23 votes

A Citizen's 20 Points to Drive Home the Truth About 9/11

Use this to convert your last hold-outs. Nifty, concise, easy to read.


A Citizen's 20 Points to Drive Home the Truth About 9/11

Here are the basic facts demonstrating why the official story is impossible.  More than ten years later, an enormous number of people have woken up to these facts.

  • Most of the steel from the Twin Towers was found far outside the bases
    of the towers in straight pieces cut cleanly at the ends.  Core beams
    and perimeter assemblies weighing up to twenty tons were hurled
    laterally for hundreds of yards at speeds of up to 80MPH.   This is
    conclusive evidence of explosives demolition rather than gravitational
  • Jet fuel is only kerosene.  Spilled jet fuel burns no hotter or longer on an open surface than ordinary lighter fluid.  The National institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found no evidence of fires over 480F in tested steel samples.  This  is the temperature of normal office fires.  High-rise furniture and upholstery is fire retardant by law.
  • Most of this kerosene blew out in the fireballs on impact.
  • The tower which was hit last, and damaged the least, was the first to disappear.  The plane which struck the South Tower came in at a diagonal and struck a corner of the building, just grazing the core columns.  Almost all the kerosene was lost in the fireball.
  • The towers were specifically designed to absorb multiple hits by jetliners approximately the same size and weight of 767s.  Chief structural engineer John Skilling said in 1993:

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel
(from the airplane) would dump into the building.
There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ...
The building structure would still be there."

Frank Demartini, the construction manager for the World Trade Center, said in an interview on January 25, 2001:

"I believe that the building probably could sustain
multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is
like the mosquito netting on your screen door --
this intense grid --
and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.
It really does nothing to the screen netting."

  • The jetliner impacts did no significant damage to the steel frames of
    the towers.  Jetliners are essentially hollow aluminum tubes.  A 767 is
    approximately 1/2500 of weight of one tower.  The kinetic energy of the
    planes was absorbed by the much greater mass of the towers.  Aluminum is only one-third of the density
    of steel.  The photo below shows that the planes were shredded on impact.

  • The fires resulting from the plane hits were small and isolated, not "raging infernos."  Just 7 minutes before the collapse of the South Tower, Battalion Chief Oreo Palmer said in a radio transmission from the 78th floor: "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire.
    We should be able to knock it down with two lines." Two lines refers to two fire hoses.
  • No high rise of any kind of construction has ever disappeared from the skyline within seconds as a result of fires, or indeed, as a result of anything but controlled demolition.  In the case of the Windsor fire in Madrid in 2005, in a high-rise of weaker construction than the Towers, the fire burned for 20 hours throughout all floors.  From a standpoint of chemistry and physics, the fuel required to generate the amount of heat-energy needed to raise the temperature of the structural steel to the point of failure was not present. 

    Windsor fire: Burned for 20 Hours

    9/11: South Tower burned for 52 minutes before destructionBlack smoke is indicator of oxygen-starved fires going out.

  • The amount of kinetic energy generated by the possible collapse of a few floors is not remotely enough to crush 90 stronger floors beneath that collapse.  The difference in these energies is many orders of magnitude.
  • If the official story is true, then it revolutionizes the steel foundry
    business.  This industry spends lots of money on blast furnaces which burns lots
    of expensive coal or coke (refined coal) in an enclosed ceramic chamber.  Pre-heated air is "blasted" through the fuel to raise steel
    to 5,000F to melt, and nearly that high to become malleable.

    Twin Tower core backbone under construction

    Illustration of main support columns

  • There have been partial collapses in small sections of steel-framed high-rises, but complete and catastrophic failure in a matter of seconds is impossible except for in controlled demolitions.
  • Falling mass does not accelerate as it accumulates.  The official story relies on a purely imaginary "domino effect" whereby each collapsing floor adds to the overall weight, and drives a "chain reaction."  But this ignores the enormous upward static force of the supporting steel columns, both in the core and in the perimeter, which is much greater than the initial kinetic energy downward.  Accumulating mass could not drive the downward fall faster, because all objects fall through air at the same speed, per Galileo.  Floors which collapse on one another do not go "faster and faster."  They go slower as energy is absorbed.
  • Even if somehow the towers collapsed as a result of fatal weakening,
    even if the steel got "soft like clay," clay is still is much denser
    than air. The upper floors could not "fall' at the speed as they would
    have fallen through thin air.  Study this illustration and word problem:

    A 9/11 Story Problem: Which 15 story building hits the ground first?


    Answer: On 9/11 both upper blocks hit the ground at virtually the same time, suspending the laws of physics!

    -If the 15 story section is falling at free fall speed ...

    -All of its gravitational potential energy is converted to Kinetic Energy (movement)

    - It is not available to do the work of "crushing" the building below!

    - It would have to slow down in order to do any other work, i.e., "crushing 80,000 tons of structural steel below.

  • Houses of cards and of building blocks have no solid joints, and therefore offer no resistance as they fall.  The towers and WTC 7 had enormous resistance to stresses and failure at all points in the structures, yet fell as if they were houses of cards.  This illusion cannot be sustained upon even cursory examination.
  • The upward static resistance of the vertical steel backbone running up the center of the towers could not have been overcome by a partial collapse of floors.  The towers' "backbone" of 47 steel beams, running continuously up the entire height of the towers, were heavily cross-braced and reinforced so that load would be redistributed in the event of the failure of any single member or members.  This is in accordance with standard design principles.  All modern skyscrapers have a built in "safety factor" of three to five, the ability to withstand three to five times the maximum possible stresses, under extreme conditions, in any direction.  The Towers were most probably even stronger than this.  At the base, the 47 core beams were nearly five feet wide.

  • The "domino"-like collapse mechanism, sometimes described as a "pile driver" effect of collapsing floors, is impossible when one recalls that there was nothing actually on top of the 47 core columns, which ran continuously from the ground to the ceiling of the highest floor.  Thinking of the core backbone as  a record player spindle, the stacked vinyl records would represent the floors.  Excessive downward stress on the floors would strip them from the core, like records falling down along the spindle.  There was no compressive force directly atop the core columns.

  • There is one scenario under which the countless inconsistencies, puzzles, and anomalies of 9/11 fall into place: that of standard demolition cutter and kicker charges, one of which "cuts" a beam a split second before another one "kicks" it out, as in the following demolition in China.


In the video the Chinese demolition is compared to 9/11, showing startling similarities. Demolition expert Tom Sullivan, formerly of the industry leader Controlled Demolition Inc., has said that the demolitions would have been "no problem."    Sullivan said:

“looking at the building it wouldn’t be a problem — once you gain access
to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden
access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with
just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as

  • The molten steel which flowed in the basements of the towers like a "Dante's Inferno" would be perfectly explained by the use of thermite, an incendiary which melts steel rather than cuts it, in a violent exothermic reaction which can reach 5,000F and could release enough heat-energy to raise the temperature of molten steel to a point which would keep it molten for weeks, even months.  This is similar to the way in which a pot of water which is brought to near boiling stays hot much longer than one heated to just a few degrees above room temperature.  Substances absorb heat, and the more that is absorbed, the longer it takes to cool off.
  • The fact that high-grade thermitic compounds, which can only be made in a laboratory, were found, without triggering an investigation of the source, is almost inconceivable.

None of this touches on the "who and why" of 9/11, since that is putting the cart before the horse.  To ask the motive or motives behind a crime, before it has been established that the crime has been committed, is premature.  In this case the crime is a false flag attack blamed on a terrorist network known as Al Qaeda.  Suffice it to say that all wars have beneficiaries.

- JM

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Thanks and bookmarked.

Thanks and bookmarked.

Southern Agrarian

Great information

This list could be 200 things and still not cover all the misinformation the public has been fed. I predict within a few minutes, a debunker or two will come along and choose one obscure detail to argue about and totally ignore everything else.

You called it!

(About the debunker folk) LOL! (Didn't take long [See below.]....)

Thanks for this post. I suppose we continue to parrot the truth just as the corrupt and/or ignorant have parroted the BS over the last decade plus.

Rock on!

What would the Founders do?

You are probably right

...but at this point all the disinfo is doing is bumping the good information. Bring em on. The people are getting so awake they just need it all in one place to clinch the deal.

Boston did it. Those MFs are coming down. Start arresting the bastards now, starting with Giuliani for felony evidence destruction. Let's start tugging the thread there and see what happens. 9/11 leads to all the rest. Jail em. Hang em at Nuremberg if we have to.

Release the Sandy Hook video.


You are psychic. :P



More People Know Everyday

Countless people worldwide (including powerful people) realize that 911 was in fact an inside job, done by the very same powers that still maintain control in our government and media.

Everyday more people are informed and awaken to the fact. So many groups have advocated the information for so long.

The "news" is the last place you will hear that a majority knows 911 was an inside job.


Copy. Distribute. Be polite, but stern.

Senator Peter Schiff 2016

This information exposes the

This information exposes the unexplainable power that propaganda has over the citizens of entire countries.

The above is just simply common sense science.

No political agenda.

Just facts.

Just the nature of REALITY.

And yet this body of knowledge will be met with ridicule and kicked aside.

And the global descent into hell will continue.

Common sense science is a bit

Common sense science is a bit of an oxymoron.

If common sense sufficed we would not need the investigative powers of science. Wouldn't you agree?

Quantum theory defies all notions of the reality that we experience.

Who are you calling an oxymoron?!

But seriously...
I should have said something like commonly known or commonly held... or intuitively obvious and self evident...

Haha, I'm calling YOU an

Haha, I'm calling YOU an oxymoron =P

My opinion is kind of a cop out in these matters because, having studied science I know it is more about exceptions rather than simple facts.

For example you could spend a year studying the basics of organic chemistry and still know nothing about how compounds actually behave because the interplay of environment and substance render basic knowledge pretty useless. To have a detailed and precise knowledge you ha e to go through 5 years of Ph.D., so I generally turn technical matters over to experts of THAT particular field.

For example, I wouldn't ever give much weight to what Einstein has to say about theology even though it might be interesting because his field is physics.

I saw zeitgeist and was pretty convinced about the conspiracy theory, but as I tried to spread it to others, notably my father, he just laughed it off. When I persisted a bit, then he pointed out so many flaws in their arguments that the whole thing simply fell apart. From then on I've tried to be more careful a out documentaries which are pushing a specific agenda.

How do you know that the

How do you know that the molten metal was steel and not aluminium?

Scientists and engineers said there was molten steel.

Even if aluminum melted as well doesn't take away the problem of the molten steel or the intensity of the heat and what was being described weeks and even MONTHS later.

From the link Sue4theBillofrights posted...

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”[Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]

Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]

An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11...[Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/7/2001; CBS News, 3/11/2002]

He examines numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero.[Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/7/2001]

He later recalls, “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.” [PBS, 5/10/2007]

He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/7/2001]


First one is a

First one is a firefighter.

Second is or seems to be a health professional.

At what temperature does steel begin to lose around 50% of its strength?

Can he put his professional reputation on the line or sign am affidavit confirming what he saw?

Ah ha the old "steel loses 50% of its strength" magic trick

The problem is, the structures were built to bear 500% of maximum live load in any direction, including up and down. Ya know, how gravity goes. Next problem is, even if the steel magically lost ALL its compressive strength across the entire structure as a result of a few small fires burning JUST FOR AN HOUR, it wouldn't have fallen at the same acceleration as an object falling through thin air, which is one speed no matter what the weight of the object. There was no "domino effect" of one floor crashing onto another and making it heavier therefore making the whole mass go faster. Because heavier objects don't fall faster. Galileo showed that.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

This is something that really

This is something that really confuses me. Do you expect it to collapse in slow motion or something?

If the support is to be overcome, it will be overcome at the point of maximum force ie when the debris hits it ie in milliseconds, or not at all. So if a building does collapse, it will ALWAYS be at near free fall speed, I can't imagine how it would be otherwise.

Its not about falling faster, its about the force with which it impacts below. For example if you stand under a falling anvil (for the purpose of visualization) it may not hurt much if it is made up of cotton, but under a metal anvil you will end up a pancake (forgive the term) like Wile E. Coyote.

You comparing apples to oranges here

The top above impact was less than 15% of the mass of the whole. So if I'm 200 pounds and you drop a 30 pound anvil on my head, it will hurt like hell, possibly crush my skull, but will not flatten me like a pancake.

While it is true that that an

While it is true that that an object will give way at the moment of greatest force (the initial impact), the object falling will loose some of its speed.
This is because a certain energy is required to collapse the standing object (your head). This energy comes from the falling object and is transitioned on impact. Therefore the falling object looses energy, in the case in the form of speed. So it would slow down and have to accelerate again.
In the case of the anvil and your head, the energy transferred would be small due to the large mass of the anvil (resulting in a high momentum) and small mass and weak structural support of your body. Therefore the anvil would still be traveling pretty fast, and continuously collide into your body until either you reach the same speed as the anvil or you both are stopped by the larger structural support of the ground.
In the case of the towers where you have the opposite. There is a relatively small mass falling compared to the large mass and high structural support below it. In this case you would expect nearly all of the falling floors energy to be transferred to the structure to collapse it. Some may argue that it would require more energy than the first floors that fell had. Ignoring that possibility you still have to accept that the falling floors (the initial and the newly collapsed) have lost all their momentum due to the impact and have to accelerate again.

Because of this the tower would never fall at free fall speeds. It would be must slower due to the resistance below it. And this is the critical detail that can never be hidden but is ignored. No matter what you debunk, unless you disprove gravity you cannot refute it.

Now I will say that as the floors collapse, more mass is falling in proportion to the structure below it. Therefore it would accelerate as it reached the bottom. But this does not change the original conclusion.

There was a video recently about a 9/11 theory (free energy or something but it had several good points/questions brought up). In this video they examined what would happen if only 1/10th the floors were there, allowing the building to free fall through 9/10 of them. Even this assumption gave a fall time several times the actual fall time.

You've hybridized two

You've hybridized two separate arguments of mine in a very weird way. The anvil thing was a response to 'speed' vs 'force'.

And yes, it will lose some energy, but the speed may still increase continuously due to the accruing mass. Hence the tower didn't fall at free fall speed, but close to it.

Think of a train ploughing through thick sheets of concrete and the power transmitted by the engine increasing linearly as a function of number of such barriers destroyed.

The time taken to cover a certain distance will be a function of speed at time of first impact, number of concrete barriers/ metre, thickness of concrete barriers, initial power provided by engine, the parameter for linear increase in power and mass of the train.

Now, clearly, several scenarios arise, of which one is that the resistance is small compared to the force of the moving train and thus it takes only a little more time than if the barriers were not there at all.

Once you understand this analogy and acknowledge that it is possible for a building to fall at near free fall speed, you only need to plug in the figures in the NIST report or other sources that 'buy' the official version to reach a conclusion.

The problem with this analogy

The problem with this analogy is that the resistance isn't small compared to the moving mass. The resistance is very large, after all it was built to support this mass. Therefore the small resistance theory falls apart. I wish I had the study to show, but as I have stated, it was analyzed using only 1/10th the floors as resistance and it was still to much for a free fall speed.

And remember more mass doesn't mean it falls faster, it still accelerates at 1g without any resistance no matter the mass. The only thing more mass gives is more momentum, it still has to accelerate the same.

And also remember that each impact is going to create a resistance, meaning each floor. Unless the first impact was enough to shatter the entire structure (in which case the tower as a whole would begin to fall together not floor by floor) then you have to account for the resistance through out.

Come on, I've stated that

Come on, I've stated that there are several independent concrete barriers haven't I? You CAN'T dismiss small resistance off hand because you have to consider the massive amounts of debris falling and the damage already caused to the building...

I am not dismissing it. I am

I am not dismissing it. I am saying that it is a significant factor. No matter how you look at the collapse, unless you do something to remove the building before the floors fall, it would never fall at free fall speed.

Near free fall speed

Near free fall speed friend...that makes all the difference.

Also compare what happens in a controlled demolition, the number of explosions before the building starts coming down. Also see WHERE the collapse starts from.

Sign an affidavit? Do you ask that of EVERYONE...

...who describes events and evidence from 9/11, or are you just selective in that expectation?

Nevermind the findings of molten steel by a team of scientists you dismiss because of their involvement in the health profession, and nevermind that Geyh was a chemist.

Perhaps we should also just ignore the comparison of wtc steel to Salvador Dali clock paintings by an engineer who "specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings".

Those who testified before

Those who testified before the committee would have been under oath so yes, there IS a standard of truth.

I am an engineer, but my opinions on most things relating to my field are useless unless they are vetted by others in the relevant field. Something that heresy and testimonies cannot provide.

I am not sure what happened on 9/11 but your techniques of determining the truth are very questionable...

What kind of engineer

if you don't mind me asking?

If you want to round up all 9/11 witnesses and experts...

...and have them sign affidavits, knock yourself out.

Not sure what you've determined my ~techniques of determining the truth~ to be, but there are plenty more questionable things to me regarding what the gov't/media have led people to believe about 9/11 than whether molten metal was all aluminum or not.

If you're not ok with the reports of witnesses and experts describing the odd things they've come across with regard to the metal at wtc, google some photos. *shrug*

because you can melt aluminum and see what it looks like then

see what melted steel looks like, which is always orange. This is what melted aluminum looks like:

Also a number of scientists saw the metal and said it was steel.


As for the funny popular Mechanins disinfo line that carpet and bleach would have mixed with melted aluminum, they tried it and bleach is cooked off by hot aluminum in seconds, and they threw in pieces of carpet but it just kind of floated to the top. They didn't mix.

The molten steel coming out the side of the towers before destruction is such a dead givea-way for thermite. Wouldn't you know it you see it on the mechanical floors, twice as strong as regular floors, which could use a little extra weakening.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Could you take a look at the

Could you take a look at the link I posted in response to sharkhearted?

If nothing else, doesn't it prove at least that aluminium CAN look orange in certain circumstances? I found both orange and silver pictures on google.