saddam Hussein.

Before and during the World War II, the propaganda machine made a relentless effort to create a direct connection between Hitler and Japan. One poll, taken immediately after Pearl Harbor, showed that more than 60% of Americans believed that Germany was behind the attack. The Bush-Cheney propaganda machine made an even harder effort to create direct association between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. By the end of 2003 nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was implicated in the "September 11" attacks.

Top levels of the Roosevelt's administration knew in advance that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Secretary of state, Cordell Hull, even knew the exact day of the attack a week before it took place. Before "September 11" many in the intelligence community knew the attacks were on their way.

Vital information on the Japanese attack was kept from those who could've used it to defend the Hawaiian port and to minimize the number of American casualties. Two men could use that information immediately: Admiral Husband Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, the commanders at Pearl Harbor. But they never get it. Before "September 11" important information was kept from counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who could have organized the defense and even have prevented the attacks altogether.

More great documentaries

319 Comments / User Reviews

  1. While the evidence provided by this doco is compelling, the question remains as to why have the neglected to consult Scully and Mulder!

  2. Great documentary but from solid evidence we know no plane hit the pentagon. So why such a long section on the pentagon hit?

    1. The reason you 'know' the plane didn't hit the Pentagon is because you are listening to people, including those who made this documentary, who ignore all the evidence that the plane did hit the Pentagon. There are at least 60 eyewitness who saw the plane hit the building. Were their accounts included in this documentary? In this video they even look at the video from the Pentagon and fail to actually see the image of the plane right there on the screen! It's bizarre.
      As for Norman Mineta and his account , listen to Norman Mineta and the numerous interviews he has give about this over the years, where he says the plane was coming from the middle of Pennsylvania , from north of Baltimore, from beyond Great Falls on the Potomac ,on the downriver approach to Washington and then the target disappeared near National airport. Compare that to the flightpath of AA77. An FAA controller gave evidence to the Commission that when the transponder went off on UA93 she put in a virtual track for UA93 into the system that went Hagerstown VOR all the way to National airport, which is beside the Pentagon. FAA controllers were following that track all the way to Washington thinking UA93 was still in the air and they can be heard asking other controllers if that plane had turned up in Washington. All the people who had been evacuated out of the Pentagon were being warned to get away from the building because there was a second plane on the way. There were photos taken inside the Whitehouse by David Bohrer , released in 2015 under FOIA request and they show Cheney still in his office at 9.36, when AA77 was about 6 miles from the Pentagon. By the time they got down to the PEOC area the plane had already hit. Mineta's account is totally wrong. He arrived at the Whitehouse after the Pentagon was hit. He can be seen in the photo's entering the PEOC which is full of people and the time is after 10 am. Mineta has 'dined out' on this story for years , saying that he was the one who gave the order to land all the planes, when in fact it was Ben Sliney at the FAA who gave that order about 30 minutes earlier. Some people suggested to Sliney that he not say anything and give Mineta the credit but he said he wasn't going to distort the facts for anyone.
      Mineta was interviewed not long after 9/11 and he talked about all the things he did after the plane hit the second tower, watching the TV for about 6 minutes, making various phone calls to the CEOs of different airlines and talking to them etc. Now when he talks about it he just says he was immediately called to go to the Whitehouse and arrived about 9.25 when people were running out of the Whitehouse into Lafayette Park. There is video from the Whitehouse taken after the plane hit the Pentagon and even then there is no one running out of the Whitehouse. There are still reporters there with cameramen and they are only then being asked to leave.

    2. A plane did hit the Pentagon, just not the airliner which the official story claims hit the Pentagon.
      Ignore the other comment, if he's got time to write a lenghty piece in support of the official narrative here he probably hasn't seen the documentary at all.
      Matter of fact he's prolly paid by Unit 8200 of Mossad

  3. This is by far the most comprehensive documentary about the events of 9/11. It tackles the logical fallacies of the debunkers head on with eyewitness documentation, the immutable laws of physics, and the testimony of professionals from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, Pilots for 9/11 truth, and other professionals and whistleblowers. It is impossible, absent blinding cognitive dissonance, to watch this documentary without coming to the conclusion that the official explanation for the events of 9/11 are false. It also opens one's eyes to the existence of an international conspiracy capable of perpetrating the attacks and covering up their guilt through control of the mainstream media and the judicial system. This answers questions and poses questions of its own. Highest recommendation.

  4. Makes you wonder if continuing to allow the President to be in full control over the military is still a good idea.

    1. Sadly.. The film Dr. Stranglove demonstrates the possibly outcome of the alternatives.

      We're eFFed either way

    2. Sadly.. The film Dr. Stranglove demonstrates the possible outcome of the alternatives.

      We're eFFed either way

  5. Don't be swayed by the desperate attempts of someone going by the name batvette, to rescue the ludicrous official story of 9-11...

    What gives away that it was an inside job is the unprecedented collapse of 3 steel skyscrapers, primarily from fire. They are the only 3 such buildings to ever collapse due to fire. Moreover, neither NIST nor batvette can explain the extraordinarily symmetrical nature of the "collapses," through the path of greatest resistance, including dozens of massive core columns. Batvette claims that structural steel weakens at 1000-1100 degrees F, and that once one floor collapsed, the portion above that point would fall 3 meters and start an unstoppable total collapse. Highly, highly dubious. One problem is that weakened steel is likely to deform first, rather than neatly snap, and to do so at a certain location rather than at every load-bearing point on that floor, all at once. If we had any examples of steel skyscrapers collapsing from fire, and we don't, we would likely see one portion of the building giving way and then a toppling over, not a symmetrical collapse through the strongest structural elements. Another problem is that the fires had greatly diminished, as evidenced by the preponderance of black smoke, by the time of the "collapses." Still another is the discovery of partially vaporized steel, which requires temperatures north of 5,000 degrees F, impossible in the context of burning jet fuel or office fires.

    An even greater problem that the above is that NIST itself abandoned the progressive, pancake collapse theory that batvette describes, in favor of one where the perimeter columns fail first, buckling in while still connected to the sagging floors. This form of collapse is exceedingly hard to reconcile with the symmetry of the destruction of the towers.

    Perhaps batvette should get into the business of building demolition. What a bunch of dummies. They carefully plant explosives throughout the structures, and take out floors sequentially, in a carefully choreographed way. What a waste of time and money! All they have to do is rig up a the top few floors and take them out, and batvette's modified laws of physics will neatly collapse the rest of the structure, at near-free fall speed and almost completely within the building's footprint.

    Also, too bad batvette wasn't working for NIST during the years they were dragging their feet, delaying an explanation of the symmetrical destruction of Building 7. Their eventual report didn't even pass the eye test, presenting an explanation that involved a buckling in at a single column, a buckling that cannot be observed in the videos of the collapse. I bet batvette would have been able to produce a satisfying explanation within weeks, and avoided all of the conspiracy talk that ensued when no official explanation was forthcoming.

    No doubt batvette is very busy, and probably just didn't have time, but this genius forgot to explain why many catastrophic, long-burning infernos in steel skyscrapers have never once caused a collapse, even though office fires routinely reach temperatures well above the temperature where steel weakens.

    And I'd love to hear batvette's explanation about where all those thermitic materials came from, that were rampantly present in the WTC dust.

  6. What's impressive in all this is the addition of an infinite corroborations.
    Just like needed when a capital sentence need to be judge upon a convict in a country under the Rule of Law.
    The point within this documentary is that the so-called "Rule of Law" in the USA is something equivalent to whatever runs Russia or what's left of it.
    - Too many corroborations to explain childish incoherence and incongruity.
    And you guys have the full freedom to bare arms to protect yourself?
    Protect against who?
    After Boink Laden, there will be another one.

  7. The Debunkers served a very good role in helping demolish the official tale.

  8. This is a great doc.

  9. This batvette clown smells like a government paid shill sitting at a desk in Herzliya. ;)

  10. This is the most comprehensive documentary on this subject. This is not a "Conspiracy Theory," this is proof and evidence of a conspiracy involving the highest level of government and military officials. Everyone involved should be indicted for treason and mass murder.

  11. People who think three buildings can collapse straight down through the path of greatest resistance just demonstrates the futility of our education system. People are taught by their TVs. As the buildings went down, the path of the military industrial complex was paved all the way to the middle east, oil tycoons and bankster profits went up, our civil rights went down.

    1. Amen.

  12. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Basic physics. Only a fool could argue against this. When experienced architects, engineers, firefighters & pilots tell me their views I put more weight on them than the American Government.

  13. Hey, it reminds me of 'organizations" that I have worked for.......incompetent. Or, was this part of the Master plan?
    The Pentagon was not hit by a jet......that's pretty well be rules my 7 year old. I was fooled for a while thought.

  14. its sad to see that the american people have just accepted what the gov has told them, that guy at the end saying 'avenge us' as an outsider looking into america, i think you have already been forgotten about because nobody will listen to the evil conspiracy theorists who want to avenge you, its sad! this documentary is just unbelievably good, if you took this to court the ONLY possible verdict they could come out with would be GUILTY, 9/11 was indeed an inside job, just wow!

  15. At this point this is by far the most comprehensive 9/11 documentary.

  16. This is the best documentary exposing the fiction of the 9/11 commission report. Even without mentioning the nano-thermite topic... (why did they not mention that by the way?)

    1. I agree this was a well done documentary, with many unanswered questions for those who had the gall to put forth the fiction we are supposed to hold as truth. As far as the thermite the documentary did elude too it as what was causing the fires afterwards up until December and there after.

  17. Much respect and admiration to those who created this particular 9/11 Documentary. namaste

  18. ...astounding work here, I'm familiar with just about all of what's touched on, but this documentary is admirable, I don't think I've seen anything that dissects the complex picture quite like this I gave it 9.
    It says 284 minutes, but I watched till the end, which was 1 hour and 55 minutes, then additional material had to be seen from buying that correct? – I was on a plane at the time, flight AA81 from Stockholm to Chicago, but ended up in Montreal and had to stay there for several days, which I didn't mind. But the captain never said exactly why, only that airspace had been closed, so I felt I was the last person on earth to find out what had happened...from a Canadian customs person...anyway...American Airlines handled this situation in Montreal fabulously well...when I watched on TV in my room in Montreal, how the towers came down, I was astonished...I said to myself, if those towers were to collapse for whatever reason, it wouldn't look like that....

    1. i know how you feel dude. I worked as an airplane mechanic and i was in the ardennes at camp with my class and airforce. We didnt had cellphones or newspapers (survival) and after 7 days was the first time I even heard about 9/11. This gave me the opportunity to digest the news more objective I think + as an airplane mechanic im not a noob with airplains and aluminium. later i worked my career at real estate so i got to learn about buildings too. And I told it after the 1st time i seen it at home (16 or 17 september 2001 ) till today. America f--ked the world again and everybody takes it for truth. Even if I think about it today I feel embarresed how ignorant and numb humanity is. I even had police at my home more than once because of my "big mouth". While I'm saying truth and facts. The say oh he gone extremist, while the only thing extreme was my beard cause I didnt had a shave for weeks cause I was studying all the data. Hilarious from my personal view, but utterly sad if you know a thing or 2 abut airplanes, metal, and real estate (technical stuff about buildings)

      ps sorry if my expressions might be confusing but im not english.

    2.!....I hear you : )
      ...that's a story! – ...yeah, there's much to say about all this...and I knew then, that even if a large aircraft had plowed into one of those towers, it wouldn't cause the tower to collapse...they could have flown two 747s into one of the towers...and it would have caused a huge amount of damage, but the tower would not collapse completely...
      ...I live very close to LAX and have since done a lot of aviation photography... : ) ...this evening I will try to catch the China Southern A380 as it comes in before sunset...hope the skies are clear for some strong, end of day light...
      ...I have to find the rest of this great documentary...: )

    3. just follow the link to youtube you genius... therell be a playlist. this is probably just part 1 cuz the whole things 3 hrs

    4. ...that's correct....and as it turned out, I found that I had already saved a document on my desktop that included link to full I had (link to) the whole thing before I found it at "Top Documentaries"...(I have yet to watch the rest though...)

    5. I hope you could make some nice photos of the a380. I never worked on those but i remember i could take a look inside the prototype at Toulouse in France and was amazed by the space inside. They so much bigger than the Fokkers and 737's i used to work at.

    6. ...I tried to post a reply before (a couple of days ago) but had included a link to picts of aircraft and that "annihilated" the message...yes, I got picts of the China Southern A380 and I have taken a lot of picts of airplanes...the A380 is a glorious beast...this is of course a tad off topic, so...we'll see if it is accepted...

  19. It was the "Mossad" that did 9/11!
    And remember Israel has commited more of these "False Flags"!
    Nuff said!

    1. Exactly!

  20. 9/11 was Bush's Reichstag. We may think the war against Hitler went well, but now we are propping up the Nazi coup in the Ukraine to start a war with Russia, go figure. And the war against Saddam was just brilliant, we destroyed a secular govt and let the jihadis take over as soon as we left, now we are trying to coax the Baathists into fighting ISIS, who looted all the armories when we bombed Libya. War is a criminal enterprise that kills many innocents and makes most people poorer, but the weapons manufacturers are doing just fine.

  21. The problem with both sides of this argument is you are both trying to PROVE yourselves right and the other wrong. One person keeps trying to answer the respective comments of another by using what they think is fact or proof or undisputed sources etc., and that they can answer ANY argument made against which ever side there on. This is futility at it's glorious best!
    I believe that nobody knows exactly what happened on that day and that nobody has all the facts or even a quarter of the facts on every little thing that happened on 9/11. And I think this is the reason we may never get the answers correct from the people involved if we keep to this path.
    I believe the solution is to stop watching these documentaries, news programs, so-called experts etc. with the intent of trying to get the correct answers to the questions we all have, on both sides.
    I believe that any American who reads or have read the government's official version of 9/11 which is called "The 9/11 commission report" would find that some of their facts or answers they give can easily be questioned at the very least, if not proven wrong. I say any American knowing there is always an exception to the rule and also that there will always, always be devil's advocate's who no matter what will seek to be on the other side of popular or even consensis opinion.
    So I believe if we were to stop the futility and arguments, and stop trying to come up with our own facts or our own research and agree that the 9/11 commission report is at best flawed. Then we can move forward by coming up with the most accurate questions we can derive from the report and then not standing on either side of the aisle DEMAND an absolute response from our government and the people "in charge" of compiling all the research and data that went into the final copy of the report.
    It is my opinion that this is the only way to get the answers we seek because only those who are responsible for what happened on 9/11 can give accurate (truthful) testimony surrounding the events on this day.
    We have to keep asking question's of the people who attempted to give us the answers. Why would you or attempt to answer something you know nothing about?
    That would be my 1st question. lol (Everything is IMHO) your free to disagree...

    1. I believe the solution is propose is what was presented in the documentary. For each explanation or argument, there was a question posed. The question may have been posed to the debunkers, but the people responsible you mention also can answer them. To get their attention however, we need enough people to raise these questions, which is why it is important for people to watch these documentaries. Otherwise the thing will be declassified somewhere around 2100 when no one gives a s**t.

    2. You know what I believe; I believe that Bush, Rice, Larry Silverstein, and any others who are implicated to know the truth of 9/11, be rounded up put in a room bound to chairs and tortured and video taped till they divulge everything that actually happened. I dont agree with anything you just said. If these documentaries are even slightly accurate and Im not saying they absolutely are, but they certainly feel more plausible than the rubbish in that report. Then the Bush administration or the American government are the worst war criminals since the Nazis in World War 2. They killed thousands of their own people, destroyed billions of dollars of property, property that has doomed hundreds to a life of suffering until their impending death, stole from insurance companies, invaded two countries, all based on potential fabricated lies they themselves potentially cooked up. Not only that but this event may well be the catalyst for the latter recession that stole billions of dollars off millions of people and handed it too the banks. I mean this is serious sh***t. Someone needs to be punished for this, Justice is a civil right that every person is entitled to. end of story

  22. Air traffic controller here...not a pilot, but I do know a few things about aviation. The ground speed and VMO are not calculated in the same ways. Ground speed is what is indicated on radar, and is almost never the same as what pilots are indicating their speeds are in an airplane. That part of the argument is a flawed/incomplete one, without properly explaining the difference of the two.

    A little surprisingly, the air traffic control portion of the doc was pretty solid.

    1. Good point, but the difference is likely insignificant. Do you think there was a 150 mph tailwind that day?

  23. Repeat "Its a frame"

  24. False Flag. Operation. Look at Dr. Ray Griffin's Book, the New Pearl Harbor or any youtube lecture by Richard Gage, Architects for 911 truth. Or listen to ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX and get the lies.

  25. I don't know why people have to explain it all over again to the deniers -- as everywhere in the US of A there are a lot of deniers working for the government who have to keep working at trying to justify what was basically a false flag operation co-ordinated by the Bush admin and the CIA or they know that possibly their lives and most certainly their jobs are on the line.

  26. the zionist infiltrators within the usa and eu, have to be removed if you want justice and normality and your freedom the terrorists are within our goverments sadly its fact ---wont say too much find out for your self

  27. please check out some work done by Dr Davd Duke you might start to get the big picture lies dont stand very long

  28. You have presented way too much irrefutable evidence to be discounted. Thank You. Now if I can just get others to see what I have seen. I feel Drained, Angry, Sad, many emotions. But the top of that list of emotions rides Determination! I pray I live long enough to see this Reinvestigated and Treason charges brought upon those who would do this to us

  29. our satanic gov was behind it,people who don't believe just look at the evidence,its funny to me that all u need to know is a little highschool physics to know that a structure like those towers just doesn't fall at free fall,their would of been some resistance if they weren't blown out,funny there was no wreckage with the one in Pennsylvania nothing,no baggage,seats,no engines,no wheels its like it disappeared,it could not of evaporated it wasn't going near fast enough so it was shot down,its unbelieveable the balls the media had to report a fbi agent found one of the terrorist pass ports that hit tower 2,what did it just fly thru the fire and building and land on top of all the ash and paper with no damage to it,the pattern of the flight that hit the pentagon was so incrediably hard to do and there were no grass torn up from ground going over 400mph,the damage does not add up to the size of the plane,plus one engine was found and it was way too small,no seats,passengers,plus the jet fuel went out pretty fast,its no secret bin laden was the made up boogie man for us to go to war with saddam now why bomb him if it was bin laden simple the us wanted the oil,now Afghanistan is ours cause of all the opium that is there that the pharm companies make billions off of,just too much evidence

  30. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
    ~Hermann Göring

    1. That's so true: just create a fictional enemy, keep the minions in fear and bickering among themselves, and anything is possible. In my opinion, the decline of the US began in earnest with the assassination of JFK in broad daylight in Dallas in 1963, with the emergence of the shadow government to total power thereafter, and we as a nation have been sliding down a greased chute ever since. Kennedy too was presented with a false flag attack on American citizens on American soil by the CIA before his murder (see Operation Northwoods) which he rejected, thus in my opinion, sealing his fate.

  31. All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

    —Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

    1. When you have to quote an insane mass murdering douche bag dictator for your conspiracy theory to make sense, you've only got downhill to go from there. "Umm, yeah, this guy knows the writings of Hitler, I wanna be on his side!"

    2. You miss the point. If one " insane mass murdering douche bag dictator" can fool a whole nation and many others, whats to say it cant be done again. The one thing NOT in doubt is that there was a conspiracy...(In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future) The only real question is who the conspirators were and what was the motivation behind the act. If all the facts were presented to a jury I think you would have to say that there is "reasonable doubt". For example as far as i can find we have no real proof who was actually hijacking the planes. we know possibly what names were on the flights but as no terrorist bodies have been positivly identified we cannot say for certainty that the were on board. There is no cctv images of them that link them to the flights and some have been proven to be very much alive.

    3. We have the descriptions of events that were transpiring in radio and phone calls from passengers and airline employees on board, These were reported by multiple sources outside the government, making the theorized conspiracy far too vast to reasonably posit.

    4. They're fake. Cell phone calls on planes in high altitudes are not possible. A.K Dewdney

    5. Stop lying.

    6. DISCUSS:

      The husband of a flight attendant on one of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 has, during an interview, revealed his astonishment at receiving a cell phone call from his wife that morning. The reason for his surprise: "because cell phones don't work on a plane."

      The interview appeared on the 2006 documentary DVD, Portrait of Courage: The Untold Story of Flight 93. In it Lorne Lyles, a police officer in Florida, described how, at around 9:51 a.m. on September 11, he received a call from his wife, CeeCee Lyles, who was a flight attendant on United 93. She told him her plane had been hijacked and that she and some others were getting ready to "go to the cockpit." Lorne described that, after the call got disconnected: "I looked at the caller ID, and noticed that it was a call, and it was from her cell phone. And I'm like, OK, wait a minute. How can she call me from on the plane from a cell phone, because cell phones don't work on a plane?That's what I'm thinking." [1]

      Lorne Lyles' concern was understandable. An article published by the Travel Technologist shortly after 9/11 stated: "[W]ireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did." [2] Wireless Reviewsimilarly commented: "Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky [on September 11] brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes. Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations." [3]

      To investigate this matter, scientist A. K. Dewdney conducted a series of experiments using mobile phones from a small propeller aircraft, over the city of London, Ontario in Canada. (He noted that, "not only is the cell phone technological base in Canada identical to its U.S. counterpart, but Canadian communication technology is second to none, Canada being a world leader in research and development." [4]) Dewdney found:

      [C]ell phone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8,000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8,000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2,000, where they become merely unlikely. Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem. An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cell site long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cell site, when the call has to be handed off from the first cell site to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure. [5]

      A similar concern to that expressed by Lorne Lyles may also have been hinted at by Deena Burnett, whose husband Tom Burnett apparently called her four times from on board Flight 93. In her own book, published in 2006, Deena Burnett described receiving the first of these calls from her husband at 9:27 a.m. on September 11: "I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom's cell phone number." Deena, who during the early 1990s had worked as a flight attendant for Delta Airlines, asked Tom: "Where are you? Are you in the air?" She commented in her book, "I didn't understand how he could be calling me on his cell phone from the air." [6]

      Later in the day of 9/11, Deena told the FBI that "only one" of the calls she'd received from her husband "did not show on the caller identification." The reason for this was simply that "she was on the line with another call" when it was made. Otherwise, she had been "able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone" on all his calls, "because the caller identification showed his number." [7]

      Yet if cell phone calls like these would have been so unlikely from an aircraft in flight, what was really going on that morning? Was it just a "fluke" that these and other alleged passenger cell phone calls got through? Or, alternatively, might the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks have been involved in a sinister and malicious deception, to make the victims' relatives mistakenly believe they had been called from the hijacked flights?

    7. also important to note. why was it so many "phone calls" reported on this particulary flight then the other planes? This has also been tested scientifically that it is impossible.

    8. Again, you're lying. Produce links to this. What exactly makes it impossible? The FAA just approved cell phones for use on planes. Why would they do this if it were impossible?
      " why was it so many "phone calls" reported on this particulary flight then the other planes?"
      I hope you aren't expecting an answer to that.

    9. A.K Dewdney

    10. Have you ever been on an air plane? Obviously not because nobody, not one single person is making a phone call. You keep telling other people that nothing is backing up their claims, that they need to "produce links" for you to believe them. Where are your links? The FAA approving cell phone use on planes? Where have you been for the past 5 years?! Do you know how much cell phones can do these days? Did the FAA say "you can all make phone calls now" no. It's impossible. What more evidence do you need.

    11. You are truly a m*ron. You mean to tell me that you have honestly looked at all the evidence concerning 9/11 with an open mind and have still concluded that our government is telling the truth and that 19 Muslims living in caves pulled this off? You are the kind of fool that the real perpetrators absolutely depend on.

    12. I have little use for your sophomoric ad hominems. If you would like to document a study by experts showing cell phones dont work on planes free of the flaws in the one study I know of that I mentioned kindly do so. Since we both know you cant well who is the maroon now.

    13. Noticing this site has to approve my post due to links, I doubt that you will read it. Consequently, I copied my last paragraph...

      "This is very long and I hope they allow the links, because I wasted a few minutes on this just to show someone's ignorance. Do some research, don't act like you know everything and stop insulting people. It isn't nice..."

    14. 1. None of the husbands of these flight attendants are anything close to cell phone experts, presenting a statement from them that "cell phones aren't supposed to work" is useless.
      2. If this is consistent with every other truther argument then their words are perverted or out of context and they really meant cell phones are not supposed to be used in flight.
      3. I'd be interested to know how many of these husbands agree with your conspiracy theory.
      4. For your argument to hold water they need to be either:
      A: outraged and leading the call for a new investigation or
      B: In on it and part of the conspiracy.
      Since I doubt either is true I should probably end this rebuttal now. BUT to thoroughly destroy it:
      5. A.K. Dewdney is a math expert with zero qualifications in telecommunications. I knew the study was BS when you called him a "scientist".
      6. His study was hopelessly flawed. He flew in a different kind of plane over a city in circles. The hijackers were flying in straight lines over rural areas. Urban areas have more cell sites hinting at better coverage BUT they are smaller cells using far less power and have more active users. See 911myths page on this. The real scenario would see far more powerful cell sites with less confusion over the handovers and few other users to cause rejection of signals.
      7. Even with all these flaws Dewdney never said it was impossible he predicted a success rate of something like 1 in 100.
      Remove all his flaws and it's probably 1 in 2.
      Another truther argument dead and buried.

    15. You don't need to be a so-called cell phone expert to know that cell phones don't work well in the air. Just try making a call from an airplane at 20000 ft. and you'll see! Even if you get connected by some dumb luck, you'll get disconnected extremely quickly as you pass out of range of the original tower. You either have a bad memory or didn't watch the documentary at all. You can check the facts as you go. Don't just spew bullshit. Ain't nobody got time to listen to your crying and whining.

    16. Follow your own advice about spewing BS. Provide documentation a cell phone cannot work while flying over a rural area and we will talk. The one experiment conducted by a truther was completely flawed as to be irrelevant.... Yet he STILL was able to complete several calls.

    17. tell that to your ass government who keeps lying to you over and over.

    18. batvette.. he's not lying. Do your research.. they're STILL having issues with cellphones and airplanes thousands of feet in the air. This is nothing new.... at the speed the planes are travelling, it's virtually impossible for the phones to keep connection with the towers... even if they "could" get a connection. The towers do a "hand off" from 1 tower to the next, with an overlap of a few meters. The upcomming tower must connect "before" the current tower releases the signal... otherwise, all you'll be doing is trying to reconnect... going at hundreds of miles an hour. It's just not going to happen. There was even a business report "post" 9/11, specifcally saying that this was still a problem for cellphone companies.

      There's even amateur videos on youtube of people showing their phones with no signal while in flight.

    19. the "problems" you cite are non existent in rural areas where towers are far apart WHERE THE PLANES ON 9/11 WERE OVER. this is why that bozo who claims he did a scientific test did it flying circles over a city... In any case this now adds all the people whose loved ones were killed that day who are on tape speaking to them or claim they spoke to them as evil participants in your conspiracy theory. these are live people, go ahead and confront them in public, bring charges against them for 3000 counts of conspiracy to commit murder. how many participants does this make now? hundreds of thousands? all the employees of both of those airlines, their insurance companies, the lists of names would be endless. it truly takes a delusional mind to believe the government could pull all this off and NOT ONE PERSON turned them down and tells about it now. NOT ONE PERSON felt remorse about killing 3000 people. They did it for money? Okay so why aren't they telling their story for money? Fear? Okay why aren't YOU afraid to speak out?
      What is wrong with you people?

    20. You are hopelessly clueless, you must suffer from cognitive dissonance….

    21. She suffers from low IQ.

    22. There are a few key witness firemen and police who worked the towers on thee day who have spoken out....they have since been warned, and have either shut up or changed their story..that dynamic continues. You underestimate the extent and power of this operation. There is too much at's virtually the "end" of this evil empire if the truth was in the phony news we see

    23. Name one.

    24. Oh my, my sympathies to you or anyone who holds on so tightly. Just watch "Loose Change" (45 min), you'll see the firemen speak for themselves

    25. You're basic ujderstanding of how politics or the politics of War work is so naive, so naive in fact, you cannot be reasoned with.

    26. Oh boy I love "not" jokes.

    27. Hitler used a false flag, the burning of the Reichstag, to start a War. The US govt, used a false flag to start a War with Iraq. If you call Hitler nuts, then you need to call the US Govt Nuts. and 80% of the US population thinks our Govt is insane, so you are the NUT.

    28. insane mass murdering douche bag aside, he was very influential. that has been proven beyond a doubt. that you resort to uncorrected insults, (he was never diagnosed as insane, he may have personally killed a few, but by his hands, he was technically not a murderer of any mass, dialectically, and you cannot squeeze him into your butt to clean you out). That a valid point has been made, and you resort to gibberish, goes to validate the awful truth of the furer's point. domesticated humans will wilfully blind themselves to horrible truths.

    29. Were you aware that the best way to know and understand something when there are many questions about a theory is to go to the best source? And that would be the OTHER other words, to try to keep a disaster from happening again, you read the writings of those who originated it. This doesn't put you on Hitler's makes you intelligent.

    30. 19 Arabs hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Center.

      Keep it simple and say it over and over. The big lie---Adolph Hitler

  32. Lets face it the USA is one of the biggest terrorists on this planet and yeah of course they would kill their own people for various twisted reasons, they are only human after all, not like the Government are frickin immaculate angels void of doing any wrong, lets put it this way If someone offered you billions of money, wealth and endless financial gain for killing people and no one would ever find out soon, you'd certainly have a think about it, if you were already consumed by greed and grandiosity of power, you would jump at the chance and even smile wildly about it and smugly gloat on what you had just done and its all a secret that no one will believe if it came out anyway...too many conspiracy theories out there as it is....Bottom Line USA government was responsible for 9/11, why wouldn't they be ?

    1. Your tinfoil hat is a little too tight.

    2. Oh don't mention the the "C" gives off quite a stink......go on have a wiff...but do it in moderation though, don't want to excess the avoidance of average phenomenon !

  33. The weakest part of the film is the first half hour or so, where they
    examine the parallels between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Personally, I
    agree with their thesis, but I thought that starting out an examination
    of one "conspiracy theory" by examining how similar it is to another
    unproven conspiracy does not help it's cause. If you do not accept, as I
    do, that Pearl Harbor was treasonous, then you are apt to dismiss the
    rest of the film, regardless of it's strengths. The truth about 9/11
    does not rest on whether FDR and his top generals were derelict in
    informing the commanders at Pearl about the coming attack. So, while I
    think it would have been appropriate to mention that there are
    some similarities, I think they spent entirely too long on the subject.
    (They show 12 parallels between the two events.)

    However, since I
    am one of those "nut jobs" who believe the actions of FDR and his top
    generals was treasonous, I didn't have a problem with that, and for me,
    the parallels were interesting and entertaining, even if they really
    didn't add strongly to the evidence that 9/11 was a government
    conspiracy. The only evidence that there actually is a connection is
    the reference that the NeoCons made to it in their planning documents
    when Bush II ascended to the throne, er presidency. Although this is
    well known, seeing the need for a 'shocking event' to galvanize the
    American people into action, such as Pearl Harbor is hardly proof that
    the government actually set out to create such a plan. This conclusion
    would be better left to the end of the film, after they have established
    that there must have been a conspiracy, where they could point to this
    document and then ask the audience to make that connection.

    thought the format and content of the remainder of the film was
    excellent. They break down the events of 9/11 into the main areas at
    issue and present both the official version and the unanswered questions
    about each area of contention. They present the arguments of 3
    debunker groups or individuals, including the group from Popular
    Mechanics. They do not try to attack the debunkers motives, but simply
    their criticisms, so the tone of the film stays at a high level.

    thought the explanation of the physics involved were really good, so
    hopefully those without a background in physics can understand the
    issues involved a little more easily.

    On the nitpicking side, I
    would have liked to see the evidence about the use of thermite, but they
    completely skipped the issue except they did examine the 'mystery' of
    the molten steel and concrete. Rather than point the finger at thermite
    as the likely cause and examine the forensic evidence of it's existence
    at Ground 0, they simply ask how could these high temperatures (2800
    degrees F) happen without any high temperature fuels being available.

    examine the mysteries at each of the 3 crash sites, and even for
    someone like me who has seen quite a few of these documentaries, I
    learned some new stuff. I especially thought that their examination of
    the economics of the Twin Towers was good, as it showed the strong
    motives that existed to demolish the buildings and the amazing
    coincidences involved in Silverstein's acquisition of the 3 towers. (He
    went from a set of buildings which represented a billion dollar
    liability to a 7 billion dollar award in about two months of ownership.)

    I doubt that this film will actually make converts of those who
    staunchly defend the official story. I say that, not because of the
    weakness in the film or the evidence presented, but because I think that
    at this point, people have shut their ears and eyes to anything which
    does not reinforce their opinions. People who were honestly searching
    for the truth have already made up their minds, and those who cannot
    accept the possibility of real evil in top leadership have made up their
    minds as well.

    1. Pointing out that one false flag is a repeat of a previous one is not a waste of time. The copious evidence also helps to keep out the fools who shut their ears and trust the government's tall tales.

  34. No more sitting on the fence for me.
    I never claim to know something if i don't, and not a soul on this planet could make me feel stupid for not knowing something they knew, and felt i should too.
    I've retained and regurgitated stuff i've heard with the best of them over the years, i'm sure we all have, but i properly woke up a little while ago, and now i just can't ignore when someone is just talking utter sh*t.
    And by that i mean, they mean what they say, but don't 100% know why they're saying it.
    It first happened when i went travelling, and someone asked (genuinely) why i had the opinion i'd just given, and i didn't know. I'd just repeated something because it kinda sounded good.
    We've all done it, but it's things like that, being pulled up, that make you start thinking for yourself.
    What i've also learnt is it's really quite obvious if someone is lying, it boils down to instinct, and switching off your emotions and any pre conceptions you may have.
    My point being, we're so bogged down talking about the facts (or lack of them in this case) that i've not seen one comment mentioning the very obvious fact that every time you see anyone championing the 'official report' they're so uncomfortable it's almost painful to watch.
    Almost everybody who goes on record defending the official version is getting paid to do so FFS.
    Contrast that with the behaviour of the people questioning it, it's not science i know, but it's quite clear who's genuine and who's squirming!
    The sheer weight of INDEPENDENT scientific queries is simply too staggering to ignore, unless you had to ignore it for some reason.
    Don't let us get bogged down in nonsense, bypass the blind and focus on a fresh indipendant investigation.

    1. "The sheer weight of INDEPENDENT scientific queries is simply too staggering to ignore,"

      By independent you must mean the nonsense that they couldn't get any legitimate scientific journal to publish so they started their own.
      However when the truth movement can get together a complete hypothesis of their version of the events that day, let us know.

    2. Hello batvette, i've been expecting you..
      If you can give me a plausible answer for the next three questions i'll admit i'm wrong and never post on here again.
      Why wasn't there any video footage of any of the hijackers boarding the actual flights that supposedly crashed into wtc 1 & 2, The Pentagon and a field?
      Why isn't there a single video or still of an aeroplane smashing into possibly and probably quite literally the most heavily guarded and monitored building in existence? (if you mention the four frames of nothingness in any reply to this question you lose by stupidity default)
      And why and how exactly did WTC7 collapse in almost perfect symettry after sustaining really quite minimal damage?
      Answer me those questions and those questions only please, do not deviate. I want to know.

    3. Ps who's "us"?

    4. I want answers fast, you must already know them to have formed your current balanced views. No name calling or CAPITALS, just a plausible answer to those three questions please.

    5. 1. There is.
      2. The building was not expected to be attacked by a plane used as a missile, and of the few cameras pointed in the right direction, the plane moved so fast it escaped capture by the camera's low fpm rate. Don't you know this? It's common knowledge.
      3. "Perfect symmetry"? Well I guess gravity does only pull in one direction. How many directions did you expect? Other than that there is a full report on the collapse of building 7. Seems your position is to start at complete ignorance and work from there. Not admirable.

    6. I said not to reply, you're irrelevant now fella.

    7. Just for fun

      1 give me links of the alledged hijackers boarding the planes that were allegedly flown into the buildings/field, or anywhere in the airport for that matter (everyone knows that nearly every square inch of airports is covered by cameras, and was in 2001) and it has to be verified as fact. No funny little irregularities that always seem to be there.

      Show me the videos!

      2 What exactly were they expexting, or preparing to be attacked by at the Pentagon??

      If you were in charge of security where would you point the cameras? into the sky? at the ground? at the wall they were fixed to 12" away?
      or OUT? where any attack would come from?

      I need you to explain why there were no cameras facing the way the only attack could come from? Don't forget that the plane was low enough to knock down telegraph poles, so don't say they had to be pointing upwards.

      Also, if you'd been on the pentagon roof that day looking the way the plane/drone came in, you could have drawn a picture of the f--king thing as it got closer, so your FPM nonsense is just that, nonsense.

      Well having seen quite a lot about steel framed buildings in the last few months, i would say firstly that i wouldn't expext it to fall down at all. Because that's what would happen if a steel framed building suffered a few office fires, nothing.
      But dipping into your world just briefly, if one did fall down due to a few fires on a few floors, then i would expect it to slowly buckle and creak, or maybe even a section fall off as happened at the raging steel framed inferno in madrid. Which i'm sure you've seen and conveniently put to the back of your mind. The last thing i would expect it to do is fall down like it did. It's a web of steel, do you not understand that?
      It's interesting that you choose to use physics when you think it might add some much needed weight to your argument thingy.
      But i wasn't asking you why it fell down, rather than up or outwards, i get gravity. I asked how a steel web can all fail at exactly the same time, in near perfect symmety, like it was falling through thin air?
      Also, can you explain to me what's wrong with starting from ignorance and working from there?

    8. *FPS before you use that as an excuse

    9. So by correcting my error it sounds as if you already knew the answer to your pointless question. As your approval is not a prerequisite for reality to exist, have a nice twoofer day and don't forget those meds.

    10. I shouldn't be surprised by your lack of answers, but I thought you'd at least try to make something up.
      I wasn't correcting your mistake, I thought you'd written FPS and I wrote FPM, I was correcting myself so you couldn't use it in any argument you concocted, but you still used me correcting myself to try and wriggle out of answering me.
      I tried to keep them simple so you couldn't nitpick your way out. But you still couldn't answer me. Much the same as any debunker cannot answer the most basic anomalies from that awful day.
      And you've resorted to the old ad hominem attack method.
      I only asked you for fun, because I knew you wouldn't be able to answer the questions.
      I'm done with you now. I would love to see your smug little face when this all comes out. Which it will, I have no doubt about that.
      That's the last you'll hear from me fella. There's work to be done.
      Good luck for the future. We're all going to need it!!

    11. I'm not here to sit up and beg for you, asking me for the videos of the hijackers at the airport is evidence your knowledge base of this event is not up to speed and if you wish to make a case for a conspiracy theory it is up to you to make it, not have others bring information just to have you mock or question it as you do about the Pentagon cameras. To be sure, the problem is YOUR ignorance and rejection of common knowledge facts- not that the information does not exist.

    12. Gravity does indeed pull in one direction, but a building will only come down symmetrically and rapidly when there is nothing to prevent gravity from doing it's job.

      That's what controlled demolition does. It blows out supports in such a way that the building comes down in the intended way.

      When a building is damaged, by an earthquake for example, it will sometimes collapse, but the collapse is not rapid and symmetrical.

      Ask yourself what does the collapse of WTC7 look like. It's clear that it resembles a controlled demolition, not the collapse of a damaged building.

      Besides all that, tests of the dust from Ground Zero show that there was an explosive material contained in that dust, more powerful than thermite (used to bring down structures).

    13. Hey 'batvette'; There's a lot of things wrong with your answers, but let's over look that. The one question I want you to answer is; In regards to the Pentagon, Is it possible to fly a 727 jet 10 to 15 feet off the ground at cruising speed, without scorching the grass, and plow it thru a cement wall, and have no pieces fall off outside, and never find a motor, bodies, black box, etc.

    14. Why we ould you expect the grass to be torched? The exhaust is directed BACK not down. Many parts WERE found.
      Sheer ignorance.

    15. Well, there was 1 engine conveniently found, but we are talking about a very large jet, not some smaller military plane. There was very little else, no bodies, things just scattered around like they'd been placed there. And the great one...the perfect shape of the area where the plane did go in? And that's after dropping out of the sky, heading to the Pentagon and hitting it perfectly. If that part had been left out, I might have believed the whole charade. But it's one of those pushing the envelope actions...add a little more to make it look really good and blow the whole idea. Now, it's up to you to ask the trio (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) for a little more cash.

    16. So, 9 months later, I have to assume you live or lived in Las Vegas and have personally watched controlled demolition. Now you're getting a little panicky, right?

    17. Don't try and answer them batvette, i don't know why i asked, it doesn't matter what you think anymore.

    18. The question I've always had and of course, this is a year later from your post, so I don't expect any answer or reply or do I want one...what do you call knowing in advance that something was to occur and you ignore that warning and let the tragedy happen to benefit yourself and your ilk? In that regard, I'm not pushing an absolute conspiracy theory...more like probably wanting, needing and suggesting it to some one able to carry it out with help and be blamed for it. Same crime, different details.....

  35. Some very insightful comments here. I am really concerned that the psychopaths in control are too busy with their power games to notice that the entire planet is slowly being poisoned by large, daily doses of radioactive elements such cesium, strontium, etc. from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plants. Life on the planet evolved without these elements so they are not recognised by our bodies as being harmful, infact these radionuclides in the form of "hot particles" mimic elements such as calcium and potassium which are incorporated into our bones and organs and remain radioactive for hundreds or even thousands of years. Internal exposure to these elements does far greater harm than external exposure. 300 to 400 tonnes of highly radioactive water is entering the Pacific on a daily basis. The large amounts of radionuclides are being bioaccumulated (biomagnified) into the ecosystem especially into the species at the top. There has been no international cooperation to fix this problem or the other potentially catastrophic problems with the crippled nuclear plants. Dilution is not a solution to this problem. The entire planet is being poisoned and nothing is being done. Could this be a deliberate terraforming of the Earth by the invading David Ike lizard creatures? I can't believe that humans can be this stupid! There cannot possibly be an illuminati or such because they and their offspring will eventually all be poisoned too. Unless they have technology taken from crashed UFOs that can neutralize radioactive elements in their bodies. But seriously there are now bigger problems than 911 that are being covered up and even most 911 truthers are not aware of them. A good resource is the Fairewinds website if you want to know more. Sorry to deviate from all your interesting takes about 911.

  36. True, true. Now what do we do? The
    propagation of the sociopath is reaching it's zenith and we still
    seem baffled. Like “rope a dope” we just don't seem to realize
    that to engage sociopaths in conversation is part of what perpetuates
    the enmeshment and keeps us locked in an ineffectual dance. This
    strata of a bizarre human aberration, perhaps not even human, is the
    morphing of what peaked in 1945 as the Nazi sociopath ethos,
    evolving into the aberration of the nondescript “suit” with
    credentials. “I have found the enemy, and it is us.” well, some
    of us. Until we are able to discern the convoluted fabricated fact
    o-babble of the sociopath, we are the pray. The chickens must
    identify the foxes. I even see it on a micro level around me. Those
    that behave unethically, and can generate a facade of misdirection
    and misinformation. Learn to deal with crazy people and you will have
    begun to learn to deal with the ruling power class on planet Earth

  37. Anyone of near average intelligence in charge of their senses, literate and reasonably sane, would have to be either willfully disinterested and ignorant, pathologically dishonest, or materially complicit to deny that the events of 9/11 represent comprehensively coordinated and overt extra-legal acts against civil interest resulting conspiracy originating within the highest elements among and involving all tiers of government, foreign accomplice governments, intelligence agencies and their adjunct commercial/financial entities, executive and subordinate military, aerospace, communications and engineering personnel, full spectrum law enforcement, co-opted network mass media, and psychopathically sympathetic civilians.

    9/11 reveals the extent to which we, the sheeple, exist under controls of the true masters of terror and violence, utter corruption, pretense to justice and willful abomination to our living planet.

    We do and will pay an accelerating price for our complacency as silent accomplices.

    1. Your "willfully disinterested" cohort is the largest I suspect.
      Somehow a taboo has been inserted into the culture making reasoned discourse rude. There is a list of topics - with 911 at the top and criticisms of capitalism and the ruling class not far down- that are verboten.
      DON'T TALK ABOUT IT we are told, lest you offend someone of un-like mind set.
      When W addresses the nation with an admonishment not to indulge in 911 "conspiracy theories" and Slick Willie wages his finger and says "how dare you!" to those who even question the official 911 story, you see the mind-f--k in action.

    2. You just called our entire organised existence on this planet one corrupted plot in all possible levels. The scariest and the most accurate post I've ever read.

    3. Amazing post!
      You've just summed it up in a genius and scary nutshell. I think even I, who can see it so clearly now still hadn't quite dared to think how big it had to be, but you just blew that last cobweb away!
      There's simply no point wasting anymore time engaging with 'debunkers' they're just attention seeking trolls.
      The internet's the game changer here, this will be exposed now, probably in the next 20 years as more and more people are shown the real facts,
      Time to move to the country and become self sufficient, cos when this comes out the whole shit house is gonna go up in flames.

    4. " conspiracy originating within the highest elements among and involving all tiers of government, foreign accomplice governments, intelligence agencies and their adjunct commercial/financial entities, executive and subordinate military, aerospace, communications and engineering personnel, full spectrum law enforcement, co-opted network mass media, and psychopathically sympathetic civilians."

      A description encompassing many millions of individuals... not one of whom has had a change of heart and come out to admit culpability.... and not one has succumbed to further greed and sold their story to any one of the many media outlets who would love to run it.
      The beliefs above of a massive, all encompassing conspiracy of untold evil, without an iota of evidence, display an obvious case of persecutory delusional syndrome.

    5. First things first, batvette. It seems that you don't know that the most telling sign of fallacious argument is the adhominien attack on the quality of character, or in this case, the sanity of one offering an opposing viewpoint.

      Another includes exaggerating or distorting in extension to the stated opposing viewpoint.

      That said, it's not difficult to understand that so many are afflicted with denial regarding 911. To entertain and digest the complexity of what's revealed in evidence is utterly destructive to what many of us formerly were willing to accept as, at least, basic human decency of modern civil authority. It's wholly naive in all US historical context. Blood sacrifice is a ritual as old as humanity, and a common occurrence for political objectives as is most clear now post Viet Nam war.

      Suffice it to say that it did not take millions of co-conspirators as you suggest, that would rightly be deemed unmanageable. But if you had the slightest notion of how black intelligence operations are conducted, I think that you would understand that it's not at all practically absurd. Audacious and Machiavellian, yes.

      But in order to understand how, you must become familiar with intelligence operational exploits of personnel and infrastructure. Once you understand the effectiveness of applied compartmentalization of people and resources, analytics, placement of key personnel, situational timing and counter intelligence, it becomes almost mundane in its execution.

      Plausible deniability is crafted and disseminated through our propaganda media machine, and official outrage at the mere suggestion of rightly outrageous conspiracy is obviously quite effective when used by masters of evasion. We resolutely train and employ the very best.

      If by millions you simply mean the American population as a whole then, yes, we're complicit. Guilt by association with deception is a powerful tool to maintaining complacency in a critical mass. That, and reinforced denial in fear of being labeled 'truther'. Oh, my!

      Of the few hundred operational intelligence conspirators who had more than an inkling of what was unfolding on 911, there was likely much less than one hundred individuals that had a whole picture of the planning spread within organizational executive positions. The real and very present danger is that they or their protégées are still in charge.

      Now, rather than demanding an independent investigation to expose them and their crimes, we remain in largely silent denial, fearful and accusing or making fallacious arguments hoping to preclude justice by evading the facing of a horrible truth. Many would rather continue to live in a fantasy of lies.

      Fortunately, not all of us. Not the producers of this excellent compilation of facts. Deny them at your own risk.

    6. "It seems that you don't know that the most telling sign of fallacious argument is the adhominien attack on the quality of character, or in this case, the sanity of one offering an opposing viewpoint."

      Bull****. I attacked his stated beliefs, not his person.

      "Another includes exaggerating or distorting in extension to the stated opposing viewpoint."

      It's only a distortion if you are so out of touch with reality you believe this 9/11 conspiracy could be pulled off with the knowledge of and participation of one hundred people or less.

      Your theory that less than a hundred people planned it and several hundred people were only unwitting participants in it is complete nonsense- however you truthers go ahead and compile your cute little theory into a complete hypothesis and publish it and the rest of the world- you know those of us grounded in reality- will spend about a day shooting mile wide holes in it like you truthers do to the real story.

    7. Not sure why anyone gives this batvette (bat crazy) person the time of day. You're wasting your energy and time on this person and people like him. They will site things like the NIST report indicating the wings and engines (only the two largest, strongest and heaviest parts of the planes) hitting a building wouldn't play any significant role in the damaged caused to said structure. So they leave them out of the report as insignificant. Let's not forget the lack of fire from all the fuel the plane was carrying. Yes the grass should have been burnt along with much of the building. Popular mechanics said the wings fell off before the plane before hitting the Pentagon and disappeared. The fuel just evaporated along with the rest of the wings and engines. After impact the fuselage turned into a ball of plasma burning a round hole in the 3rd ring. We won't even mention the planes flying around at close to sea level at speeds greater than they are capable of. Never mind the amazing amateur pilots pulling off incredible feats of flying skills that seasoned veteran pilots with more than 20 years of experience admit they could not do. Let "bat crazy" and the rest of the nuts go back to their comic book physics. .

    8. Still a year later.....
      There's a post above that might explain the entire thing. It may not have been a conspiracy in the definite sense i.e. everyone in on it, but the odds on it being a conspiracy by ommission are pretty high. So, in your esteemed opinion, what should be done about it? I have no reason to expect an answer....just reading the comments for fun!

  38. Unbelievable. I have watched Loose Change, Farinheight 9/11, Terror Storm and other documentaries over the years and while I did leave those films with some questions about the Truth of what happened on 9/11, I also left with some doubts about some of the conclusions they were making to make sense of certain events. I would rather hear no explanation that a half-baked one. But the 3 part film put together the evidence in such an overwhelming and legitimate way that they could then challenge anybody watching to answer their questions or refute their findings which in the end were actually the findings of the 1st responders, (both Police and Fire) emergency workers, eyewitnesses, workers in all 3 buildings, the media, Architects and Engineers, airplane pilots, mayors and governors, airline workers, the pilots who "trained" the so- called hi-jackers, the official documents from the Government warning of 9/11, testimony from high ranking officials from our armed forces, all the people from Shanksville and the Pentagon who couldn't believe the claims of commercial airliners b/c their was no such evidence where they were on the ground, FAA personnel, cell phone technicians, and on and on. This film is amazingly accurate and in my opinion irrefutable evidence that the official explanation for the twin towers, building 7, the pentagon and flight 93 are completely inaccurate and we must demand new and further investigations into who is responsible for the things that happened on Sept. 11th 2001 and how we can hold then accountable for any actions against the innocent people who were killed and who continue to die as a result of those actions. Great film. Unreal.

  39. As a retired college professor who has written eight books, and travelled to 50 countries as an international studies generalist, my current shtick consists of presenting Elder-Hostel seminars called "9/11 Contextualized," based on a decade of copious research. I welcome to opportunity to travel for this purpose, and will email the three brief hooks for my upcoming seminar on this subject. Also, my books show up on Amazon books, as well as on Google. My key question: Why have American Corporate Media continued giving Bush/Cheney a free pass for their willful somnolence? I've read the books and seen the documentaries, wherein their sins of omission have not gone unnoticed; likewise with the foreign press. I consider the role of PNAC in the 1990s as both motive and opportunity as a New Pearl Harbor. MJS

    1. Don't you find "sins of omission" to be inconsistent with "willful somnolence" and both to be overly-generous? The orchestrated nature and sheer volume of the "oversights" bespeak volition do they not?

    2. Since it seems that PNAC is extinction according to some sources, it was great to see the mention of it in your post. It's very clear when you read their documents and the planning by this group started well before 2001. In fact, their original documents were in 1997...still have my copies.

  40. The first time I saw the trade center being hit I said to myself ' oh my gosh, what did we do this time. And there are more people out there that , I am sure of, can see clearly. The evil is here in the USA not in an other country. Fear, ignorance, prejudice are the real reasons behind willful blindness.

    1. I disagree. Fear ignorance and prejudice are the tools of those who intentionally program willful ignorance into the culture.

  41. ok so continuing from the end of the documentary, our FBI and executive branches on all levels are capable of demolishing buildings with thousands of people still in them. This thought is so oppressive that I don't wonder why the majority of Americans don't believe (can't believe it) it despite the mountains of evidence presented here.

    I mean, in committing this act, the Bush administration and everyone who assisted them well exceeded the magnitude of evil and horror they ascribed to the offshore Muslim terrorists they blamed for this.

    Think about it. Take everything you thought Osama Bin Laden was, and then think about Bush being that and much worse, because Bush did this to his own people, so he could start a war and kill thousands of more people, some guilty of some things, but most innocent.

    It's hard to accept. So hard, as a matter of fact, that most Americans won't even consider it. Not because they are necessarily stupid, but because they never personally had an encounter with an evil person and they just can't imagine all this.

    By the way, when I say Bush, you know that I mean the whole part of the Bush administration involved with this, and yes, really, the corporations behind them, pushing them to do this. Obviously, it was not the work of one psychopath, but many psychopaths working together along with their willing quasi-psychopaths (the ones who knew what they were doing was wrong but went along with it for reward or to avoid punishment and kept quiet). Those corporations made and are still making huge sums of money from this evil act, and no one has come forward admitting participation probably because of fear of death. (Some key witnesses have died in odd circumstances)

    1. Under Dubya Bush's Governorship 152 prisoners were executed in Texas more than any previous governor in modern American history. The rate averages an execution in the state every nine days. Dubya was too lazy to read any of the 152 letters for clemency in his five years as Governor. Except one. The serial killer Henry Lee Lucas who confessed to be involved in about 600 murders including his mother who was his first victim. Governor Bush intervened and commuted the death sentence of this mass murderer alone... and he claims to be a Christian. Even when presented with facts people still don't want to believe that we have rulers such as this.

  42. Do not argue with people who show an obvious emotional connection to their argument. Chances are that they will be blind to evidence that counters their argument because they personally identify with it. A more appropriate method could be to downgrade the conversation to petty ridicule, instead of wasting your time trying to convince a sounding board of other people's ideas, who, for no a lack of trying, cannot think for themselves.

  43. hi capn canard I would not give batvette the time of day as he either works for the government or he's one of those people if you say white he says black or he's not very intellectual as intelligent people ask questions why do you think pol pot of Cambodia murdered all the educated people so all that was left where batvette and that's why he ruled for so long until capn canard and his men came along and freed the people and all is atrocities were revealed

  44. The entire documentary is 5hrs and stands as the new "platinum standard" of forensic analytical evidence for what happened on 911.

  45. Has anybody seen the patterns here? All the scientists from high placed organizations and people with big careers to lose usually deny the conspiracy theory. Just follow the money. Places like NIST will never adopt the demolition theory simply because it would be damaging to their goals.

  46. These 2 are among the many obvious points that destroy the conspiracy:

    1. United and American Airlines, and their insurers- lost BILLIONS of dollars that day and the years since, in ticket sales, stock value, and claims paid out. Many insurance companies were involved which employ scores of investigators who in each and every claim look closely for signs of arson and other fraudulent claims.
    If it was anything besides muslims hijacking planes, why did American and United announce it was their planes? Why did they take a hit like that?

    Why did their, and the towers', insurance companies pay out billions of dollars in claims if their was a sliver of a chance they could deny liability? If there was ANY credible evidence of this conspiracy, you wouldn't need the gov't or any other entity to do a "new investigation". The insurance companies would have already done it- and in fact did as a matter of standard process of claims-in their usual attempt to transfer liability from their insured customers and themselves. "Follow the money" seems enough to convict, or so we hear. If greed would motivate a conspiracy, greed should be enough for these corporations to leave no stone unturned to reveal one from others.

    2. Osama Bin Laden, a man worth $50 million, and Al Qaeda, by claiming responsibility, sealed their own death sentences and immediately reduced to the indignation of a life fleeing living in caves.
    How could the CIA, Bush,. or ANYBODY possibly coerce them to pursue such a suicidal act?

    Unless you can resolve these dilemmas, or admit they make the CT virtually impossible.... if you can't recognize this makes the belief crazy... well that's crazy.

    1. 1. Who said anything about the airplane companies being involved at all? Whoever is responsible for the attacks obviously did not care about the airplane companies, so your first "obvious point" is an obvious miss.
      2. Most of Al Qaeda had already angered a lot of nations. But besides that, the conspiracy is that Bin Laden was not really the one behind the attacks. He merely took all the credit. Did you know Bin Laden actually denied the attacks the first time, but changed his story the day after? He and Al Qaeda might have been a scapegoat used by whoever is responsible for the attacks.

      Honestly, it's people like you that makes it so easy for governments to do what they do- lie to the its citizens. You believe everything you hear on the news and not once do you argue otherwise. In fact, you probably find joy in mocking people who really DO want to find the truth- the people that are not satisfied with "the official story" because there are too many holes. You probably don't even know that the government controls most of the media, do you? That means they are more than capable of manipulating the "facts" and the average man can't prove otherwise.

      You are looking for reasons behind the attacks if it was truly a conspiracy. But you have to understand that we may never know exactly WHY the attacks happened if it's a real conspiracy. We can only analyze what is presented to us- video footage, the scenes of the attacks, the wreckage of the plane, etc. There are plenty of credible scientists who've studied these things and overwhelmingly agrees that the official story is full of crap. It's obvious that you've already made up your mind about 9/11 and conspirators. That's a real shame because if you were open-minded about 9/11 and have the courage to question the official story, I'd bet you'd be proud to call yourself a "conspirator."

    2. 1. So you are saying the airlines were not part of the conspiracy. I agree.
      Then tell me why did they come forward and say their planes were hijacked and flown into buildings if they weren't? If it were ANYTHING but the official story, these airlines would know about it and have every possible reason to make a stink about it.

      2. Why would he take credit if he didn't do it? It was suicide and reduced him to living in caves.

      You did not address the issues at all. Save the rant about my person.

    3. lol ... is osama bin laden dead? where's his body? in the sea? really? lol

    4. President Obama said we killed him. Is he part of the conspiracy too? And everyone on the aircraft carrier where his body was dumped overboard? What are you saying, that he's alve? That's all dodging the point. If it wasn't him wouldn't he have said so and said he was being framed for a crime he didn't commit? Wouldn't America's rivals and opponents overseas jump at the chance to report this story?

    5. You're trying so hard buddy, it's painful to watch you attempting to convince everyone here that you know the absolute truth. I for one do not know exactly what happened, and I'm guessing the majority are not 100% sure. And that's where people start to doubt and ask harder questions. Because if the official story satisfied every single point with logic and facts, there would be no argument. But the thing is that there are many inconsistencies. Yet, your mind seems too tiny to be able to look at the big picture. You think many other media have not questioned, for example, Bin Ladens' death? The issue is that only the mass media gets "credibility" when they are reporting news which information has been preselected for you, omitting or altering key facts while alternative media that truly investigates things that were omitted from the official report discovers other findings and backs it up with both logic and fact to a point where it's arguable, yet when they report it, it's ridiculous and unpatriotic and dumb, shunning aside anything that contradicts your line of belief and putting it aside labeling it as "conspiracy theory" and you think -"Put it next to the other rubbish". Render a nation with fear and watch everyone blindly handing over their civil rights in a silver platter. The same civil rights our forefathers have worked so hard so we can enjoy the freedom of making our own choices and keeping our identities as we have our own set of morals. Would you think HMS and the Patriot Act would ever come to life without the introduction of fear amongst the sheep? Here's how it works: create problem > offer solution. Simple. It's been done before, and I'm not only talking about Pearl Harbor. Hitler, for example, used the same means to get what he wanted. He fueled the ideology of "Jewish terrorists" which ended up with an "attack" on the German Archives, burning the building to the ground and blamed the "Jewish terrorists". Created the Gestapo for National Security, then we know what followed... But wait, after +50 years it was found out that Hitler was behind the burning of the German Archives building. This is proven fact, you can research this. All I'm saying, there's more to this than the official story, and that's more than enough to make me question it.

    6. Cute. I get an ad hominem insult, a straw man, ("attempting to convince everyone here that you know the absolute truth.") a red herring, ("You think many other media have not questioned, for example, Bin Ladens' death?" which does not begin to suggest they think a conspiracy is going on) and you finish with a grandiose rant of Godwin's law. Nothing new here. One last thing: It's been over 12 years now and you still have "questions"?
      Some of us aren't that slow.
      It's obvious the government used this event in various ways to enact and accomplish things it wanted to to do. It's obvious various people within government scrambled around in CYA mode to cover up their incompetence. That's as far as any of this goes and it doesn't mean the government did it. End of story.

    7. Yeah, I still have questions. I care not if 12 years or 20 years have passed, it's not about being slow or quick. It's about how much it affected the lives of millions, and still does with a foul sweep. It's good that you quickly ascertain the patterns you so dully define, stating it's nothing new. That's good. Just shows I'm not the only one making valid points you so quickly negate. The problem is you see something is not quite right, yet you are too afraid of recognizing the truth, creating these alter logical loops in which you feel comfortable in. I mean, why in gods name would the government lie to us? They are a constitution of honor and integrity, right? I mean who has power and does not exploit it for their own personal gain and pleasure? Politicians and major corporations that won't, right? It is funny how the majority of past "conspiracy theories" have come to be known as a reality rather than theory, and only made possible with people asking questions. Like I am doing. I've said so on my previous comment which you replied to, but you're so emotionally invested in your belief that you repeated the same error I described before: the ridicule of people who investigates and questions what truly happened. I'm sure you also have a mental block to explain things out of grasp, for example the collision of tower 5, which had no airplanes flown into it, nor it's collision was influenced by the damage caused from the falling towers and also it's omission in the official report. Did tower 5 also come down due negligence and incompetence? 12 years has passed yet there's no answer for that. But hey, it's easier to live your life closing your eyes to certain aspects. It's easier than to hear others say "you were wrong". But it's people like you that allow our world to turn into the devils playground, letting those in power deceit and create suffering and pain to others to push their agenda forward and all you can come up with is "end of story"? It will be the end of story when we're living in a new paradigm that's been slowly penetrating our minds to blindly accept whatever our leaders say, changing out system of belief forever to be lost in their own amusement and profit from our auto-destructive minds. Not because you're unable to defend yourself with true logic and wish to end the conversation just because you lack argument. I won't even bring up the Pentagon attack (blast is smaller than a commercial plane, no wreckage found on location) but I will bring up Shanksville crash where it's just a crater on the ground with a few debris here and there. Was that incompetence as well? Did they cover up a non-existent crash? Medics were said to leave the site because there were no corpses, not even a drop of blood. That must be a whole new kind of incompetence to grab made up crashes and then cover it up, it makes so much sense... You should probably do some free research, rather than gobbling in whatever Fox News, CNN and any other major media outlet and say it's proper information.

    8. " I won't even bring up the Pentagon attack (blast is smaller than a commercial plane, no wreckage found on location) "

      " Did tower 5 also come down due negligence and incompetence? 12 years has passed yet there's no answer for that."

      More truther lies. The rest of that ad hominem filled rant? tl;dr.

    9. Sorry, my bad. I lied, it was not tower 5, it was tower 7. I'm sorry, is it a lie? Did tower 7 not collapse as well? Do us a favor and do some proper research. Unless you're some internet troll, I really cannot explain your lack of knowledge.

      Also, blast hole on the Pentagon is not small compared to a commercial flight? I'd like to ask you then to please link me some photos from the Pentagon "strike" and please please please show me proper plane wreckage which seems lacking on the photos taken. I just need 1 of the massive jet engines. They are made mainly of titanium and weigh over 4tons. Did they magically evaporate?

      Talk about ranting huh?

    10. The lie was that after 12 years there is no answer to why bldg 7 came down.

      " blast hole on the Pentagon is not small compared to a commercial flight?"

      It's not a blast hole. A plane impacted the building.

      " I'd like to ask you then to please link me some photos from the Pentagon "strike" and please please please show me proper plane wreckage"

      It's not my responsibility to do your research for you. A number of photos exist which clearly show wreckage which experts have identified as parts from a Boeing 757. These parts include a wheel from a landing gear and a hub from the compressor stage of an engine.
      As for the overall size of the impact zone/hole/whatever there really is no precedent for an airliner hitting a blast reinforced structure at over 500 mph so I'm not sure what you would base your expectations on.

    11. You think just b/c your able to point out fallacies that makes your set of facts correct? Not at all. Try directly answering any 1 question that the film asks. Try to dispute or disprove any section of this film with hard facts that make up truth instead of pretending you are more intelligent than all the people here b/c you can point out a straw man argument. Please proceed...

    12. The film asks no questions for which answers do not already exist.

    13. How about Obama and Osama were both so tired of all the BS....maybe it was to shut everybody up as much as possible and Osama's living in Hawaii. Just sayin'

    14. 1. the airlines have nothing to do with it.
      2. the bin laden family is the 2nd richest family in Saudi Arabia next to the royal family.
      3.Osama was a CIA operative and Al Qaeda was put in place and trained by the C|IA.
      4. I'm sure the airline companies got an under the table payment for losses especially since it wasn't even a commercial airliner that hit the buildings..........dumb Americans believe anything your govt tells you. Follow little sheep follow.

    15. The fact that utterly nonsensical reply got 3 thumbs up tells me the kind of audience I'm arguing in front of.
      Why would Osama Bin Laden be working for the CIA- YOU KNOW PEOPLE WORK FOR MONEY RIGHT? When he's already rich?
      As for airlines getting an "under the table payment" these companies are publicly traded with yearly financial reports. Show the evidence.

    16. Not all americans believe in the government. As a matter of fact 70% of americans do not trust the government. batvette in in the 30%.

    17. You could not have made it more obvious you haven't watched this documentary. Ridiculous and meaningless.

    18. Just to debunk your 2 outstanding "obvious" points.

      1: Many investigations hit a brick wall due to the magical disappearance of the planes' black box. They said a couple were destroyed and the rest they could not find. This is pretty peculiar since black boxes are made to withstand massive pounds of pressure to endure the most violent plane crashes, and also the possibility to pin point it's location. Flights that crashed, and it's accident were less "important" than a "massive orchestrated terrorist attack", had it's black box retrieved with no issue, yet something as important as 911 goes missing or destroyed beyond repairs. It's just too convenient. That should cover the airlines part. No proof = incomplete investigation = no ways to deny liability. They had no chance to begin with. Besides, the profit people made from this, they could care less about a couple of airliners and their insurers.

      And again, to now cover the towers' insurance, the proof they needed was quickly removed from ground zero. No one was allowed within the vicinity of the towers, only secret service were allowed to meddle through the wreckage, only after were other parties allowed to inspect the rubble. Even though they cleaned out most of the evidence, we still see a few inconsistencies which were disregarded in the official report. Why did molten metal flow under the towers for +1 week? Why were the steel structures showing a diagonal "cut"? Many, many more. Was it enough to enable the insurers to deny liability? No. Why? Because of the official report, the only one that counts. But it was incomplete because it did not have all the facts in it. Only accounted for with whatever information they got AFTER the secret services had wiped out all key evidence. I mean, they are so good in explaining how pockets of fire were enough to melt the steel structures, but a passport survived all that chaos? lol.

      2: Osama Bin Laden and his family are business partners of the Bush family for 25 years before 911. Coincidence? I think not. The thing is, you really believe that a bunch of amateur pilots would be able to fly these massive planes and did what they did. Hell, even skilled pilots would tell you those maneuvers are hard, yet these rookies were able to pull it off. Out of nowhere, comes this group of non-American "terrorists" smart enough to overcome US defenses. I mean that's what US is proud of, isn't it? It's vast and superior military and technology, where NORAD has a 99% success rate in neutralizing threats. And let's say the planes were indeed sequestrated by these men. You can tell for 100% they would not be enticed to proceed with a suicide mission? There are plenty of ways to make others do things, and given human nature it's easier than you make it sound. Besides, what you said: "How could the CIA, Bush,. or ANYBODY possibly coerce them to pursue such a suicidal act?" really contradicts itself. If no one would be able to coerce them to pursue such a suicidal act, then they wouldn't be the perpetrators, cos they wouldn't be persuaded to do so.

      Nice try. But it's a fail.

    19. 1. If they could pull off a crime as complex as this why wouldn't they have provided fabricated black boxes with all the telemetry to confirm their claims?

      No I'mm sorry but the missing black boxes are not evidence for a conspiracy as that only causes more questions to be asked.

      And we know damn well if they produced intact black boxes in serviceable condition you'd only claim "well isn't that just too convenient!"

      "Besides, the profit people made from this, they could care less about a couple of airliners and their insurers."

      So you can show a financial paper trail between the conspirators and these airlines and insurers covering compensation for their vast losses?

      Yes you'll have to do that because these are publicly traded companies and their financial reports are public and the tax returns of all the share holders are on record with the IRS.

      The airlines and insurers are completely separate entities from the alleged conspirators and the transfer of funds to compensate their losses would be impossible with today's electronic banking.

      " the proof they needed was quickly removed from ground zero. No one was allowed within the vicinity of the towers, only secret service were allowed to meddle through the wreckage, only after were other parties allowed to inspect the rubble."

      You're flat out lying here. Everyone look at the truther's lies, and have a good belly laugh. How long would it take to pull up one of the hundreds of video clips showing hundreds of firemen combing the wreckage for their fallen comrades?

      If you're not lying you are so detached from reality no one should take you seriously.

      Quickly removed from ground zero? It took 9 months to clear the rubble.

      Your rebuttal fails and don't expect much respect from me if you so willingly present lies as a real argument.

      2." If no one would be able to coerce them to pursue such a suicidal act, then they wouldn't be the perpetrators, cos they wouldn't be persuaded to do so."

      Now the meat of that matter:

      No amount of money can make someone kill themselves, especially when they are already rich.

      There is one thing that can: Ideology, a religion, has convinced you it is the right thing to do and you will gain a great reward in heaven for doing your deed.

      Go ahead and posit another reason. You can't.

      Rebuttal failed.

    20. "Osama Bin Laden, a man worth $50 million, and Al Qaeda, by claiming responsibility,"
      NOT SO! Bin Laden NEVER claimed responsbility!
      Fake Bin Laden videos (produced by the CIA and easily shown as fake) may have had that claim. Weeks after the SUCCESSFUL attacks no-one had claimed the highjackings...

  47. Do a little research on Building 7... it's chilling how that building fell so similarly to the twin towers despite not being directly hit by any airplane. I mean seriously, just look at any video of Building 7- it was clearly destroyed by demolition.

    1. So what you are arguing is that if a plane hits a building it's expected it should collapse? Seems to be, since you are arguing it is notable that building 7 should not have fallen since it wasn't hit by a plane.
      Therefore you are establishing it as your position that Muslims, planes and fires caused the collapse of the towers. So Building 7 was a conspiracy that coincidentally happened on the same day? WOW.

    2. I'm having a difficult time understanding your comment lol. I basically said that building 7 is very suspicious and that it should have raised a red flag at least on the whole 9/11 attacks. Not ONCE have I said anythings about Muslims and/or fire... You should really practice on your reading, writing, and critical thinking skills -_-

    3. Save the ad hominem. "I basically said that building 7 is very suspicious" is clearly an argument of ignorance: i.e; you don't know why it collapsed. It doesn't raise a red flag because the fire dept was on the scene, watched the decaying state of the burning, damaged building all afternoon, saying it didn't look straight, had a large bulge in lower floor columns, a gaping hole 20 stories high, was making "creaking" and "groaning" noises and knew it was going to collapse several hours in advance. They said NYC building engineers held a transit up to it at street level and it had a "pronounced lean". See their interviews in Firehouse magazine or prove my claims wrong. Unless you are prepared to accuse hundreds of NYFD personnel as part of the alleged conspiracy that killed 323 of their comrades you can just forget that suspicious nonsense.

    4. Speaking of firefighters. I find it a bit upsetting that NIST, chose not to publish the statements of hundreds of firefighters who witnessed secondary explosions and molten steel. All the above you stated regarding WTC 7 may have been the result of secondary explosives these ,likely same, firefighters spoke of but NIST found it did not fit their chosen theory(I say "chosen" because when you do not follow up on other possibilities,such as the dozens of live footage reporters and other witnesses to secondary explosions that anyone can find to support another plausble theory, then you are choosing which theory ) so statements are made out of context. I'm sure that publication is like all other mainstream ones cherry picked the questions and edited for mass consumption(thats how they stay in business.)

    5. Yeah, but the 9.11 commission didnt even mention it, and F.E.M.A actually stated they didnt know why it collapsed and left it at that.

      Do you know what evidence the government have that proves the specific terrorists were behind it? A single passport that survived the massive fireball that caused the building to collapse, flew out of the building and remain in a safe place to be found in the debris from the twin towers. You must believe in miracles then if you believe the official story to be true

    6. Rethink911. org coming to 9 Canadian cities starting march 13th.

  48. What I do not understand, is that, if they knew people were going to die in all of this ... and deception was the new game ... how can they talk to fellow man and bold face LIE? The perfect pocker face. The SKILL at which these people LIE is so unreal.

    I mean they are top military people and in Govt, they MUST know about the Alien Disclosure Movement. Why aren't they interested in learning more about them? I mean it is fascinating new world of possibilities ... yet the game of 'Go get the Oil' and play with our Toys in the sand to get that Oil is more important?

    It just amazes me how shallow all of this is. It is so unreal that they took more interest in war games for Oil then entering a new world in outer space, new ways to clean up the planet with Free Energy systems and so many wonderful new things to play with.

    Instead they wanted to play with old WW2 toys ??? Just wow.

    1. Money and power are the most deadly dangerous drugs.

    2. Well when George Bush was presented with a 9/11 question stating he had prior knowledge Bush stumbled when he was trying to reply it was obvious to me he was hiding something. Colen Powell resigned and I thought Cheney showed some tell tale signs himself however Rumsfeld seemed solid as a rock.

    3. Wait, but wasn't it Rumsfeld who made the freudian slip and state something about the planes and the "missile" that hit the Pentagon? I know it was at least one of them.

    4. As long as we continue to allow our government to be controlled by corporate entrees then you will have people that can lie with stone faces. It's all about money. And if you think there is really any "Free Energy" systems you have been reading far too many SciFi books. You seem to forget that almost every object you touch in your daily live has oil as a basis. There is no way to continue the current lifestyle you have come to accept, there are no magic acknowledges that are going to fix the royal mess we have made, especially when people like you believe that there are Free Energy systems out there. And cleaning up the planet, the only way the planet will begin to clean itself up is when man have finally killed himself off.

    5. Stan Meyers,
      Stan Meyers,
      Stan Meyers,

      Did you utube look him up? He is BUT ONE. If you think Free Energy or Zero Point is a hoax... you are going to take this planet down with Oil and Coal due to IGNORANCE.. you are IGNORING the facts.

      Either you are a paid SHILL for Oil and Coal to make people appear to be a fool... or you sir are being Ignorant. I mean that in a way, you refused to do th research of STAN MEYERS... just ONE MAN.

    6. Hey Matt, I've been watching your posts on here for some time, mostly in agreement but this I have to take issue with. 'free energy' IS and always will be a hoax (or more appropriately a beautiful naive aspiration), the laws of thermodynamics have NEVER been shown to be broken in any situation. It takes more energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen (electrolysis) than is produced by recombining them by burning hydrogen in oxygen. It is of course possible to run a combustion engine on water this way but you need an input of more energy to break down the water than you will get via combustion, especially if you are then using some of that energy to travel.

      You cannot get out more energy than you put in via mass. You cannot get more mass out than you put in via energy. In actual fact you will always get less because some will escape the system in every transformation.

      Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. 'free energy' would require the creation of energy which as far as we know is impossible - we can only transform mass/energy into energy we can not simply magic it up out of thin air. It must come from somewhere. And there will always be a net loss.

    7. You are a SHILL. Or someone PAID to squash ANY word Free Energy or Zero Point. You are a shill. Go away.

    8. You disappoint me Matt K. I have read many of your comments over the past several months, maybe even a couple of years. As much as I want to like you & agree with your comments, you continue to make it increasingly difficult to do so.

      Me thinks you & I are from the same part of the world, maybe even the same island & thus it would be natural for me to want to get along with you. Sadly it appears you have been drinking far too much kool-aid as of late. Please do yourself & the rest of us a favour & take a step back from yourself & the poisonous ideas you have been swallowing whole.

      @ Samuel Morrissey & Redmagnolia had some solid, helpful information for you that you just tossed aside & then proceeded to call them names.

      If you want to interact & participate in the real world full of grownups, you my young friend have a little growing up & learning ahead of you. Please don't disappoint yourself or the rest of us here in the TopDoc family. Just say no to the kool-aid.

    9. I should not have called you a shill.. I apologize as I can not prove that. But, why the SOUR spot with something SO important. I have provided the references the very inventors you can you tube and google... they have all been well documented.

      I hope that the info can stay true to the Human family and TDF family.

    10. your latest post has been deleted, if you cannot prove someone is a "paid shill" do not accuse or imply they are, attack their argument not them personally. also stay on topic. thanks

    11. Yeah that's right Matt. I'm a Shill, and you're the keeper of all human knowledge.

    12. Hendershot Fuel Less Generator

  49. This 9/11 subject has been beaten like a dead horse. It happened, and it speaks loudly about our condition of our culture that allowed this to happen. We learned a lot about hitler. 9/11 is teaching us about False Flags and how they happen. Next, Sandy Hook and then Boston Bombing (perhaps).

    What will be the next deception? Now more than ever it need to stop. So, we can get going to correct the Culture and stop blaming Individuals. 9/11 is a beacon of how Our culture is screaming for Intervention and a forgiveness and acceptance to learn from.

    We HAVE to stop fighting with each other. It screams of Capitalism's religious like hold on our motivations and it's relation to the Earth. If money AKA Capitolism is going to continue, we will only have more False Flags.

    1. Follow the money. However, I would suggest that Sandy Hook and Boston are truly the act of the crazy or deluded but 9/11 was a planned operation with all the massive distraction well played for maximum effect. Pretty easy to slip a pink elephant into the room when everyone is watching doomed people jumping out of windows. It's all SHOCK and AWE.

    2. Join the New World Order my friend..Are you of the Blood Line or will you suffer in the future ! You will suffer in the future & so will your family. Last time I checked the Constitution it said " We The People For The People " All people created equal...We pay the bills for this Government to exist and we deserve to know the truth !! Not EXCEPT LIES for Capital gain for the greedy in high political position to reep ! Don't tell anyone they are ignorant because they don't understand ! Blame yourself for being useless and accepting the fact !!!!

    3. I never said 9/11 was NOT an inside Job. It was! Channey forced it, and it was planned by such groups of old farts like Trilateral, Bilderberg and CFR. People like Brizinski and Kissingger were key people. THEY WRITE ABOUT IT. What they plan... in documents.

      So, we know who did it.

      What I am saying is that. Have you looked into the UFO issue? Dr. Greer Sirius Disclosure you tube channel? If you want to know the answer to the problems of why they want the OIL and thus willing to kill 3000+ people in 2 towers to get it... the UFO researchers and now all the Military witnesses coming out will make you understand that is an ENERGY WAR.

      This is all about OIL. And the UFO issue is directly connected to Energy. Forget Aliens ... look up some science. TRUTH EMBARGO.

  50. Possibly the best and most definitive work on the subject of 9/11 to date. This multi-episode multi-disc set is on par with works such as "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Massimo Mazzucco should be given every documentary award available. 10 Stars.

  51. At 21:42 of the 3rd segment of this documentary, is a person many of you will know as Ty Pennington, host of a popular home rebuilding show. I don't see him in any of the credits, is he supposed to be a witness? Kinda weird.

  52. I seriously question the controlled demolition hypothesis. It's one thing to keep the knowledge of a Pearl Harbor strike secret with a handful of people in the know. Keeping the rigging with explosives of 2 huge skyscrapers secret with hundreds of people involved is something else. We aren't talking about an assassination involving 3 shooters here, we are talking about a Fight Club scenario involving a huge well organized group.

    1. "involving a huge well organized group."

      yes, it`s the US government;the illuminati& skull and crossbones

    2. I'll give credential to your affirmation when you come up with some evidence that will stand legal scrutiny. Otherwise, it's a mix of paranoia and fabulation.

    3. Prove it, otherwise you're just blowing smoke up my as*.

    4. see 2013 Loose Change

    5. Won't cut it. I've watched it, it's nothing but insubstantiated allegations and delusional ramblings with no evidence.

      Edit: It's their third take on the doc as they've already had to revise their "truths" twice.

    6. truths are the same. the Official debunkers are full of:unsubstantiated allegations and delusional ramblings with no evidence.

    7. I asked a question, you have not answered. Are you going to supply proof?

    8. you wouldn`t see the truth if it bit you in the ass.

    9. I'll take that as a 'no' then. Thought so.

    10. if you thought, you`d be better off.

    11. Where is JFK's brain? No one knows. How could it be possible for such a thing to disappear and the secret of who took it and what was done with it remains a mystery for over half a century? Yes, great secrets can be kept.
      The physical evidence of controlled explosions in the WTC matter has certainly convinced a lot of credible people. It is the physical evidence rather than the "can't keep a secret" mantra that makes the better argument.

    12. I think secrets can be kept. I doubt that hundreds would be involved in the actual planting of demo but my point is this, compartmentalization is a technique used by governments to keeps important things secret. This was used for the Manhattan Project which involved many hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in three different countries and was successfully kept hush. By having people do small jobs without knowing anything else very few are"in" on the big picture. The guys mining the Uranium didn't know what was up, perhaps even some scientists didn't know the end. Finally, if you did know and /or were involved , why would you risk it? I would think , being in that position, there would be risk. That FEMA camera man for example, who broke his silence with statements about what he saw and documented on sight is now in exile in Argentina wanted for murder, hmmm makes you wonder. Barry Jennings an employee of NY Emergency Management at WTC7 spoke to media about explosions and other details not fitting the Official Story and he died an early death with zero info available about the circumstances. Today, if someone were to choose to tell their story, who exactly would they tell? Mainstream media wouldn't touch it, would they even believe you? Prove it! Perhaps a sight like this could cover it and you'de be discredited as a conspiracy theorist by people like you who don't buy it. Great, so you told the truth and now you wonder if they can do what they did, will they come after you and your family with a bad car accident(like the famous Controlled Demolitions expert who got notoriety as the European expert to say that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition without a doubt(google it, no BS), or you wonder if you can maintain employment. The bottom line is anyone who knows something will have to ask himself if it is worth the risks and if so will anyone even listen.
      This is why I believe it is a conspiracy involving powerfull people involved in intelligence and Wall street, and whats more amazing is how these 2 seemingly unrelated groups are, in fact, very connected. Many big CIA are/were bankers.Watch the Michael Ruppert vids, the ex LA cop is fascinating to listen to.

    13. Sorry but if someone is in the know of a demolition conspiracy on 9/11 and doesn't come forward after 3000 people got murdered, he is a coward and/or a criminal by association.

      As for rigging 2 of the biggest skyscrapers in the world with explosives plus another major building, I am confident it takes more then a small group. Plus you need the cooperation from the buildings security crews to manage to pull that out.

      And the USSR was well aware of the Manhattan project thanks to infiltration and you can see it was leaked in a Cleveland newspaper if you search for Manhattan Project leak in google.

    14. Co-operation? No problem. They had Larry Silverstein, the poor guy who confessed they had to 'pull' WTC7 after a couple of small fires. He made that sound like a spontaneous decision too. They're all bloody liars.

    15. Yes, he asked that the fire fighters be 'pulled' from the building, what are you trying to insinuate?

    16. Actually, he didn't mention the firefighters when he made the initial comment but later, 'explains' that's what he meant. How convenient though that he cancelled a business meeting on 9/11 to attend an appointment with his dermatologist.

    17. 1. Tell us why a criminal mastermind who has allegedly done all this and covered it up... would just blurt out something like that in an interview.
      2. He was on the phone with a fire dept official. Are you saying this fire dept commander was part of the conspiracy? Which killed 323 of his close friends?
      3. All we hear is this was done by "the government. If Larry Silverstein made such a decision this makes him the ringleader.
      Larry Silverstein is NOT a government employee or elected official.
      4. If a decision had to be made that afternoon to blow that building up, this leaves us with a situation where they would leave that building standing rigged full of explosives and wires, etc- fully incriminating them. Isn't it absurd that such an option would ever be allowed?
      5. Why didn't they blow bldg 7 up with the towers?
      6. Many witnesses, including fire dept personnel, describe the building in an increasing state of instability all day, in fact that is why the fires weren't fought. This is not consistent with claims about controlled demolitions. It IS consistent with "pulling" personnel away from a losing battle.

    18. WHo's to say it was an American demolition team? A Special Ops team is giving a job and they do it. Killing people is what they do

    19. Who's to say it was a demolition at all, couldn't care less where they came from America or wherever you might imagine if you can't prove with evidence that will stand scrutiny how it was done.

    20. NIST only explains the sequences leading up to the initial collapses. Do you know why? To explain how the buildings came down, according to their fire theory, requires the suspension of the laws of physics.

      Newton's third Law of Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

      The portion of the buildings affected by the impacts and fires, are very small in relation to the rest of the buildings. Beneath the affected areas of the WTCs, the rest of the buildings were structurally sound, according to NIST.

      80 000 tonnes of structural steel and concrete, built with a structural redundancy to support 3-5x the weight it supported.

      What NIST wants us to believe, is that the much small top portions collapsed with enough energy to drive straight through the rest of the perfectly fine building.

      According to Newton's law, as the top portion begins to push down, the bottom portion will push up with equal force, eventually stopping the collapse. This is a law of physics.

      Another law of physics that was violated was the Momentum Conservation Principle.

      What this means is that there is only so much energy in an isolated system.

      When the top portion of the buildings begin to collapse, the energy of its motion is transformed into deformation, or destruction. As the collapsing portions destroy what's beneath them, their energy is dissipated, thus slowing the motion, or collapse.

      Instead, what we saw in the collapse of the buildings was the acceleration of collapse, not a slowing down, as the laws of physics demand.

      Can you explain where the needed energy came from, to not only destroy 80 000 of steel and concrete, but to pulverize everything into dust?

      Does it makes sense to you that NIST has refused to address this, or explain how the building collapse at near free fall speed?

    21. It seems pretty obvious to me that when the floors damaged by the planes gave, all the weight above created a domino effect. That weight didn't have to pulverize the whole building in one shot, it did it one floor at a time and the weight of it was added to the weight coming down hence the acceleration.

      The model in snow they show in the video is bullshit, it's a solid block. when someone builds a model based on the plans of the towers and applies a force relative to the crash of the planes to it, we will know how physics act on such a structure. It's easy to come to conclusions from a video covered in dust, why don't they do the scientific experiments instead of coming to conclusions based on assumptions?

    22. It might 'seem pretty obvious', but that's because you're not taking into account science or structural engineering.

      As each floor collapses, the laws of physics dictate that the energy of motion is transferred into deformation. This a very basic principle that is accepted as fact everywhere on the planet.

      As each floor collapsed down, the process, or motion, is slowed as it comes in contact with the floor below it. Thus it would not be able to accelerate to free fall speed. It would've taken between 30-45 seconds to collapse.

      This is the very reason why the Official Commission report and NIST both discredit the domino effect. If they don't believe the domino effect was a factor, why do you?

      Also, as I mentioned, the WTCs as all such buildings are engineered, were capable of supporting far more weight than they do.

      The WTCs could've supported up to 5x the weight that was crashing down. This is a fact about the engineering of the buildings.

      As for the plane impacts, the number of structural beams was less than half needed to result in structural failure. This is why the building didn't collapse after the planes hit. They were designed to withstand the impact of a jet plane.

      Here's an interesting quote from an top engineering firm on the structural soundness of the WTC:

      "All the columns on one side could be cut as well as the two corners and some columns on the adjacent sides, and the towers would still be able to withstand a 100 mph wind"

      This is why the design won an engineering award.

      Imagine a small car traveling at a high speed slaming head on into a parked dump truck. Will the car pass straight through the dump truck, without slowing down and completely destroy it?

      Because that's basically what happened on 9/11

    23. 1. Building 7 was not hit by an airplane

      2. falling objects of any weight accelerate at the same rate, i.e. "adding to the weight" of floors above has NO affect on the accelloration of floors below.

    24. This is one of the dumbest points I've seen yet- they only have to explain events up to the point of initiation BECAUSE once initiation takes place an irreversible, unstoppable display of physics- in the form of momentum- occurs.

      "with a structural redundancy to support 3-5x the weight it supported."

      Basic physics tells us that when the top portion of the building falls 3 meters (with the failure of one floor's columns as collapse initiated) the now dynamic load becomes 30x the mass of its load as static.

      Check that out as factual then apply it to your own claims.

    25. I doubt that the riggers were American. It would be far too difficult to control the story following the event, so it would be easier to use a foreign "special operation team," I would think MOSSAD would be effective source.

    26. How many employees for years were secretly/illegally gathering our emails and phone calls for NSA, as they 'rigged' all our computers? Hundreds or more employees kept their mouths shut? This too is something else.

    27. They didn't physically "rig" all the computers, they just intercepted communications as they have since the NSA was founded.

      To bring down WTC1 and 2, teams would have needed to rig several core steel columns of over 1350 feet each. As far as I know, no controlled demolition expert came with a decent evaluation of the time, quantity of explosives and number of people needed to do such a job and how to keep it secret.

    28. They physically 'rigged' all our computers from the back-end of MS, G, Fb etc.. this is now known fact, but kept secret by hundreds.
      The demolition experts that viewed #7 collapse all agree without any doubt, it was a controlled demo. Maybe, you should debate them instead.

    29. All agree?!?! I suppose The American Society of Civil Engineers and the
      National Institute of Standards and Technology has no demolition
      experts in your fantasy world.

    30. Fine you win...a wolf blew down Bld#7 - Adios!

    31. NIST's report was an absolute disgrace. They claim fire brought down the buildings, yet state that there is no evidence the fire exceeded half the temp needed to soften steel. Does that sound like good science to you?

      All the beams they examined, and no evidence of temperatures high enough. Despite the evidence, they stick to their claim.

      There are many other inadequacies in NIST's final report. Google Kevin Ryan and watch his doc explaining, using science, why NIST's report is a sham.

      Also. watch the doc, Explosive Evidence: the experts speak out (I think that's what it's called). It's filled with experts, including some of the top demolition experts in the world, all stating the official story does not adequately explain what happened.

    32. You must have missed the part on that page where they stated:
      1. The beams they examined were NOT FROM THE FIRE/IMPACT/COLLAPSE INITIATION ZONE.
      2. The temperatures the beams they DID examine were NOT representative of the temperatures experienced in the fire areas.

      It's an entirely stupid point because all fire experts accept that the fires from common office building fires (about 1800 degrees F) FAR exceed the temperature at which structural steel significantly weakens (between 1000-1100 degrees F).

      And "explosive evidence" does not have some of the "top demolitions experts in the world". Like AE911truth they dug up a couple of people with credentials that represent about 1/10th of 1 percent of their profession- and yet still won't use the channels available in their profession, like publishing in journals or speaking at society conventions to forward their views.

    33. "all fire experts accept that the fires from common office building fires
      (about 1800 degrees F) FAR exceed the temperature at which structural
      steel significantly weakens (between 1000-1100 degrees F)."

      This statement is false. Inf act the opposite is true. How many buildings have collapsed from fire, or you trying to imply that there's never been office fires before?

      Search online for pictures of other burning office towers. You'll find pictures of raging infernos that burned 10 times longer than either WTC tower and did not collapse.

      If you are going to make counter claims, keep them grounded in reality.

    34. You say "that statement is false" then go on to talk about something else. To reiterate:

      Fires of common office building furnishings and contents do typically burn at about 1800 degrees.

      Structural steel significantly weakens at 1100 degrees.

      What is false about that? Prove it. I am not interested in historical anecdotes. Two large airliners full of passengers, luggage and fuel were never crashed into towers at full speed before with the resulting fires left to burn unfought with no working sprinklers.
      Your arguments are strawmen and you declared my points false when they certainly were not. You debate poorly. .

    35. I debate poorly, and yet you insist on using false information in your arguments.

      If what you are saying is true about the temperatures of office towers we would have numerous examples of collapses.

      Fires don't burn anywhere near as hot as you claim, because there are fire codes that regulate office furnishings be fire retardant.

      If fires burn that hot how do you explain buildings that have burned for 15-20 hours and did not collapse? There is no way steel, subjected to those temperatures for 10 plus hours would not collapse.

      The WYCs had localized fires on a couple of floors. They were not raging infernos.

      The most important factor in debating is using factual information. Once you start making stuff up or using factually incorrect statistics you lose all credibility.

      Please confine any future arguments to physical world, and not your magical realm of fantasy and make believe. don't even know what a 'strawman' argument is. Please go and look up the definition. And you say I debate poorly...smh

    36. What you're overlooking is the fact that NIST were given $20 million of government money to 'investigate' the collapses. You don't seriously think they're then going to turn around and present evidence that might incriminate the very people paying them, do you?

    37. "The demolition experts that viewed #7 collapse all agree without any doubt, it was a controlled demo. "

      Show me the proof, who are these experts and where are their testimonials?

    38. Simply watch the documentary...their names, testimonials and expertise are presented.
      Sorry, i didn't take notes...i wasn't expecting a written test would follow.

    39. Are you trying to tell me that this documentary, which I've watched, speaks for all the demolition experts involved? I'm sure there are quite a few people at the ASCE and NIST that would find your above statement very inaccurate.

    40. I didn't say "they speak for all" and u know it.
      What a ridiculous statement.
      Almost as ridiculous as a massive building imploding for no good reason...heck, maybe it was windy that day? Adios.

    41. "The demolition experts that viewed #7 collapse all agree without any doubt, it was a controlled demo. "


    42. Go watch the documentary again, but this time turn the volume to 'ON'.

    43. Avoidance. Ok whatever.

    44. I see, it was the wind. Two massive aeroplanes had nothing to do with it. Thanks for clarifying.

    45. Wow, you're the first person I've ever encountered who doesn't understand how sarcasm works.

    46. Oh the irony.

    47. Of course many at NIST and ASCE would find the above statement questionable, but only because their jobs depend on agreeing with the political expedient answer rather than on what is a real physical possibility.

    48. The rigging of WTC 1 and 2 could've easily been done when the buildings 1 and 2 were shut down in the months prior. The persons doing the rigging would've most likely been foreign nationals and not subject to laws that would detain American citizens as they would have the protection of their embassy(or they would be out of the USA) following the event. Plus then they wouldn't be around to talk about it... thus eliminating the need to kill them.

    49. I think you would enjoy reading, "Crossing the Rubicon. It goes into very good details as to how this was accomplished without anyone noticing anything really unusual.

    50. I've read it, Red. The world is effed up.

    51. I think you may be one of the few people I've come across that has a mind and has put that mind to use. Wouldn't mind getting to know you.

    52. Yeah, and just like you all my illusions have been shattered... I would like to see far more people recognize(as you have) that the very existence of humanity may hang in the balance... and for what? money? power? ego?

    53. If you study all the insane covert operations done by the CIA in the past, and what is actually happening in Iraq and Afghanistan these days, the kind of money involved ("woops, we just happened to loose a few trillions the day before 911"), the strategic importance of having control over the oil in the gulf and the pipeline that will be able to transport the largest amounts of gas from central-Asia through Afghanistan etc. There were even billions to be made by tearing down the world trade center (recently before the attacks bought up, just for the owner to get control of the most valuable land in the world). By considering all the elements of this action, then - if emotions was left outside - it was actually a genius plan; an action that the US had everything to benefit from, securing the place as a superpower for the next century. I bet those behind it can even imagine themselves as patriots (specially considering the amount of money and power they must have gained from it) that have saved the nation by actions that just caused 3000 in collateral damage, compared to the millions in the mid-east. If they seriously considered similar actions (Operation Northwoods) to gain control over Cuba, then how much more could they be able to risk to gain control over the majority of the oil and gas in the world and also weakening hostile enemies.

      But to make it even more simple: Just try to explain, using the laws of physics, in addition to just believe your own eyes: How could the buildings have NOT been demolished? There's clear proofs for this. Fire could NOT have pulverized these buildings, just as the other planes that crashed could not have disintegrated, causing a hole in the ground with no debris, and a tiny hole in the pentagon, equally without debris, and no evidence, no pictures, no video, nothing at all, to suggest there even were planes causing those two "crashes".

      And when they managed to finish the Manhattan Project during WW2, a job that required hundreds of thousands of people and still just a handful of them actually knew what was being built, then I'm sure they could have figured out some way to do all of the rigging to bring down the WTC buildings.

    54. "the insane covert operations done by the CIA in the past, "


      All of which were in support of US policy and for the interest of the US.

      9/11 was anything but that.

      It's as if you are saying because a soldier shoots an enemy during war that proves he would murder his own mother.


      ""woops, we just happened to loose a few trillions the day before 911""


      No, we didn't. That has been perverted and twisted to non recognition.


      " just for the owner to get control of the most valuable land in the world)"


      Two 110 story buildings worth less than two holes in the ground full of debris? Doubtful.


      "I bet those behind it can even imagine themselves as patriots"


      Congrats, even though I disagree with the core of the point, that is one of the more reasonable things I've seen from a truther.


      "an action that the US had everything to benefit from,"


      Quite the contrary. I hope I needn't list them all, you could fill several pages-the least of which is not committees and inquiries into all levels of government including congress and the white house, the military, FAAS, FBI, CIA... as to why they failed to protect the people.


      "Fire could NOT have pulverized these buildings,"


      You're right, but:

      A. They weren't pulverized. Most of the debris was in 3 story sections as assembled.

      B. What was pulverized was by gravity. Not fire.


      "causing a hole in the ground with no debris,"


      That's absurd. Crews worked round the clock for nine months- NINE MONTHS- to remove all the debris.


      "no pictures, no video, nothing at all, to suggest there even were planes causing those two "crashes"."


      I don't know if this ignorance is willful or accidental.


      "And when they managed to finish the Manhattan Project"

      A project to win the war and save the world, not heinously murder 3000 of your own citizens. Participant's moral conscience rewarded honoring the security clearance, not admitting you participated in the crime of the century. And it was not long before we knew all about the Manhatten project and the identities of many of those who worked on it. For endless reasons the analogy is just worthless.

    55. I suggest you spend a little time reading "Crossing the Rubicon". You just might start to think a little differently. Of course I'm not sure you would be able to read 600 with over 1000 footnotes because your mind is truly too small.

    56. Didn't address a single thing I said and posted an ad hominem insult. You fail at debate.

    57. Stop making sense. ;) I know, your post is a nice summation but the deniers have swallowed that blue pill and are not gonna question their illusions.

    58. The Manhattan project - 100,000's of workers on that project and still it remained a secret.
      Apart from that in the 3rd part of this doc, at about 32 minutes in, you will see close up footage of sections of WTC as it came down. You can even make out the top section of the tower, above where the plane hit, being demolished as it fell. How can that be? There was absolutely nothing above it to cause that to happen. I don't know how they did it honestly, but 20 stories of a building don't disintegrate in mid-air by themselves.

    59. "The Manhattan project - 100,000's of workers on that project and still it remained a secret."
      Dumb analogy. The Manhattan project was a GOOD DEED as far as all participants were concerned. It was part of the war effort to vanquish an enemy seen as evil.
      9/11 was an attack on the American people which had numerous negative repercussions for generations to come. Participation in a conspiracy over it would make one rotten to the core.
      You have to suffer from paranoid delusions to walk around believing your fellow citizens are that evil.

    60. Compartmentalization - Look it up. I believe the MIC is pure evil, not the citizens. America is built on the blood of poor people in South America and Central Asia. Hows that for evil? Didn't your government just invade Iraq on a lie and kill over 1 million people? Didn't they use banned chemical weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorous so heavily that birth defects are more common that the cold now in Iraqi hospitals? You think they same people would have any qualms about the loss of 3k Americans? How many US soldier were killed and maimed in Iraq on that pack of lies? Your apathy and ignorance is whats evil.

    61. LOL, saying "compartmentalization" is silly. You're saying none of the actual participants of 9/11 know that their covert actions of and leading up to that day caused the events of that day.
      You think that the hundreds of workers it would take to rig explosives in those buildings did it and later didn't think what they did had anything to do with it.
      Please clarify if you mean something else because that's just stupid. I'm sure you'll come back with something like "it didn't take hundreds of workers".
      You people just don't get it. You need to provide a detailed case depicting exactly who did what when and where for any of this to hold water. You can't just wave your arm and say the government destroyed buildings without providing a rational explanation of how they were able to do this, and provide a rational explanation of what other than planes full of people were crashed into them.
      The rest of your reply was off topic.

    62. I don't know how it was done, I don't pretend to know either. I tell you something though the people whose job it is to find out didn't do a very good job now did they? Who is Phillip Zelikow? Do you even know anything about the people that investigated 9/11? Did you know that the outline of the 9/11 report, down to the very sub-paragraphs, was drawn up before the committee even started to investigate the event? Do you know how much information there was about an attack in different intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the months leading to the attack? More than enough information to stop it, that's the truth. Those agencies even admit there was a breakdown in cooperation and intelligence sharing. Yet you seem to think that nothing could possibly go unnoticed by so many people (lol). FYI I didn't say planes were not used, but it wasn't enough to bring down 3 buildings, that's just common sense. You would need multiple planes striking one building to produce enough heat to begin to make that happen. Don't insult my intelligence by trying telling me that a building falling into its own footprint, that wasn't even hit by a plane, is perfectly natural. I'm asking you to explain to me why building 7 collapsed into its own footprint. OH that's right you can't because the report that explains this event has been classified as secret as it would 'jeopardize public safety'.

      BTW as long as I am writing my own comments I'll decide whats off topic or not.

    63. "I don't know how it was done, I don't pretend to know either."
      You have to do that to challenge a prevailing theory-you've heard of the scientific method, no?

    64. No you asked me about the logistics of how a person, or group of people, could possibly rig those towers with explosives without anyone noticing. OBVIOUSLY explosives were used, go look at WTC 7 falling again.
      Did you even bother to watch this documentary? Your asking a lot of redundant questions for someone who supposedly did.

    65. "OBVIOUSLY explosives were used, go look at WTC 7 falling again"
      I didnt HEAR any explosives.

    66. I suggest you read Crossing the Rubicon. It does talk about how rigging the buildings was pulled off and that people did come forward and think that there was something odd going on.

    67. I don't necessarily believe it had to be a controlled demolition to achieve the goals of the "Project for a New American Century". Foreknowledge and an unwillingness to act would be enough. That being said, if those three buildings absolutely had to come down for whatever reason (and there are a few possible reasons), it is certainly possible that employees at Turner Construction Company, which was contracted for fireproofing work on almost the exact floors impacted only a couple years prior, installed a proprietary compound that they believed to be fireproofing material but was actually an explosive/accelerant. Turner has some connections to the Bush family. Again, I don't necessarily think this is what happened, but I feel it is important to remind people that a conspiracy doesn't require every participant to be aware of the plan.

  53. The introduction suggests that the connection between Japan and Germany was propaganda and implies that it was not based on fact. This is simply not true. In 1936, these two nations signed an agreement against communism called the Anti-Comintern Pact. In 1940, they, along with Italy, signed the Tripartite Pact, designed to integrate their military goals. Article two of this pact states "Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in Greater East Asia."

    I suppose it makes the job of the propaganda department much easier when your propaganda is fact.

  54. CapnCanard. That's why I made the craic about footballers wives or other **** likely to grab the (limited ) attention of the tabloids which hold so much sway over public opinion.

  55. To Gonchablas, I and many , many others " with you", but sadly until some mainstream media pays attention to real public opinion and starts printing / showing films etc ,which call for a new , independant inquiry, nothing will change . Just think about the murder of JFK and you see how effective the obfuscation and downright lies can be when the "grown ups " in authority close ranks. My hope is that some "bit player " , either feels underpaid or has a sudden conscience hit and spills some irrefutable beans. Could be quite a small thing that would set the ball rolling and the Media would be forced to pay attention . If only it was pro footballers wives who were explosive experts, the media would be fighting for their stories!

    1. re spilled beans.... well, some have tried to tell their story with little success. Well among others there is former CIA asset Susan Lindauer and then a former US Army War College professor, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who have been talking but the MSM hasn't been listening. When power closes ranks very little light is shown on the guilty.

    2. There are other sides to the story. A different view at Sabrovsky (by

      "In fact, while [Sabrovsky] did work as an administrator at the U.S. Army War College, he was not, as his job title seems to indicate, the director or dean of the college. Far from it. According to the Press Office of the Army War College, in the mid-1980s, Sabrosky served as a civilian administrator at a research department of the college, supervising the publication of papers written within that department. His job title was "Director of Studies" because he supervised publishing studies done within a department of the college. He was a mid-level civilian manager at a military college, without access to the sort of highly classified material of the sort he now fraudulently claims to have."

  56. Don't know what happened on 9 11, but i know the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

  57. I could only watch half of this. Why hasn't something been done about all these findings. For 12 years now and all the doc. on implied lies told etc. If all these reports are true in all the various docs how come nothing is being done to bush an chainy or any of them? So don't bother us with this crap if there not going to take action, sorry!

    Just by what i have posted above and no action means it must be BS? After all these years?

    1. What do you want done, and who should do it? And please keep in mind that the government isn't gonna do it.

    2. That's a loaded question. First of all someone has to file charges? Who does that in this case? How about you CapnCanard can you file charges? Would you file charges? Do you believe they are guilty? Do you believe it was an inside job or that the present govt. at the time it all came down was ignoring the tip offs they supposedly received. The point is, from my point of view, there all talking TIHS!

      I don't know i guess the producers of these various docs are trying to provoke someone into taking action?

      I'm just sayen, srop posting this crap if there not going to take court action? Just let it go and we'll all just take our ssa wiping and move on.

      In other words, to these said doc producers. Shut the Kcuf up and quit bothering the general public.

    3. Before I respond: have you bothered to watch just 120 minutes? That is all that I would ask. It is just a bunch of questions put forth by architects and engineers. Until then...

      My response: 1st point: as a private citizen I can certainly file a civil lawsuit but I have to prove damage to me, my person plus it isn't cheap. However, I do believe some survivors in NYC are trying to do just that, but I understand that they are getting a lot of flack from people who believe in the official story. You may check in a mirror.

      2nd point: the Bush administration made recuse workers EMTs, Volunteers etc and all workers at Ground Zero agree to not file any lawsuits against NYC, the Fed Gov't, the State of NYC Port Authority et al for illness and costs for medical care and treatment as a direct result of clean up efforts. Very strange legal requirement. Just one question: why?

      3rd point: why do you want to insist that I refrain from engaging in expressing my 1st Amendment rights of free speech? Does it frighten you if someone has an opinion that you do not share? Being frightened is tough, but I trust you can overcome your fear. If you succeed, then perhaps you may mature and overcome your own bovine scatological rationale.

    4. I am sorry I put you through all that. The internet is so literal. I agree with everything you have posted. I am not angry at you at all I meant that over 12, years there have been so many of these evidence docs and no one bothers to file charges. By all means take them to court. I think they knew all along what was coming down and just wanted a reason to go to war or something like that? Of course I don't have any evidence i am just going by what i have seen over the years in these various docs. Again sorry for the miss understanding! We are on the same page. Do something about it! Right Now!!

  58. I visited the WTC memorial this spring and I found it very odd that there was no mention, designation, explanation, no placard at the building 7 site.
    Rumsfeld on the lawn of the Pentagon pussyhandling the stretchers is the cherry on the horrendous, infuriating cake. If anyone knows what really went on prior to and on Sept 11, it's DR.
    We need to bring these fools to justice before they die (DR, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc) so they can feel even a fraction of the misery the innocent office workers, iraqis, soldiers, firefighters felt.
    Who's with me?!?

    1. I'm not sure if anyone died in Building #7 but if nobody died then I can understand why there was no memorial at the site.

    2. No one died when building 7 collapsed. It would be a memorial to no one.

    3. There were reports of bodies all over the lobby of building 7, but the eyewitness to that is now deceased, his death has never been investigated. Can't remember his name, but he was integral in Mayor Giulliani's bunker on the 7th floor I believe, a younger (40's) black male. I wish I could remember his name.

    4. One eyewitness means there was a report....not reports. A deceased eyewitness, whose name you can't remember. Not very convincing.
      All world trade centre buildings were evacuated after the second plane struck the towers. After the WTC 1 collapsed and debris struck tower 7, igniting fires, there were fears that this tower would also collapse. All firefighters were told to leave the building. If there was still someone in there, that person was not supposed to be there. Not one official casualty in building 7. Google all you want and you will not find the name of anyone killed there.

    5. I didn't expect a memorial but I saw not one mention of it on all the signs, literature, etc. And it has always stood out to me as the oddest event on that day.

    6. Pardon the amount of time it took for me to respond, I am disabled, and am only on the computer a certain amount of time per week. I read your response and found the name of the person I had mentioned. His name is Barry Jennings, and he was trapped on the 23rd floor (which was the office of the City of NY Disaster HQ), he gave testimony that he was trapped there, eventually got out, and made it down to the 8th floor and was rescued by FDNY, all before the collapse of WTC 1or2. He was in the offices on the 23rd floor before either WTC 1 or 2 was hit, and was in WTC 7 when he described the sounds of an explosion in WTC 7. When the FDNY pulled him out of the building, he stated that bodies littered the floor of the lobby of WTC 7.
      Google his testimony. He died under very mysterious circumstances a few years ago.

    7. I do remember Jennings. On the surface, his testimony does stop and make one think. If you look at it a little closer, one can see that conclusions drawn may not be as simple as it seems. For one thing, Jennings did retract his statement that he stepped over dead bodies before his death. One can only speculate why. Also, who were these supposed people whose bodies he was stepping over. Did they not have family wondering what happened to their husband, wife, child, brother or sister? There is a comprehensive list of those who died in the two towers, yet, not of building 7. Wouldn't their deaths be a good propaganda opportunity for government agents? An opportunity never seized, it would seem.

      One has to be cautious about what is described as his mysterious death. He must of had family, friends and neighbours. Surely, they must have an idea what happened to him. All I read were speculations and no in depth investigation into his demise. You don't want to see mysterious because it fits a scenario of wrong doing.

      During a fire, especially when one is in the building, there will be the sounds of explosions. Containers under pressure when heated blowing up, rooms that are breached by flames, exploding when the oxygen they contain comes into contact with oxygen starved flames, crashing walls, steel girders cracking and popping as they twist under the heat. He did not describe the controlled explosions that typify a demolition. All he described were explosions, apparently random and are consistent with burning buildings.

      One also has to consider Jennings mental state. Is he a reliable witness? Why is he the only one to say he seen dead bodies? Is he the type of person who revels in the brand of media attention this kind of testimony would garner? None of these questions are really fully answered.

    8. That's a funny argument you are now making because the truther meme states that building 7 was barely damaged at all by tower debris falling and the fires were minimal.
      So now you are presenting that building 7 was in such a state of destruction that there were bodies everywhere. You better get with the other twoofer loons and compare stories.

  59. I must reply fast to aam641. You are a fanny! This is probably the best researched 9/11 doc I have seen so far. For example. Why has there not been a huge rethink in the design of all high rise buildings , worldwide , if any big office fire could cause the whole bloody place to collapse? If you bother to look and listen , you will find out why nothing has changed . ( a hint here, ... True building professionals, council planners, polis, fire brigade etc, all know that the NIST inquiry is pish ! Brilliant doc. Thanks as always Vlatco . Get this one up ye, debunkers!

  60. I actually pretty enjoyed this documentary as it uses various sources.
    The arguments are well explained, detailed and point to point. THey don't start theories, just point out questions, or unanswered ones that should be easily answered.

    Either way, it usually really is easy to start elaborating ridiculous and outrageous conspiracy theories and ideas. This documentary stays clean, doesn't adventure into those dark and uncertain ideas.

    The only low point i must point out is it ridicules a small sample of debunkers (only 3-4 of them) especially on issues when they don't quite have any answer to. Other than that, it is pretty good.

    1. The documentary starts with a thesis (official story is a conspiracy) and then uses various sources to back it up. So far so good. The bad is in ignoring a far large number of sources that contradict the thesis.

    2. Please, what specific sources, who? Links, data, credentials and name names please. The obvious Popular Mechanics guys are not people that should be trusted as the major source. Those guys are journalists. It is very likely they aren't necessarily working engineers. architects or scientists. The most important part is that security, career, money is the motivation for following the lead of the official sanctified story. To challenge it can be potentially hazardous to your career and that is all the threat it take to control the masses.

    3. Muslim religion actually has a plan for world dominance. They are told to
      assimilate with non Muslims only so long as it furthers this ultimate
      cause. Liberally ignorant love to ignore that very simple truth.

    4. Muslims have a plan? Boy the Jews really have you duped! 911 was a Mossad operation to create hate for Muslims. Those so called "Muslims of 911 were Jews in disguise. Do some reading and see how many false flags are done by the Jews!

    5. well for starters, since they don't advance any theories but casts doubts on the official story, i think if you watched the whole 5 hours you see there are lots and lots of documentation and sources.

      The only point they advance and you point it out: The only thesis as to the reason why this thing is made obviously states one thing: The official story is bogus. And from there, without saying exactly what happened, it just kinda refutes what the official story says which casts doubts. Of course some arguments are more valid than others. But then again, most of what this doc has to say has a point.

      Of course there might be many counter arguments, but then again. Some were blatantly unscientific. and come to think of it. yeh. Towers falling at gravity acceleration. Just that, i think hints on some bogus.

      Anyway, the points were valid. And since once again i say this doc advances no obvious ''solution''/theory, It is pretty enlightening as to make us question more...Which is good. And since i'm no pro and i don't quite care about this particular subject, i'll just let pros on the 9/11 conspiracy/debunkers fight over this one.

    6. I am all for questioning things. However, the documentary is force feeding you one very biased side of the story. What most conspiracy people forget is that the "official" story was not created from nothing. It is the most coherent account that could be assembled from the available facts. The documentary ignores this by compressing all of those accounts into "the official story" and then putting this on the same footing in terms of reliability as the one conflicting account.

    7. Question this mate. Look at the USA's entry to most the major wars they were in last century.

      WWI, the sinking of the Lusitania - very suspect, likely carrying war cargo as well, sent through known U-boat patrolled waters to provoke an attack and then the expected US response.

      WWII - Pearl Harbor- again very suspect. Australian Intelligence notified the USA that the battle fleet had sailed from Japan, days before the attack. The USA knew it was coming.

      Vietnam - Gulf of Tomkin - a 'contrived' attack to justify an escalation. Once more later to be found it's 'BS'.

      It would be against the norm if the USA didn't have a hand in 9/11.

  61. What's there to say? I have managed to critically watch the first half an hour of the documentary. The production quality is better than average and the narration is particularly good. As to the content, being based on incorrect and misleading facts, the documentary is a work of fiction. Its portrayal of 9/11 is no more accurate than the portrayal of 2nd century Rome in The Gladiator (2000). I am not going to point out all inaccuracies, its been done before by more qualified people. However, if somebody has a specific issue, I'll gladly point them to the correct facts.

    1. Denial is not proof of anything except fear.

    2. When short on arguments, ad hominem it is.

    3. No ad hominem is a personal attack on you. I merely stated a truism wherein people often deny instead of addressing the shortcoming of the opposing argument. It is far easier to use denial as a means of self defense. Neigh, I say, Nay! lol...

      I submit that by that measure you have no argument. To rectify your position you would actually need to watch the whole documentary and address what Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have claimed, and then you can make your pointed counter arguments. Until such time, it is possible that you appear to be a row boat missing an oar and are spinning in a circle.

    4. It is ad hominem. You suggest that the reason he doesn't see things the way you do is because there is something wrong with him...fear. He is afraid of the truth. It's not a full attack, but it is a dismissal based on what you perceive as a character flaw.

    5. "address what Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have claimed,"

      I have and individually most of them in their statements just say they have questions or the report is flawed.
      what's there to address in that?
      As a group the "questions" they have published are by and large complete BS or have long had readily available explanations they refuse to recognize. .

    6. I asked you to make any "... pointed counter arguments." But you have refused? So, I feel safe in presuming that you have no argument? Ignoring conclusions of professionals is simple denial. All you need do is too simply address the most confounding issues first instead of ignoring and denying them. For a simple start, how on earth could the steel structure WTC7 have collapsed in under 7 seconds? Fire can't do that, it is impossible and it ignores the physics. A 40 story tower does not just collapse without first removing the the mass below. Hence the mass below would need to eliminated with demolition explosives, all placed well before the event. 'You have some 'splaining to do.' Sorry but a blanket denial of reality doesn't work. Try again.

    7. Why were there no doorknobs found in the rubble?

    8. all the doornobs were in the pentagon

  62. Look up USS Liberty in here some where about Pres Johnson not allowing US war ships to assist the Liberty when it was attacked by unmarked Israeli fighters.
    Any one got an address of the debunkers i have a bridge to sell

    1. And debunkers will bend over backward to buy that bridge. ; )

  63. ''may god gives you wisdom'' (to those who still believe that both pearl h. and 9-11 were not set-ups for USA war machinery

  64. Do you start a war by allowing your enemy to wipe out eight battleships, three cruisers, three destroyers and 188 U.S. aircraft? It's a stretch. There may well be a conspiracy story around Pearl Harbor but I'm skeptical that this one is it

    1. depends... if you provide the replacements... at a good price... for you, and you have a friend that gains a lot by the ensuing mess... you might thing at a small little conspiracy... depends of how psihopat on is

    2. the ships sunk at pearl harbor were mostly antiquated, as were the aircraft. the sudden need for vessels and aircraft employed scads of idled workers. the states got a compelling, heart string tugging tale to inspire kids to sign up to fight the japanese over control of areas we really had no right to. no, im not saying there WAS a conspiracy, im saying there's enough motive to make it worthy of the "urban legend" status it holds. his cousin teddy played the explosion during bunkering of the "maine" into the war that took control of the lands we fought over in WW2, afterall.

    3. of course you do, especially when you own the factories for building new ships and stuff

    4. Actually only 3 battleship were sunk and 1 target-practice ex-battleship, the rest of the ships either remained in service or returned to service during the war. Several ships were also not in Pearl Harbor that day - including all the aircraft-carriers, in addition the whole supply of oil (that would really had crippled the west coast) was unharmed, despite being clearly visible.

      During the war, at its peak, the U.S. Navy was operating 6,768 ships on V-J Day in August 1945, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships.

    5. The (IIRC 53) large visible oil storage tanks were reported back to Japan by Japanese spies as being dummies because they were so obvious, when apparently they were not.