The questions most people have concerning the truth of 9/11 are addressed here. If you do not find an adequate answer to a specific question you have, please reach out to us. We will do our best to answer any legitimate questions. However, as most of these questions are already answered in the videos presented on our homepage, please be sure to review that material first.
QUESTION: What is the “9/11 Truth Movement” and what are “9/11 Debunkers”?
ANSWER: The 9/11 Truth movement is a grassroots movement of people, often referred to as “9/11 Truthers” or just “Truthers”. These are people from around the world with diverse cultural, religious, ethnic, professional, and political backgrounds. Based on a combination of scientific evidence, expert testimony, and logical conclusions that strongly contradict the official explanation, they passionately dispute the official government account that Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airliners, crashed them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. They instead argue that substantial evidence proves orchestration and execution involved members of the U.S., Saudi Arabian, and Israeli governments. They also argue that an impartial investigation by some members of the 9/11 Commission was impossible due to blatant conflicts of interest, and that the Commission’s subsequent report was rife with provable contradictions, omissions, and outright falsifications. The 9/11 Truth Movement is therefore collectively demanding a new and verifiably independent investigation of the events leading up to and including the attacks, as well as the dubious investigation by the 9/11 Commission.
The 9/11 Debunkers, or just “Debunkers”, are individuals who dispute and try to disprove claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Instead of focusing on scientific evidence and expert testimony to reach logical conclusions, debunkers commonly put forth illogical claims that are scientifically weak and easily disprovable. They have also been known to frequently resort to childish shaming and discrediting tactics by referring to 9/11 Truthers as “unpatriotic”, “fringe”, “conspiracy theorists”, “nutjobs”, “whackos”, “twoofers”, “lunatics”, etc. Unlike the 9/11 Truth Movement, there is no grassroots movement of Debunkers. In fact, there are no organized groups of Debunkers to speak of at all. Interestingly, however, there has been an especially vocal number of Debunkers in the mainstream news media, some of whom have even resorted to the unprofessional personal attacks and childish mischaracterizations mentioned above.
QUESTION: Suggesting that 9/11 was an “inside job” is shamefully unpatriotic, disrespectful to the victims and their families, and just an absurd conspiracy theory! Am I really supposed to believe members of our government were complicit in a treasonous attack on their own country that resulted in the murder of over 3,000 innocent Americans?
ANSWER: The only thing shamefully unpatriotic is when Americans bury their heads in the sand and refuse to look at the evidence objectively for themselves. As for being disrespectful to the victims and their families, this website was created to honor them by pursuing the real TRUTH and the real JUSTICE they deserve. It might surprise you to know that many of the victims’ families have also vocally expressed their belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Finally, when hard science proves something to be a fact, it can no longer legitimately be referred to as a theory. Those who still insist on calling it a theory are either obtuse, in denial, or lying. As absurd as it may sound, and as difficult as it may be to believe, irrefutable scientific evidence proves that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. If this suggestion is just too unbelievable, that is likely for two reasons. First, because you are a decent human being with a conscience and you can’t imagine committing this kind of evil for any reason. And second, because you are a patriotic American who cannot easily come to terms with something that shatters your fundamental belief in democracy. That, however, does not change the fact that evil people have far too often held some of the world’s highest positions of power, and that the same can be true in the United States as well. As the link below reveals, many world leaders have long plotted and carried out treasonous “false flag” attacks against their own citizens to gain public support for their own corrupt foreign policy agendas…
42 Admitted False Flag Operations And Why They Were Conducted
If you still doubt that such people can occupy the highest positions of power in the United States government, the following is your wakeup call…
U.S.-Sponsored Terrorism: Operation Northwoods In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism on American soil, AGAINST American citizens. The head of every branch of the U.S. armed forces gave written approval to sink U.S. ships, shoot down hijacked American planes, and gun down and bomb civilians on the streets of Washington, D.C., and Miami. The public learned about Operation Northwoods only 35 years later when the Top Secret document was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. (The complete declassified document can be read at George Washington University’s online archive: Northwoods Document.) Among other things, Operation Northwoods proposed: Faking the crash of an American passenger plane. The disaster was to be accomplished by faking a commercial flight from the U.S. to Jamaica, and having the plane boarded at a public airport by CIA agents disguised as college students going on vacation. An empty remote-controlled plane would follow the commercial flight as it left Florida. The commercial flight’s pilots would radio for help, mention that they had been attacked by a Cuban fighter, then land in secret at Eglin AFB. The empty remote-controlled plane would then be blown out of the sky and the public would be told all the poor college students aboard were killed. Using a possible NASA disaster — astronaut John Glenn’s death — as a pretext to launch the war. The plan called for “manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans” if something went wrong with NASA’s third manned space launch. To turn neighboring countries against Cuba, false Cuban planes would be used to bomb the Dominican Republic. The U.S. plan called for using actual Soviet bombs, and intercepting fake Cuban weapons shipments, such that the frame-up of Cuba would be complete. Blowing up buildings in Washington and Miami. Cuban agents (undercover CIA agents) would be arrested, and they would confess to the bombings. In addition, false documents proving Castro’s involvement in the attacks would be “found” and given to the press. Blowing up a U.S. battleship in Cuban waters when Cuban planes and ships are in the area, so they can be blamed. A fake air/sea rescue operation was planned, as well as fake funerals and fake passenger lists published in the Main Stream Media to “cause a healthy wave of national indignation.” The document actually mentions how a similar incident — the US Maine false flag operation — successfully started the Spanish American War in 1898. Attacking an American military base in Guantanamo with CIA recruits posing as Cuban mercenaries. This involved blowing up the ammunition depot, and would obviously result in material damages and many dead American troops. As a last resort, the plan even mentioned bribing one of Castro’s commanders to initiate the Guantanamo attack. That deserves repeating: the Pentagon considered using our tax dollars to bribe another country’s military to attack our own troops in order to instigate a full-scale war. Shortly after the Joint Chiefs signed and presented the plan in March, 1962, President Kennedy declared that he would never authorize a military invasion of Cuba. In September, Kennedy denied the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Lyman Lemnitzer, a second term as the nation’s highest ranking military officer. By the winter of 1963, Kennedy was dead…killed, coincidentally, by a Cuban sympathizer in the streets of an American city.
So let us now ask you a question. Do the highly distinguished members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, standing here with President Kennedy, still look like the honorable and patriotic defenders of American values and freedom? Contrary to their respectable appearances, history proves they were actually a group of like-minded sociopaths who plotted to kill their fellow Americans citizens in the hopes of justifying a war with Cuba.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff with President Kennedy in 1962
Now knowing that President Kennedy blocked their diabolical plan, it would hardly be a surprise to learn that they implemented Operation Northwoods after all, only instead of it involving attacks on random Americans by phony Cuban terrorists, it involved the assassination of President Kennedy by a Cuban patsy named Lee Harvey Oswald.
If you think that was a “different day and time”, and that kind of thinking no longer exists, here’s your second wakeup call…
As reported by the New York Times and other newspapers, George W. Bush suggested to Tony Blair that a U.S. plane be painted in United Nations colors so that if Saddam shot it down it would create the justification they needed to declare war. As the Times wrote in 2006:
“The memo [confirmed by two senior British officials as being authentic] also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire.”
As reported by Salon.com, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, said a Clinton cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American pilot as a pretext for war in Iraq…
“At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?”
Now, what was that you were calling shamefully unpatriotic?
If you believe for a second that questioning 9/11 is something only “fringe conspiracy theorists” and “unpatriotic” Americans do, think again. Thousands of very credible professionals, many of whom are highly educated and credentialed, from a wide range of disciplines, have been calling for a new investigation of 9/11 for many years. This impressive list of individuals who do not believe the government’s official account of 9/11 includes:
· Most Members of The 9/11 Commission.
· Professional Architects and Engineers.
· Physicists, Chemists, and Other Scientists.
· University Professors and Other Scholars.
· 9/11 Victims’ Family Members and Survivors.
· Senior Military, CIA, FBI, and Other Government Officials.
· Firefighters and Law Enforcement Officers.
· Commercial and Military Pilots.
· Federal Aviation Administration Officials.
· Senators and Members of Congress.
· Medical Professionals.
· Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals.
· 54% of Americans (based on 3 large scale surveys by Zogby Int’l).
We challenge you to visit PatriotsQuestion911.com and learn what it really means to be a True American Patriot and a Responsible American Citizen.
QUESTION: If 9/11 truly was an “inside job” as this site asserts, what motive possibly could have provided enough incentive to carry out such a heinous crime, and who exactly would have been behind it?
ANSWER: The events of 9/11 provided the justification to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, the United States gained undisputed dominance in the oil-rich and militarily strategic Middle East, five of Israel’s enemy governments were overthrown (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, and Syria…no doubt with Iran next in line), and an immeasurable financial benefit was bestowed upon the United States Military, Oil, and Financial Industrial Complexes.
Lesser known but significant consequential beneficiaries also appear to include an unusually large number of very “lucky” stock traders who placed an unusually large volume of trades against the two airlines used in the attacks.
With very little research, it quickly becomes apparent that many individuals, organizations, and countries benefited immensely from 9/11.
For a clear understanding of the motives and the parties they served, watch the following documentary and read the specific motives presented below it.
https://vimeo.com/119464571
Motive 1: The Establishment of a Military Presence in Central Asia to Maintain American Primacy
In Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, Brzezinski stated that the establishment of military bases in Central Asia would be critically important for “America primacy”, partly due to the large oil reserves near the Caspian Sea.
Knowing that the American public “supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,” Brzezinski suggested that Americans today would support military operations in Central Asia only “in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”
For an interesting analysis of some the key ideas presented in Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard, watch this video with Michael Ruppert:
Motive 2: Afghan Oil Pipeline
In The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski also describes a “pipeline war” as part of the motivation to invade Afghanistan. President George W Bush and Vice-president Dick Cheney backed UNOCAL’s Afghan pipeline plans. However, the Taliban was an obstacle to achieving that goal. At a meeting in Berlin in July of 2001, representatives of the Bush administration gave the Taliban an ultimatum: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”
Since the Taliban did not go along with the plan, the U.S. needed an excuse to attack Afghanistan. 9/11 gave them the excuse that they needed.
Motive 3: The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative think tank that had numerous key members that were also part of the Bush administration including, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The PNAC advocated a war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, build a military presence, and “control the oil.”
The December 1, 1997 issue of the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, headlined its cover with the directive: Saddam Must Go: A How-to Guide. Two of the articles were written by Bush administration officials Paul D. Wolfowitz and Zalmay M. Khalilzad, who wrote: “We will have to confront him [Saddam Hussein] sooner or later—and sooner would be better.”
Wolfowitz and Libby contributed to the PNAC’s report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century released in September 2000, which reiterated the idea of a permanent military presence in the Gulf region. In that report, the PNAC suggested that the road to rebuild American defenses “will likely be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.”
On the night of 9/11, Bush noted in his daily diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.” Disturbingly, Bush also characterized 9/11 as “a great opportunity.”
Donald Rumsfeld added that 9/11 created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.”
This idea of 9/11 providing “opportunities” then showed up in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002:
“The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities.”
Only three days after 9/11, “Congress approved $40 billion to help mend and avenge the victims of Tuesday’s terrorist attacks.”
Motive 4: Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq from Day 1 of His Administration
In Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes interview with Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, which aired in early January, 2004, O’Neill revealed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were Bush’s main focus from the very beginning of his administration. See the transcript below and the video link below that.
Stahl: “And what happened in President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.”
O’Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.”
Stahl: “He said that going after Saddam was topic ‘A’ 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.”
Ron Suskind (author of “The Price of Loyalty” in which O’Neill was a significant contributor): “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime”
Stahl: “Now everybody else thought that grew out of 9/11.”
Suskind: “No”
Stahl: “But this book says it was day one of this administration.”
Suskind: “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”
Stahl: “As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as ‘Why Saddam?’ and ‘Why now?’ were never asked.”
Stahl (quoting O’Neill from the book): “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
O’Neill: “For me, the notion of preemption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
Stahl: “And that came up at this first meeting?”
O’Neill: “It did.”
Stahl: “O’Neill told us that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet.” (Note: the cover sheet is shown in the video below)
Suskind: “There are memos (shown in the video below). One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.’”
Stahl: “Nation Building?”
Suskind: “Absolutely.”
Stahl: “So, they discussed an occupation of Iraq?”
Suskind: “In January and February of 2001.”
Stahl: “Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.”
Stahl: “Suskind obtained this Pentagon document (shown in the video below), dated March 5, 2001, entitled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ It includes a map of potential areas for exploration.”
Note: For much more information regarding maps and charts of the Iraqi oil fields, visit the following link:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2002/mar/maps-and-charts-iraqi-oil-fields
Suskind: “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions…”
Stahl: “On oil.”
Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”
Six months before 9/11, there were already plans for how the Iraqi oil fields would be divided up, and which contractors would do the work.
Below is the 60 Minutes interview with Paul O’Neill.
QUESTION: If 9/11 had been an “inside job”, the news media would have exposed it by now, so why hasn’t that happened?
ANSWER: That’s a damned good question! We used to be able to count on the news media to publicly expose and condemn corruption in our government. Those days are sadly over. The mainstream news media is now owned by six very large corporations that have traded in meaningful and objective journalism for much more profitable sensationalist “News Alert” reporting, and for delivering the political-agenda-driven messages that support their corporate advertisers’ agendas, the government’s agendas, and even the personal political agendas of their executives. Conservatives blame the “liberal news media” (i.e., CNN, etc.) and liberals blame the “conservative news media”, (i.e., FOX, etc.). The truth is that both are clearly biased and agenda-driven, making “fair and balanced” one of the ultimate oxymorons of today’s news reporting.
With regard to 9/11, perhaps ex-Arizona Senator and Congresswoman Karen Johnson explained it best when she lamented the way the media has treated people who don’t accept the government’s story about 9/11…
“If you’ve watched the media coverage since I’ve first began to speak out, you know how vicious and irrational it has been towards me. The media have worked hard to try to make it seem silly to even question the 9/11 Commission report, even though some of its own authors have done so.”
For a closer look at this disturbing truth, read this short collection of statements by highly reputable journalists, on Mainstream News Media Corruption.
If you don’t believe our news media is owned, controlled, and scripted, across almost all national and regional news stations in our country, the following video should serve as a disturbing eye-opener.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxlLO2zMYKQ
As former news reporter Ben Swann points out…
“Anchors from different TV stations all over the country are reading the exact same script word for word, and the source of that script is some kind of wire service. This means those stations have subscribed to AP, Reuters, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, etc wire services. In those cases, the wire story will come down and a station reporter or producer will copy and paste it word for word into a newscast. The problem with this policy is that reporters and producers simply take that content as gospel and no one in any newsroom ever bothers to fact check or verify if the wire story is correct. Simply put, in a newsroom, if it is on the wire it has to be true.”
Considering only six corporations now control the news in America, by its very definition the news is no longer the objective source of information it was intended to be. The questions everyone should now be asking are, who are the people deciding the content of our news, is that content possibly being manipulated, and whose agenda might that content be serving? As the video below reveals, the content of our news is indeed being manipulated and used to serve the agenda of our own underhanded government. Considering this is how the news media operates in North Korea, our own news now deserves to be called by its proper name, “Propaganda”.
QUESTION: How could such an elaborate “inside job” like 9/11 possibly have been kept secret all this time? Someone surely would have blown the whistle by now.
ANSWER: In intelligence operations, compartmentalization is used to conduct operations requiring large numbers of participants while ensuring only a small handful of orchestrators actually know the true agenda.
In May of 2008, former Military Intelligence Sergeant Adrienne Kinne, who had served for ten years, from 1994 to 2004, and was active in the Iraq war, explained how compartmentalization worked to facilitate the wiretapping she participated in.
“When this was going on, I had absolutely no idea what was going on in the rest of the military intelligence, the rest of our government. Everything is so compartmentalized that you don’t really know necessarily what the person next to you is doing, let alone in a different room in a different building in a different location. And so, it really wasn’t until the New York Times piece came out about the NSA’s domestic wiretapping that I really began to think about what we were doing and my mission and that we were collecting on Americans. And we were doing so for the flimsiest of reasons.”
Perhaps the best demonstration of the effectiveness of compartmentalization is the fact that 130,000 people worked on the Manhattan Project over the course of 4 years, and the top secret agenda of that operation was not revealed until an atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima.
As for the small groups of individuals who know the true agendas behind covert operations, well, it’s reasonable to assume that just about everyone can keep a secret with the right motivation, i.e., financial gain, personal ideology, risk of criminal prosecution…or even death.
QUESTION: The 9/11 Commission thoroughly investigated the attack and concluded it was the work of Muslim terrorists. Why should anyone believe anything different?
ANSWER: Because even key members of the 9/11 commission, including co-chairmen Lee H. Hamilton and Thomas H. Kean, publicly declared the 9/11 commission was “set up to fail in many ways,” citing lack of funding, insufficient time, commission members with serious conflicts of interest, and cover ups.
In fact, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, were so frustrated by what happened that they wrote a book to expose it, called “Set Up To Fail”, and Commissioner Max Cleland resigned, declaring the investigation “a scam”.
Below are some of the 9/11 Commissioners’ statements in which they publicly expressed anger about the blatant obstruction of justice they faced from high level government officials during their investigation:
§ 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton said “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, “the Commission was set up to fail”, “people should keep asking questions about 9/11”, and that “the 9/11 debate should continue”.
§ The Commission’s co-chairs said “the CIA (and likely the White House) obstructed our investigation”.
§ 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said, “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
§ 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”.
§ 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”, “This investigation is now compromised”, and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. When asked in 2009 if he thought there should be another 9/11 commission, Cleland responded: “There should be about fifteen 9/11 Commissions”.
§ The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said, “At some level of the government, at some point in time there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said, “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.”
The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11, Bob Graham, and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator, Bob Kerrey, are calling for either a “permanent 9/11 commission” or a “new 9/11 investigation” to get to the bottom of it.
Some examples of obstruction of justice into the 9/11 investigation include the following:
§ Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes…
“Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence. The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.”
§ The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses.
§ The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.
§ The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as indicated in NY Times and Chicago Sun-Times articles.
§ As reported by ACLU, FireDogLake, RawStory and many others, declassified documents shows that senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
QUESTION: Some claim there is no evidence of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then what did?
ANSWER: First of all, whatever crashed into the Pentagon left no discernable debris from a 757 on the outside of the building, and it is simply implausible to believe that an entire 757 was completely swallowed up within the impact breach and windows.
Second, the walls of the Pentagon were made of thick, steel reinforced concrete, intended to be strong enough to deflect an explosion. It is therefore also implausible to believe pieces of the plane, especially the hardened landing gear, turbine engines with titanium steel blades, did not impact parts of the hardened exterior wall and get deflected back onto the lawn. Yet, no such evidence was found.
Third, the Pentagon is one of the most secure buildings in the world, with countless security cameras. And yet, all that has been released to the public is five frames from one camera that clearly does NOT show the presence of a a commercial airliner. Also, the video camera recordings from nearby businesses were confiscated by the FBI and never released. To date, all freedom of Information Act requests for copies of these video recording have been denied.
Finally, as described in a Rense article, “the exit hole is one of the most anomalous features of the Pentagon attack. It is 310 feet away from the impact area, near perfectly round and absolutely inexplicable in terms of the composite nose of a Boeing 757-200 “punching out”. If any part of an aircraft survived after traveling through the 24 inch thick steel reinforced, Kevlar mesh ‘E’ ring façade, blast resistant windows, all of the interior walls, pillars and office contents of 3 rings of the Pentagon, then why didn’t it show itself in the A-E drive? And how did it break such a clean hole and then decelerate in the space of 30 feet so as not to even chip the opposing ‘B’ ring wall?”
The Rense article suggests that a “shaped charge” may have been used, based on the strikingly similar punchout effect they cause when compared to that witnessed at the Pentagon. We find their assessment reasonable. However, we believe a “Bunker Buster” missile is more likely the device used, as they are specifically designed to penetrate many feet of reinforced armor, earth, or even concrete. The use of a missile is also consistent with the speed and incredibly precise diving turn while descending at 3,500 ft/min, that was recorded by FAA radar. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner.
QUESTION: If Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, then how do you account for the missing passengers and crew?
ANSWER: An objective and excellently researched article by Citizen Investigation Team offers a very plausible idea as to what might have happened to Flight 77 and its passengers…
“Operation Northwoods provides an excellent prototype. Scanned copies of the now declassified Operation Northwoods documents are available online from George Washington University. This is an absolute must read for anyone trying to wrap their minds around the 9/11 deception as a whole, but sections eight and nine are particularly relevant to the Pentagon event and potential fate of Flight 77.”
Excerpts from Operation Northwoods…
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.
9. It Is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.
QUESTION: Regardless of all the possible political agendas, we saw planes fly into the World Trade Center buildings, causing the tops of the towers to collapse and pancake the remaining floors to the ground. Where is the proof that anything different took place?
ANSWER: First of all, no plane crashed into World Trade Center Building 7, a 610 foot tall, 47 story, steel-framed skyscraper, and yet it collapsed in near perfect symmetry and free fall speed, in what looked exactly like a controlled demolition. Unbelievably, not only did the National Institute of Standards And Technology (“NIST”) not bother to test for explosives, they claimed the extraordinary collapse was simply due to “ordinary office fires”. The absolute absurdity and highly dubious nature of that claim should be proof enough that something other than the official story took place.
As for “pancaking” causing the collapse of the Twin Towers, simple physics completely disproves this hypothesis and leads to the inescapable conclusion that only controlled demolition could have brought the building down in the manner witnessed. An excellent real-world demonstration that explains the physics behind this is provided in the following video by Professional Engineer Jonathan Cole.
QUESTION: The National Institute of Standards And Technology (“NIST”) claimed there were no explosions before the buildings collapsed. If the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, wouldn’t there have been witnesses who heard explosions?
ANSWER: Although NIST used that claim as their basis for not investigating controlled demolition, hundreds of witnesses, including at least 118 firefighters, reported hearing explosions, some of which were even captured on video. Watch the short videos below to see first-hand evidence that completely contradicts the official government account that claims there were no explosions.
QUESTION: What physical evidence substantiates the claim that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition?
ANSWER: The physical evidence supporting the claim of controlled demolition is overwhelming. In March 2009 nine scientists, including Dr. Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University, published a study in the peer-reviewed scientific paper, Open Chemical Physics Journal, about the discovery of active thermitic material found in dust samples from Ground Zero. The study entitled, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe“, presents physical evidence that an extremely powerful form of militarized thermite, known as “Nano-thermite” or “Super-thermite”, was used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings. This Nano-thermite, a highly specialized incendiary developed by U.S. military labs, creates its own oxygen and burns at temperatures so hot it can instantly liquefy and cut through thick iron.
What first led scientists to test for thermite was the unmistakable evidence of its presence. First, molten iron was seen pouring out of one of the Twin Towers before it fell.
Then pools of molten metal were seen in the rubble by first responders, and incredibly hot fires, hotter than the boiling point of iron, inexplicably raged in the oxygen-deprived air beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center for more than three months, making it the longest-burning structural fire in history. These fires even continued to burn for a considerable time after the site was flooded in an effort to extinguish them. Only a chemical fire that creates its own source of oxygen can burn under water.
Finally, billions of tiny iron-rich microspheres were found in all studied samples of WTC dust. According to Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth…
“Iron-rich microspheres were so common in the WTC dust that the EPA’s WTC panel discussed their use as one of the signature components to distinguish the WTC dust from so-called “background” dust (i.e. common office-building dust). The microspheres must have been formed at extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center’s destruction – temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron (~2,700° F). The spheres must have been molten when they were created in order to take their spherical shape. Such high temperatures could not have been produced by jet fuel or office building fires, which reach only up to 1,800 °F under the most severe fire conditions. However, the thermite reaction produces molten iron and aluminum oxide as the reaction products. After being ejected into the atmosphere, molten iron droplets would be pulled into roughly spherical shapes by surface tension. They would then cool, solidify, and fall out – preserving in their spherical shape.”
Anyone wishing to prove that Nano-thermite was NOT used in the destruction of the World Trade Center will need to scientifically disprove the ten categories of evidence for thermite.
To fully understand and appreciate the critical importance of this smoking gun discovery, read “Game Over: Evidence of Super-Thermite in the Rubble“, by investigative journalist, Christopher Bollyn.
Finally, the following video provides a real-world demonstration of the amazing power of Thermite. After watching this, just imagine what the capabilities are of militarized Nano-thermite, which releases 50% to 100% more energy than standard Thermite and other conventional explosives, such as TNT, HMX, and TATB.
QUESTION: Didn’t the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) and Popular Mechanics debunk all the conspiracy theories years ago?
ANSWER: The claims made by both NIST and Popular Mechanics were supposedly reached with the input of experts, yet their conclusions were not based on sound science, and some were even provably false. In the end, the only thing they proved was that their impartiality and credibility are highly questionable, and any statements made by either organization with respect to 9/11 now deserve serious scrutiny.
The manner in which World Trade Center Building 7, a 610 foot tall, 47 story steel framed high rise, completely and symmetrically collapsed into its own footprint at the free fall speed of gravity should have compelled NIST to test for the presence of explosives. This is especially true after witnesses came forward to tell their stories of loud explosions, and highly credentialed scientists proved there was a significant amount of Nano-thermite inexplicably present in the World Trade center dust. Considering NIST has extensive experience with this militarized incendiary material, their refusal to test for it is nothing short of suspicious, as is the fact that a NIST advisory engineer who specializes in such materials helped Popular Mechanics write their “Debunking 9/11” article. For some disturbing revelations on this topic, read The Top 10 Connections Between NIST And Nano-thermite.
Finally, the videos below provide a clear and concise dismantling of the illogical and scientifically baseless arguments put forth by both NIST and Popular Mechanics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBE247gyTEE
QUESTION: The information presented here raises some valid and disturbing questions. How do I share this with others without looking like an unpatriotic conspiracy-theorist?
ANSWER: Start by asking your friends and family what they would do if they were diagnosed with cancer. After a second and third opinion from other cancer specialists, would they simply ignore the diagnosis and do nothing? Would they claim the lab tests and medical analyses are flawed and bogus? Would they claim the medical doctors lack credibility and label them “quacks”? So then ask them what would they do if more than 2,500 professional architects, engineers, and scientists had irrefutable evidence that proves the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, especially the 47 story, 610 foot tall World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by a plane? Would they simply ignore these findings and do nothing? Would they claim the lab tests and scientific analyses were flawed and bogus? Would they claim the thousands of professional architects, engineers, and scientists lack credibility and label them “conspiracy theorists”?
For those who are reluctant to even consider this topic, challenge them to at least watch the one hour video below. When they are introduced to the irrefutable scientific evidence presented by the extensive list of subject matter experts, it should be clear that “unpatriotic” is a label that is only applicable to those who still refuse to fully examine the abundant evidence that strongly refutes the absurdity of the official government account of 9/11.