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.

Well, that was meaningless.

Is there something you'd care to refute?

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Why? Ignorance is strength.

Why? Ignorance is strength.


and War is Peace...
and Freedom is Slavery...

Orwell was right!


I'd expect a better argument from the Ron Paul crowd.

19 hijackers took down 4

19 hijackers took down 4 American airliners with....box cutters.


Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

You can rob a bank

with a fist put in an empty brown bag.

The gov had instructed airlines not to resist.

Yes, and about that passport . . . . .


"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Oh yeah, I love

the untouched passport on TOP of the dust theory. Its a beauty. Like airplane fuel dripping down elevator shafts through 100 floors then exploding which so much vehemence it destroys a machine shop in the basement and takes all the marble off the lobby walls but no accompanying fire. Anyone seen fuel do that? Yet there was enough left at the top to symmetrically heat all the steel in the top section so that it loses most of its strength. With fuel like that we could solve the world's energy crisis.


exactly. Perhaps if it was the ONLY part of the story that wasn't a 1/10000000000 chance.

"Truthers" need to show some respect...

and not co-opt the remembrance of one of our nation's biggest tragedies as an excuse to spout their crackpot theories.

I don't play, I commission the league.

You want me to respect who?

Should I respect the perps of this inside job? Not on your nellie.

you are part of the problem

To contemplate what happened is disrespectful? Luckily no one else had to be disrespectfull and ponder anything, because the explanation was prepackaged and handed to us within an hour of the collapse.

No, it is disrespectful to stand in the way of the victim's families getting an explanation that makes some sense, simply because it makes YOU feel uncomfortable. THAT is disrespectful (and a sign that you are hopelessly attached to your worldview.)

Well said, Atticus

Thank you

Soooooo RIGHT Atticusdeep!


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

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

Disrespect ?

What disrespect do you refer to ?

Truth is never disrespect, unless one believes the lies.

I have yet to see any truth here...

just layers of incoherent theories.

I don't play, I commission the league.

not strange at all

some of these effects have been known for decades and HER theories cover most of the anomalous events observed.

thanks for posting the link.

The questions & evidence she brings up are truley bizzare

She brings up more questions than she has answers for, just like everything related to 9/11. From her credentials and the evidence she brings up, it appears we are dealing with some very strange phenomenon. How in the world can a steel beam turn to dust in seconds? Was the video faked? How can the steel and solid concrete turn to dust, dust so fine its like talcum powder? She shows in this video most of the buildings just blew away in the wind, how is that even possible with any conventional means? Whats up with the strange damage to the vehicles?

This video is just as, if not

This video is just as, if not more important than the posted video:


It all boils down to if you believe that 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. What do you believe? The official story or your own eyes?

DJP333's picture

Documentary by Architects & Engineers


Please watch if you want to know what the experts in their fields think about 9/11.

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different."

LIBERTY2ME's picture

building #7

What I would like to know is how come I never hear from the people that lost their loved ones from building #7. I've only heard from people that lost loved ones from the 2 twin towers, but I have never heard anyone say I lost so and so because they were in building #7 that fated day. I have never even heard journalist or reporters reference the families lost in building #7, or please donate to the families that lost loved ones in building #7...know what I mean?
Regardless of how or why, that building went down. So why is this and the people of this building ignored?

It was evacuated

After the first building collapsed, evacuation of all WTC buildings commenced. WTC 7 was successfully thoroughly evacuated hours before it collapsed. This is another reason the fires were left burning (and cooking the steel until it weakened and collapsed): no lives were at stake in that building.

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


how long does the steel in your car engine cook?

...before it weakens and turns to dust?

Please try to be serious here. Burning kerosene (jet fuel) does not burn steel, that's why steel is used in car engines, furnaces, ovens, lanterns, space heaters, etc.

I am serious... you?

WTC7 did not have burning kerosene. It had burning building material, office supplies, and furniture (which was started by falling/burning debris from the other towers).

The car engine analogy fails on several fronts:

1) Car engine metal is designed to withstand the heat generated by ordinary engine combustion.
2) Building material metal is not designed to withstand the sustained heat to which it was subjected for hours in WTC7.
3) This wasn't just steel being heated - it was stressed steel being heated - stressed by the mass of the building above it.
4) As I described elsewhere about what had to have happened in the main towers, for the collapse to occur there had to be weakening going on in multiple areas until in one of those areas there was a failure. One support failure is all it would take to create an avalanche or domino-like effect because the mass supported by the failed support would have to get shifted to other areas. Now, normally, they should be over-designed and so able to handle such a shift, but here we're talking about shifting to supports that have also been weakened by hours and hours of heating.

So the combination of the weakening over hours and the sudden increase in mass to support is bound to create another failure, which in turn only increases the mass other (also weakened) supports needs to support, and so they fail. And of course all this happens in practically no time (once the first support fails) - a sudden full-scale all-out collapse. Totally makes sense. For the main towers and WTC7. The only difference is that in the main towers they had more fires because of all the fuel spreading and staring so many fires on multiple floors, and more mass above, so they collapsed sooner.

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



I have been building since the early seventies. Been as high as 30 stories welding on steel, placing concrete and installing exterior curtain walls. During the time of 9-11 I was working on a Stadium meeting with some of the Countries best engineers and architects. I have NEVER talked to any professional who believed the NIST report.

The type of fires that was going on Bldg 7 cannot get past 1000 degrees, and that takes a lot of oxygen. The thick black smoke was a sign of an oxygen starved common fire, less than 700 degrees.
Your oven effect argument is false, it takes open air to get high temperatures in a common fire. Bldg 7 was closed and sealed.

FYI - NIST said the fire DID NOT destroy any beams or columns, it said a connection failed due to thermal expansion. You are on your own with this steel failure due to a common fire explanation. Even NIST was smart enough not to try that one, thats why they blamed a connection due to thermal expansion........in layman terms that is a broken bolt.

Bldg 7 was closed and

Bldg 7 was closed and sealed.

Not after debris from the collapse of the twin towers blew holes out of the side of the building.

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[30] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[9] The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.


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


Facts, again

The fires in building 7 were from common office supplies and building materials. Nothing in that building would burn at 2700 degrees.

Structural steel gains in strength up to 1000 degrees.