123 votes

9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections Details Exposed

What an actual investigation into the events of 9-11 would look like. This is one of the most compelling videos I have seen, even addressing an issue that I have brought up repeatedly: Destroying evidence from a crime scene is a crime, and we all watched that crime scene get dismantled before the investigation.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

In other words, the headline

In other words, the headline is deliberately misleading.

FRAUD or just recycling OLD posts?

This article is OLD. Look at the comments below and their DATES.



its based on the views it gets to be in the frton page most VIEWED .. so a bunch of people viewed it and it shows up

You wish

because in your naivete, you assume that only others can manipulate facts but our Libertarian movement is a bunch of responsible, honest, and thoughtful people. Ha-ha-ha.

It will be "old" once the real mass murderers

have been brought to justice.

I noticed you did not dispute anything IN the video... just tried to motivate people against watching it.


You beat me to it fishy. Facts are funny things. I'd like to see the sheep debunk this video. "Oh that's all just coincidence!"

sharkhearted's picture

This vid is Loose Change on Steroids

In half the time.

Definitely worth your watch.

Norfolk, VA

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

Very informative


Solved? No.

I think solved is stretching. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and speculation here. It is certainly worthy of a real investigation. But this is more of a starting point than a conclusion.

For example. I have for a long time believed WTC 7 was a controlled demolition based on information from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. But recently I was provided with information that makes me doubt this.

Most videos, such as those by AE do not show the whole collapse of the building. They limit the video to only the shots that show the exterior of the building coming down. They crop out the collapse of the east penthouse which clearly shows the interior of the structure collapsing long before the exterior wall. See Here:


The observable evidence in this video lines up perfectly with the NIST model of collapse. This video is modeling the interior of the building, not the exterior wall as it is often claimed.


If you still think WTC 7 was demolished listen to this interview and see how you feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsN-X_RDC6o

I am not saying I agree with the official story by any means. I am just saying that it is complicated and that many of the claims people often discuss are not proven, yet are often presented as fact.

Agree with Questioning

To me, the first 30 minutes of the video are the most telling, and damming. Lots of it is circumstantial, but, given that the hard evidence was destroyed in 4 separate, bizarre events, that are fully connected by circumstance, the term "reasonable doubt" comes to mind, and I can find very little.

The destruction of tower 7, in my mind, based on the testimony of Barry Jennings, among others, was willful.

Based on the design of the building, and some of the visual evidence, and even the way the tower came to rest, it is reasonable to think it could have happened when the mechanical room dropped through the building onto the main struts supporting the building.

But, what made the mechanical room drop that far? How could it have fallen, seemingly unobstructed, down to the 7th floor? Presumably, there was a whole lotta building between the top and floor 7. This would almost certainly require that certain key supports have been removed previously. Metal stretches under stress, to a certain extent, which should have slowed the fall of the mechanical room.

But, it’s really beside the point. The event was orchestrated, I have no doubt. To argue the individual methods employed in each individual situation is an interesting distraction, but irrelevant to the overall orchestration, IMO. ;)

Just open the box and see

The truth is so simple.

Z stands for Zionists.
Unless you admit that Zionists did 9/11, you are either a Zionist or a Zionist shill.

Did I summarize the popular stance here correctly?

Thanks again for the bump!

Do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to contribute to this discussion, or are you a one-trick Zion-pushing pony? Critique the video - do you find inaccuracies? Do you have an alternate theory? The point of this post is the need for an actual investigation, there was one crime that we ALL watched - the destruction of the crime scene. What pretty much every poster here wants is a REAL investigation - lets find out of the Zionists were behind it or not. You have a problem with that?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

sharkhearted's picture


CNN's Gloria Borgen (LibertyFirst) has to take her husband's AIPAC bull-s-h-i-t first.....THEN THE REAL TRUTH COMES OUT.

Norfolk, VA

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

Quite Possible SharkH

Liberty First has not a single post since join the DP over a year ago and has a negitive Recent Reception. Whoever LF is, they don't seem to share the viewpoints of 90% of us here.

Get out of here...

You think Liberty_first is Gloria Borgen?

Really? I'd like to see that in it's own post if you've got any facts/evidence which point to this accusation. I believe just about anything IS possible... from what I've seen over the last twenty years since having my eyes wedged open to the duplicity in this "government" - please create a post or point me to the post where this conclusion was arrived at.

ytc's picture

fishy, GREAT post! When we see this high volume of trolls

swimming to this thread, trying to nibble on its "credibility", it MUST BE a work of fine journalism :-)

love you,

Employing that level of

Employing that level of logic, TMZ must be the most credible source of news on the planet.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

It must be frustrating, to need to troll the obvious truth and try to sound credible - AND know that every time you post your nonsense you keep this vital discussion alive.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

When did you quit believing in Santa Claus?

Excellent video with apparent deep research! It should shuts down the government fairytale cold for anyone with a brain. It's actually mind numbing just how complex this conspiracy is. No doubt there will be a lot more dots connected in the years to come.

I had put together information that also worked well in convincing naïve people to not believe the government fairytale back in 2009. It was an email titled "When did you quit believing in Santa Claus?" that I sent out to my email list at that time. I designed it to be propagated across the Internet. 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 excellent 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 is simple and straightforward 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.


someone to convince

Karl Denninger will cancel subscriber membership for mentioning 911 conspiracy theories. His basic premise is that such a large operation would require involvment of so many people that it would be impossible to keep everyone quiet; it makes some sense.


Can you convince him to have a more open mind toward the possibility of a conspiracy?

Karl has not considered compartmentalization

A large operation does not require all the players to know the whole picture about the conspiracy. It's all compartmentalized on a need-to-know basis. Get him to watch this two part video:




The Manhattan Project was effectively

kept quiet. Something like 150,000+ participants, production sites all over the place, etc.

So his premise may not be as sensible as it would seem. Quite weak, really.

He likely doesn't want to be convinced.

(Who is he, and why should we care, anyway? Nevermind. I'll look him up!)

What would the Founders do?

Thank you

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you

Thanks Fishy for this excellent video.

There simply MUST be a new REAL investigation into this - and into BOTH Bush presidents.

They are murderers extraordinaire.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

These are all coincidences.

These are all coincidences.

Nothing to see here.

Move along.

Don't do the math on the odds either.

Gotta repeat Bob-45's awesome comment...

"JFK assassination, 911, is there ANYTHING George H. W. Bush has not done?

He has to be the most evil man of our time."

I couldn't agree more.

The Bush family has single-handedly done more damage to the USA than any other entity or event I can think of.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Forgot the shooting of

Forgot the shooting of Reagan.

Lone nut the kid of Bush Family friends... Bush becoming president if successful....

And ...

... there is an interesting theory about the Bushies and JFK, Jr.'s death, too.

And let's not forget grandpappy Prescott Bush, who was convicted under the Trading with the Enemies Act for funding Hitler, as well as taking Richard Nixon under his wing and teaching him the ropes of dirty politics.

But, but, but ... Jeb is the next prez!!! Yippeee!!!

Interesting story about Jeb and Noriega out there, now that I think about it.

Pres Obama's Insider Threat Memorandum


O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Wow, talk about weaving

Wow, talk about weaving everything together.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.