190 votes

The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

As sold to us by the U.S. Government, the mainstream media, and all the people who bought it, hook line and sinker without a second thought:

Thanks to James Corbett., Patriot for putting this together:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What would you ask...

If everyone was granted one question to ask, and there would be a guaranteed answer, what question would you ask?

My question would be: The American people have been told repeatedly that the airspace over Washington DC is the most secure airspace in the world. How in the world then, does a commercial airliner enter the most secure airspace in the world, make a huge loop, hit the Pentagon, and there was no response?

This s arguably the best concise synopsis of 9/11 yet

The whole government narrative of 9/11 is beginning to fall apart. Corbett just shreds it apart! The preponderance of evidence against the government story is overwhelming. This video is a key tool to open minds using the crowbar of excellent humor.

I have had a lot of success with an email I wrote up that has a more serious approach. "When did you quit believing in Santa Claus?" is the Subject line of an email that I wrote and sent out to my email list back in 2009. This was inspired by the 44 story Chinese skyscraper fire in February of that year that I described (below) as having "thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder. However IT DID NOT COLLAPSE."

I use a stripped down version of this email to answer 9/11 questions on Yahoo Answers (also under Bloatedtoad). The only change here from my original was the addition of the 15 minute Architects & Engineers piece (at the end below). I wanted to share this with you here because this will give you a working knowledge of the basics of the 9/11 story that you can convey easily to others.

Get me in front of a computer with almost anyone and I will flip them from a government 9/11 fairytale believer to a 9/11 truth believer, and that's just using the links below in my Santa Claus email. If time is short (most of the time it is) the most important links are the Kenny Johanemann video (1 minute) and the Larry Silverstein "pull it" video (56 seconds) and your explanation of what these two videos mean. Then if you can get the person to watch the Aaron Russo interview that will tie it all together. The fourth most important link here is the BBC advance report (which proves that a story had already been scripted in the media in advance). Those three or four alone with your guiding insights as they watch is usually enough to cause cognitive dissonance. If you get them to go through all the links I present here it will devastate their world view of what really happened and they will be in a daze for a week or more as they sort out their world view. I know. I've been doing this for three years now. It's time to stop this nonsense that guys with box cutters can shut down the greatest country in the world. This will break it open if it reaches enough people. OK, here's the body of my email. Feel free to copy and share:


As kids we believed in Santa Claus. Our parents were the gatekeepers of information and, though benign, our environment during that formative time was a controlled one. We were taught to believe in Santa Claus. Initially we accepted all the information that we received at face value. However, as time progressed, we gained bits and pieces of information that led to a cognitive dissonance which, in turn, led us to question our image of Santa Claus. These “bits and pieces” led to questions such as “How could Santa Claus fit through my chimney” or “How does Santa Claus leave gifts in millions of homes during a single night”? Armed with all these bits and pieces of information, we began to get a different picture that caused all the previous illogic that we had learned to come crashing down. This finally led to an epiphany that Santa Claus really isn’t anything like what we had first thought!

There are other things in life that we have always taken for granted as “fact” that later prove to be only an illusion as well. It’s only a matter of getting more information. As in the case of the Santa Claus myth, it is only a matter of time as new evidence unfolds that we are forced to rethink our view on what the truth is.

I want to try an experiment here:

Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’ve read this far into my letter so please take just one small minute and watch this first video. You’re going to be impressed. This is a local news video of a witness named Kenny Johannemann testifying to explosions that happened in the basement of one of the WTC towers. While he is testifying you still see both of the twin towers burning behind him in the background. This was live footage and it's only ONE minute long. Go ahead and watch this here:

(YouTube Key Words: Johannemann suicide)

Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower. You say, “wait, this doesn’t fit anything I know, maybe there is some other explanation for those explosions in the basement.” True. This is just one piece of evidence, but it’s a piece of evidence that raises a lot of questions. You didn’t see this on TV either. Does that prick your interest?

The government has promoted a “theory” that maybe the fuel from the jet trickled down the elevator shafts into the basement and subsequently exploded. Could this be? Let’s continue and look at other evidence. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Remember, Building Seven was NEVER hit by a jet. In Barry's case an explosion blew out a stair well below him leaving him hanging and stranded for hours until the fire department got him out. Both the twin towers went down during the time he was stranded. Building Seven, a tall building in it’s own right (47 stories tall), came down at around 5:20 (later that day). Fortunately, he was saved. Watch his account here:

(YouTube Key Words: Barry Jennings dead age – more hits when “dead age” excluded)

Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. You say, “Hold On! Building Seven housed the FBI and the CIA offices, so who would have access to set up explosives in there? There has got to be another explanation.” True. This is just one piece of evidence which raises more questions. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.

William Rodriguez, head janitor at the towers, was meeting with some people in basement level #1 (the highest of several basement levels) when an explosion from below pushed everyone upwards, causing ceiling tiles to fall and walls to crack. Just as William started to express to others what he thought that explosion might be, an airplane hit and shook the building from above. His story begins at 9:31 here:

(Google Video Key Words: William Rodriguez Alex Jones)

Now, let’s look for other different kinds of evidence. Steve Jones, a physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers from people who lived nearby. He analyzed it and found that the dust contained residues of explosives. Steve Jones first became famous when he became known as the “voice of reason” during the Pons / Fleischman "Cold Fusion" debacle of 1989, if you remember that. For a Nuclear Physicist, like Steve Jones, analyzing dust samples for explosive residues is a relatively simple task. It may be similar to asking a PhD mathematician to do arithmetic. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:

(Google Video Key Words: Steve Jones Boston)

In this lecture, you recall, he offered other scientists to take parts of his samples in order to analyze the "red chips" that he had recently discovered. That was December 2007. These specks have now, in fact, been confirmed to be unexploded “nanostructured super-thermite” particles. That confirmation is not just a smoking gun IT IS THE GUN. See the article here:


The actual paper in its entirety can be found here in PDF form. Be sure to click the “download” link here:


If you get into the actual paper, you learn that the explosives may actually have been sprayed into position like paint or insulation!

Steve Jones’ findings may not fit the stories that you have heard in the news but it does lend support to what Johannemann, Jennings and Rodriguez testified that they saw. You say, “The news media isn’t going to shoot itself in the foot by making something up.” So how do we rectify all the contradictions that we were told in the news? Could Steve Jones and these witnesses be glory-seeking kooks trying to make a name for themselves?

Then take a look at this:

Here is a BBC report announcing the collapse of the Solomon Building (the official name for Building Seven). There is only one problem. The reporter standing at the scene and announcing this didn't realize that, in fact, you could still see Building Seven still standing off to the right. It actually collapsed within about 20 minutes after that live report. Watch it here:

(YouTube Key Words: BBC Solomon slips – you get more hits by excluding “slips”)

How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled (but in a more sinister way than how information about Santa Claus was controlled in your life).

Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building Seven. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and how the decision was made by that department to "pull" it. Well, there is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes about a week to rig a building with explosives before you pull it. So are buildings constructed with built-in explosives just in case they need to be blown up in a hurry? Building Seven went down that same day. Whoops! Watch Larry's testimony from the PBS documentary here in this short clip:

(YouTube Key words: PBS Silverstein)

Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal. So who orchestrated this terrorist event anyway? They had to get past the FBI and CIA and prepare at least three buildings for demolition as well as direct the activities of men with box cutters (if they even existed). It’s clear from the evidence presented here so far that at least some of the media was in on this. What else could explain the BBC blunder? They had to control the information to those of us who might not like the idea that a few thousand people had to be killed in order to fulfill some kind of agenda. What’s in it for these people that were “in the know?”

Aaron Russo was a famous movie producer who became best friends with one of the Rockefeller family members (Remember “The Rose” and "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy?). This is the same Rockefeller family that is a large shareholder of the Federal Reserve Bank -- a private company that loans money to our government and contributes to our huge national debt. You see the name “Federal Reserve” at the top the dollar bill. Yes, we're talking about THAT Bank! Anyway, the upshot of this friendship was that in the year 2000 (11 months before 9/11) Aaron Russo learned from his Rockefeller buddy that there was going to be an "event". He was told that out of this event the U.S. would go into Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden in Caves and then the U.S. would go into Iraq. His fascinating testimony about this "event" starts at 26:45 here in this interview:

(Google Video Key Words: Aaron Russo Reflections Warnings)

One more thing. In February 2009 a 44 story Chinese skyscraper caught fire and thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder. However IT DID NOT COLLAPSE. By comparison WTC Building Seven had a few small fires and was never hit by a plane. It DID COLLAPSE. See that article here:

(Google Key Words: China 44 fire consumes)

Now see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
(YouTube Key Words: architects engineers 911 truth)

Amazingly, all this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg. Each of these are separate independent pieces of evidence from unconnected sources. When taken together they paint a clear picture. You are a juror in a court of law. What would be your verdict? Remember, the word “conspiracy” is not in the dictionary to describe a fiction.

To forward this as a clean readable e-mail (without the accumulation of all the “>” symbols) just highlight all the text and COPY IT FIRST. Then paste it into your new e-mail before sending it on. It works like a charm!

NOTE: I included key words below each link because it’s common for a video to disappear. Usually multiple versions exist and the key words will assist in finding another copy.


Cyril's picture

I'm surprised this one hasn't been shared yet

I'm surprised this one hasn't been shared yet :


It gets UTTERLY interesting at minute/secs 16:50.



But one day, even The Ignorant People will know eventually.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Good One Lysiandad.......

I've watched literally hundreds of 911 videos, and it seems like theres always more to see.

I know this one's been talked about a while now, but I just finially got around to watching it. Check it out if you haven't seen it yet.

What I really liked about it is that they discuss issues about why people "shut down" on this topic.

9/11: Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out AE911Truth.org

Lets try to keep this thread going. It is just waaaaay too important.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Another important video.....

Just want to make sure everyone saw this one.

Close up footage of WTC-7 Before Collapse.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks


Here is a review of that video:


Good call El Buggo.....

Sure makes ya wonder.

Which ever way, even if the fire was greater than either video dipicts, no way that building would have fallen like the way it did.

Got any other must see vids?


Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

The live news broadcast is by far the best 911 video

No doubt about it. You have to start with what they really told us before they got their acts together. You only have to watch all channels up until after the collapses: http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

You have to follow what they really told us 911 or you will be dragged into some of the very many distractions and all the nonsense out there.

Hard to tell what video that will suit you. Depends on how much you already understand. If you even don't know that fake news exists, it is no point in showing you the hard core stuff, etc. First you need to understand that fake news exists.

This could be the best 911 video. Title is too controversial to be quoted on DailyPaul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZEuj1VPv0

I myself like this review of the first eye witness interviewed on live news that day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za7KcfagFQE&t=6m12s

Fantastic 911 music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUxeaR7FuM

Some very clean actors reading scripts 911: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhCiAHTp4a4

Fake actor in a clean firefighter costume 911: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw0ueb4TewU

Some relevant pre 911 videos:

Mandatory: What WTC looked like trough a real camera 1999 (compare this with the terrible software renderings/animations they showed us on TV 911):

Music video, album: Dogg Food (1995): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsfzAvOrjrc

The movie Independence Day – Destruction 1996: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRyoFgAhW4c

Suggest that you also study the other links I have given here, especially this smoking gun illustration of F175 hitting WTC at different heights, depending on what video you watch.

I could go on the whole week.

fireant's picture

To be fair...

All the close up of 7 are from the north side, and upwind as well. I haven't seen any decent pics of the side facing the tower collapse (south side). There are however, fire dept transcripts which indicate severe damage to the south side and a heavily involved fire.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

Assuming the official story is accurate,

I'd firstly want to know how the hijackers were trained. These were highly technical and difficult strikes done with military precision, which can't be learned flying around in a single engine Cessna. Hours upon hours of simulator and real cockpit time with instructors would have been required, which isn't easy to come by.
This is the first red flag. Those who haven't questioned official conclusions, let this soak in. The piloting required to perform reported maneuvers would be at the military precision level with maneuver specific training.
How did they get the training? Has there been any released investigative reports delineating where, when, and by whom? If not, why not?

Undo what Wilson did

The Wikipedia account - what's wrong with it?

Okay, let's see if we can have a reasonable discussion about this.

What specific problems/issues/questions do you guys have with the Wikipedia account of the WTC collapses, that are not answered in the text itself, or in the references cited?

Please quote specific text from this article, and be clear about what issues you have with that particular text.

Whole article:

South Tower collapse:

North Tower collapse:

WTC7 collapse:

Mechanics of the twin towers collapse:

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


Wrong question

The facts are simple, the investigation was inadequate.
The evidence was destroyed.
No peer review or respect for scientific laws.

You are asking the wrong question - What is right with it ?

Prove any point right.

Nothing is wrong with it

Nothing is wrong with it, as far as I can see. But I don't doubt that I might be missing something. Hence my question. Cite something specific and explain what you think is wrong with it.

Is anyone capable of critical thinking here?

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


Nothing ?

Did the NIST do any research or investigation into explosives ? Did they do any test looking for the possibility of explosives ?

They did not

Is it right, in your mind, that the NIST did not one test for explosives ?
So in your mind it is wrong to search for explosives when buildings fail ?
In your world peer review is a nuisance we dont have time for ?

Defend the ignorance to peer review, if you dont mind

Critical thinking...

Prove its right, pick any point in the study and prove it, with cites.

NIST never had any peer review, so now you can provide that. Prove NIST is right.

How do you know NIST never found the source for Sulfur ?
Can you prove they failed to investigate the sulfur properly ?

A lot of people do not know the truth and have serious reservations about the NIST report. If you could prove the NIST was right, Miniarchist, you will go down in history as the person that put the truth movement to an end. You will be a good patriot. Are you up to the task ?

Still existing evidence

We still have the live (and faked) news broadcasts.

fireant's picture

It admittedly can't answer the key question;

"The FEMA report concluded that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the steel columns examined were "very unusual events" and that there was "no clear explanation" for the source of the sulfur found."
Translated, even the temperatures noted in the report are not close to being able to cause sulfidation.

Undo what Wilson did

No, it's saying they don't know where the sulfur

No, it's saying they don't know where the sulfur came from.

So, somebody had sulfur in the building for some reason, and they don't know why. Just because they don't know the reason doesn't mean it's evidence of anything nefarious.

Anything else?

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


So everybody is good with the account?

Can't find anything wrong with it?

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


Cyril's picture

The debris. Why were they evacuated so hastily

The debris.

Why were they evacuated so hastily right after the collapse ?

Why no independent investigation has ever been allowed to see the few debris left for the NIST investigators ?

If you have an answer to that, I'm very interested.

It's not like only the NIST is capable to use mass spectrometers in the country where you have the largest number of those, including in some universities. Is it ?

Otherwise, I don't care much about the raw content of a Wikipedia page about which I can't have an a priori either way.

However, much more interesting : in addition to the content, one ought to have a look at WHO made the edits over the years, and at which times.

This is more significant information, to make a fair assessment of the raw content's claims or assumptions. Both are most valuable, while the 1st item only doesn't speak much, unless you're yourself an expert of the domain.

And even as an expert : when I see a Wikipedia page, say, about a new computer language, then in addition to the designer and implementors edits, I want to see if there are edits from :

neutral users, proponents, and critics, or detractors.

Makes sense ?

Note I make these remarks genuinely. I believe it's just common sense.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

To hide the conventional demolition of course

"The debris. Why were they evacuated so hastily right after the collapse ?"

It would have revealed that the demolition was done from the bottom up, and not as this spectacular and impossible Hollywood Special Effects version as shown on live News, from top down.

Cyril's picture

Wait. Wait. Wait !

Wait. Wait. Wait !

I still don't know about the full extent of the conspiracy.

To me, the BLOWBACK effect of MORE than one decade of wars overseas PRIOR to 9/11 is ALREADY enough of a conspiracy against the Constitution, mind you.

But ...

1. also, granted, I'm 100% sure the gov't has been busy hiding some nasty stuff... problem is to know what, exactly, about that day alone...

And :

2. dude, we DID see those planes crash, with or without a demolition coup, right ? Didn't we ?!!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Hollywood and MSM did it

If you have access to Hollywood tools, money, scriptwriters, actors and news rooms, you can create almost anything, and people will believe it. Tell the lie to everyone simultaneously, and replay it until people begin to spread it themselves, and you have created a new reality.

What does it take to convince you that were no commercial plane crashes 911? If you study the live news broadcast from Pentagon 911, you should be puzzled by that a 140 feet plane can disappear into a 30 feet hole. Also note that according to the animations on the live news that day, even the very flimsy wing tips and top of the tail penetrated this steel facade in WTC. Even the wingtips! 911logic found in 2007 that the wing had disappeared into WTC with out making any hole. This is impossible in the real world with a real camera, but very simple with software. Don’t know what it takes for you to grasp all this. Google the right question and study it yourself?

Also have in mind that fake news are not necessary illegal. All the witnesses we hear about all the time, are not facing jail time even if they are busted as liars (reading scripts). Very legal operation, and it works very well. It was brilliant – people believe what they are told.

Highly recommend that you keep your eyes on the live news broadcast from that day so that you don’t get distracted by all this other nonsense they throw out all the time.

If the live news broadcast 911 was faked... you know what that implies.

Cyril's picture

You leave me speechless.

You leave me speechless.

I can't process this right now. I'll have to rethink about this later.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

All the collapse videos are faked (CGI)

This is mostly a discussion inside a Virtual Reality. Fake, fake, fake.

Evidence, please?

What evidence do you have that the collapsed videos are fake? And please don't point me to a hokey site that shows fuzzy frames taken from different angles.

Besides, what does this have to do with the WP account?

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


WP is moot

Evidence you ask.....
Cite the evidence that proves NIST's report is valid ?
Where is the evidence to prove the official story ?
Can you prove WP contains any facts ?

That is the problem with federal employees, they are known to the general public to be untrustworthy. NIST did nothing to change this.

If you cannot accept the value of money by fiat, why accept science by fiat ?

Evidence for fake collapse videos here:

What evidence do you have that the collapsed videos are real? What has your own personal investigation revealed?

You have to admit that it at least was possible to fake the videos of the building collapses? It is clearly within the laws of nature. We have glitches in the videos that cannot have been made by a camera - small, but detectable. Also the live - I said LIVE - CNN news broadcast of the WTC1 collapse lasted 19 seconds, while only 13 seconds on the other networks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugypj1NsQ-A

Also significant, at 0:53 you can see that about 60 floors of the steel facade turns into dust - on the live CNN news. This is not within the laws of nature.

You can verify this yourself on the by far most important 911 web page - September 11 Television Archive: http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

I could go on and on.

I will not direct you to this site that shows fuzzy frames taken from different angles. The reason they are fussy is because the professional TV cameras in New York were very fuzzy that day. Haven’t you noticed all the different colors the sky had that day? White, blue, black (dark), green and some oil painting color, etc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DQOVrMzr6g

The WP account and A&E and AJ and NIST are all basing their conclusion on these fake Hollywood productions. They want us to argue inside a virtual reality all day long. We will then never be able to understand what really happened that day, and the War on Terror can continue until they launch another operation the may choose. So again, look into MSM involvement 911.

So ALL of the video is fake?

You believe nobody got real video of the towers collapsing?

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


They are all just silly animations

If we can prove that the CNN version was fake, you cant just admit that and therafter claim it doesnt matter because the Fox and CBS versions were real. If one version is proven false, logically, the other versions have to be false too.

I'm not hiding the evidence here. Go to TV Archive and check and compare the different version for yourself. The CNN collapse lasted almost 50% longer that the other versions, and with marvelous real time editing.

I have also showed you that the height of F175 impact point is not consistent between the different camera angels - EXPLAIN THAT! (If you can).