53 votes

9/11 Doubts Seep into the Mainstream as Evidence Accumulates

Ian Henshall
September 20, 2012

As the annual 9/11 remembrance draws to a close, the world is as split as ever.

Not only on whether the Afghan and Iraq invasions were justified, but between those who accept Washington’s official 9/11 story and those who do not.

Under the mainstream media radar, the number of those who do not is steadily increasing, forming substantial majorities in places like Pakistan and Egypt and significant minorities even in NATO’s heartland countries, France, the UK and the US itself.

read more http://theintelhub.com/2012/09/21/911-doubts-seep-into-the-m...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The world is waking up.

And just in time...

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Doubts are bad; m'kay?

What in sam hell are you talking about?

C'mon people; move along, there's nothing to see here. Keep it moving, keep it moving...

"The problem is not those in power, the problem is right between your ears." ~Larken Rose


Check Out How Badly WTC 5 (Which Didn't Fall) Was Burning

I'm certainly not an expert but it seems to me that WTC5 was burning a lot worse than WTC7 (which collapsed at, from what I understand, free-fall speed)


fireant's picture

False analogy.

5WTC was not undercut by falling debris as evidence indicates was the case for 7WTC.
Furthermore, evidence suggests 7 was indeed a fully involved fire, contrary to claims made by Richard Gage and others that it was small office fires (looking only at the north side, one may come to such a conclusion). Early in the day, the fire chief declared it a 4 alarm.
Comparing a burning building with a burning building having been severely undercut is waste of time, proving zero.

Undo what Wilson did

Appreciate Your Comments

It's good to hear the "debunking" opinion.

I do have to ask though - the architect/engineers group has over 1600 people. It's hard to imagine they'd have overlooked that, no?

Where are the pictures of the

Where are the pictures of the burning building? Buildings do not fall from fire. Has never happened until that day. I watched a building burn in Philly for 18 hours blazing the whole time. Still stood after they finally put it out.

fireant's picture

True that kevink.

It's one of the reasons I'm poed right now, having trusted and believed Gage for so long, then discover he conveniently left out so much crucial data. You understand the feeling when you realize you've been had?
Anyway, I used the logic you describe for several years, knowing it was a reputable organization, and I believed them. As more raw video has come out, I continued to comb it for evidence of cut beams, knowing I'd find some...nothing. That's what started me looking closer at what Gage has been claiming; small office fires, minimal damage, fell in it's own footprint, none of which, it turns out, is true.

Undo what Wilson did

Excellent comment on Gage there

That is what he is paid for - supporing one part, and hiding the other. He also often begins his videos with, "We owe the victims of 911, bla bla bla."

Another example on what he is hiding. NIST claims that WTC1 collapsed in 11 seconds. Yet, what we see on CNN live news is a collapse which clearly lasts for at least 18 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugypj1NsQ-A

Someone told A&E this:

The "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" organization had until late 2009 an article on their site describing, in finely detailed manner, the timeline of the WTC 1 "11 second collapse". When I pointed out to them the approx. 18-sec collapse from the CNN live feed (as seen above), I received this succinct reply from their webmaster: "Thanks for your message, we have now removed the relevant article from our website."

Also note the 70 floors of the steel facade that turns into dust at 0:52. Gage haven't commented on this previously unseen phenomena either. Woods blames Energy Weapons. Cannot possibly be a fake video - that would be to wild. Doesn't matter that Hollywood create fake stuff all day long.

fireant's picture

Yes, there was substantial core standing.

I think that is key in trying to understand the collapse, but dropping straight down as it subsequently did (that's what it appears to me, rather than evaporating) is an enigma. Without seeing what was below, one can only presume it's base was weakened during the collapse.
I think stressing the fact the core remained is more important than the fact it eventually fell. It being the main support of the building, it is evidence which does not support controlled demolition.

Undo what Wilson did

70 floors of the facade did turn into dust

If you look at Woods much better photos (ie animations) of this event, you will clearly see that 70 floors of the steel facade turns into dust. That was what CNN live news also showed - on live news. Woods has much better/clearer photos (animations). It is not possible to dismiss this - steel facade turned into dust. Explain pls, not just deny it. Woods claims is was due to energy weapons and not just a Hollywood trick.

You didn't respond to the part on different collapse length between NIST, CNN and the other networks. Why both 11 seconds and 19 seconds of the same event broadcasted live?

fireant's picture

Facade or Core?

I'm talking about the core.
Don't get me wrong. Whether the core dropped, or as you claim, vaporized, I do not underestimate it's significance. Just because I've tabled it for now does not mean I won't get to it. The simple fact that the core remained standing during collapse bears it's own significance which needs to be understood. So, please post your reference again and I will take a look. I caution you though, the core did begin moving down and appeared to get lost in it's own dust trail. Regardless, the fact it fell is an enigma in itself.
Variations in collapse times from one news reel to the other are not important to me at this time, so I have no comment.

Undo what Wilson did

Get out of the virtual reality

Your investigation will become much more interesting after you have figured out that you are studying a virtual reality. Two different cameras filming the same event should be quite consistent. Can you tell if this is a real or fake video? Hippo swallows female lion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqmJ5XTKuaM


^ This guy. ^

Eric Hoffer


...how could Silverstein have been referring to the firefighters when the line was "pull it" (not "pull them" as in "pull them out"). It was "pull IT".

(I know you're not in disagreement w/ that by the way. Just replying to anyone who says "he could've meant 'pull the firefighters out of the building'").

"Pull It"

Luke Rudowski followed up w/ Silverstein on that comment...


fireant's picture

I'm with ya man,

just show me some structural evidence. So far, I've been able to find none. I been looking. It don't jive.

Undo what Wilson did

Found any stainless steel elevator doors in the pile?

There should be many thousand stainless steel elevator doors in the rubble - many thousands. Can you show me 1? Why not do you think?

My Home Is Insane

Rutherford County NC.
Located less than an hour from Charlotte & Asheville and 20 minutes from SC. The new home of Facebook. [with miles of under ground tunnels, HAZMAT suits, and just a few minutes away from the CIA building..that we're not suppose to know about..]
Mostly Democrats but with Republicans climbing out of the woodwork to vote Romney..because according to them..HES NOT OBAMA.
I have posted evidence to the contrary about that..and about 9 11.
No matter what I post, no matter if I bring up Building 7, Thermite, the cops, the fire fighters, other witnesses that say they heard bombs going off. They say I am an idiot..a stupid RP supporter who believes our government is out to get us, so Im called paranoid in my tin foil hat.
I have had threats, people have suggested I be locked away for public safety, and a host of other things. But I will not stop.
I do wish I could find the one thing to say to them that would wake at least one of them up. They wont watch the videos, they refuse to really answer questions, such as explain building 7. They believe buildings free fall if hit by a plane.
One day I may find an escape route. But until then...I feel locked up in a pen of sheeple here in Rutherford County

I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina

When discussing an extremely

When discussing an extremely sensitive issue like 9/11, you can approach the subject directly as you have or you can approach the subject indirectly. Play the devil's advocate on controversial issues in order to expose the issues themselves and not your personal views. For example, simply offer your listeners an alternative view to the official position and add a disclaimer, i.e. state that your alternative view is simply a counterpoint to the official view and not necessarily your personal view. Even IF your alternative view is your personal view, you don't HAVE to disclose the linkage. Your goal should be simply to provide an alternative view with supporting evidence and let the listener criticize the view itself and not you personally. Brandon Raub got into trouble because he discussed his controversial writings personally with the FBI and thereby linked those writings with his personal views.


When did you quit believing in Santa Claus?

The whole government narrative of 9/11 is beginning to fall apart. There is such a preponderance of evidence showing conspiracy as a fact.

"When did you quit believing in Santa Claus?" is the Subject line of an email 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)

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.


DJP333's picture

Solid research on 9/11

Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

"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." ~CW

You may think so

But you will change your mind when you understand that most of his witnesses are just actors (a Hollywood tool), paid by the operation management.

The smoking gun of 9/11 is building 7

The 3rd building that few even heard of... the building that was not hit by a plane, but came down in it's own footprint in 7 seconds.

Office fires don't even come close to explaining it. If you watch the footage notice how evenly it drops. This could never happen from anything but a demolition.

ecorob's picture

that is true...

but buildings one and two's collapse into their own footprints with thermal nuclear evidence left behind is pretty compelling, too!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.


Sooo... ecorob, you're one of the "it was nukes that brought down the towers" guys?

Eric Hoffer

fireant's picture

Oft repeated, but incredulously incomplete and inaccurate.

Do you realize how disingenuous that argument is? It serves truth not.
The building was pummeled with multi-ton hunks of steel, resulting in a gaping hole 20 stories high and as wide as 1/3 of the building's width, as stated by eyewitness fire dept personnel. The building was leaning and bulging by early afternoon, abandoned by firefighters thus allowing the fire to intensify. The building fell at an angle to the south into the building across the street, not into it's own footprint.
I understand that, "the building that was not hit by a plane, but came down in it's own footprint in 7 seconds" is the exact phraseology of many video reports, but does an injustice to the cause of truth by distorting what is known. You have been convinced because of the distortion of "facts" which are not facts at all, but seem to be because of camera angle and the conclusions which are drawn. Simply by looking at available evidence without that predisposition, however, paints an entirely different picture. If it is truth we seek, allow the facts to be known. This is a grave matter.

Undo what Wilson did

Then explain...

Then explain the Marriott Hotel. It was directly underneath both towers, it was heavily damaged but the entire hotel didn't collapse in record time. Fire just doesn't have the properties you ascribe to it, it can't bring down a building symmetrically into its footprint in 6.5 seconds. I would expect to see parts of Building 7 collapsing, not the entire structure starting at the penthouse and continuing straight down. I would have expected to see the tops of both towers falling over and down to the streets, I didn't expect to see entire buildings collapsing shooting 500,000 beams into the facades of buildings 600 feet away. How does a pancake collapse turn thousands of pounds of concrete into dust? The pancake collapse due to fire theory is just not believable.

fireant's picture

What properties have I ascribed to fire?

Show me where I suggested fire brought down Bldg 7. You can't because I haven't. What I have pointed out is the fact fire in 7 was much heavier than "small office fires" as is described by proponents of controlled demolition. Ask yourself why those purveyors of the story mislead you. Do you like being lied to about such a serious matter? I sure don't. I believed it too for a long time, until I started looking with my own eyes.
The Marriott was directly beneath falling debris, receiving it's damage on the top. 7 was uniquely positioned to receive it's damage on the front side of the building, which provided the opportunity for undercutting. There is no comparison between the two.
Bldg 7 did not collapse symmetrically into it's own footprint. That is a lie. It fell to the south into the building across the street.
Make what you will of the facts, but please at least get the facts straight. That is all I'm trying to do. We have been misled and the untruths are repeated over and over. It's time to face facts, and recognize we have been misled.

Undo what Wilson did