87 votes

It's Time to Put This 9/11 Conspiracy Thing to Rest Once and For All

There is a lot of hearsay and folklore surrounding this event which may or may not be true. So we're going to need to sift through some news-clips, firsthand testimony and whatever else that can provide credible information on this important topic. There comes a point that you learn too much and you can't revert back to ignorance. In a way it's very much like when you first realized that Santa Claus is really a fiction. At that point there is really no amount of logic that can resurrect your belief in Santa again. So when did you quit believing in Santa Claus?

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.


Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’ve read this far into my article 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:


The explosions in the basement were separate independent events which had nothing to do with where the airplanes hit some 80 to 100 floors above. 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:


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, but realize that building seven was never hit by a jet. Still, this is just one more piece of evidence which raises even 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:


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:


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 scientific 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?

Well, 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:


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 he suggested to the fire department that they pull it. He then stated that the fire department made that decision to "pull it" and then, as he put it, "we watched the building collapse". Well, there is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes at least a week to rig a building like that 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:


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. So what’s in it for these people that were “in the know?”

Aaron Russo was a famous movie producer (Remember “The Rose” and "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy?) who became best friends with one of the Rockefeller family members. 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" and how it fits into their agenda starts at 26:45 here in this interview (If you have the time watch the whole thing - chances are you have never seen an interview quite like this one):


Another thing. In April 2013 a 40 story skyscraper in Chechnya caught fire and thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder [see the video within the next link below]. 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:


Now see this:

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.

Comment viewing options

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

The 911 Psyop

I continue to be amazed at how we all have created so much of our individual private realities out of the larger, broadcast lies--and I mean lies in church and school, written, spoken--and lies in all the media, sure. The older I get the more often I have to acknowledge that nothing I was told is true. So I am always encouraged when someone else, in one form or another, says "hey, maybe not like that after all"

May I suggest a couple more 911 links for the continuing inquiry:

bit.ly/1AB8Fs7 - Judy Wood
bit.ly/1u7HMwf - Ace Baker - bit.ly/1yxx1HG

Thanks for the add'l 911 links.

I've watched Judy Wood's presentation a couple times. I'm not familiar with that second source.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir


Thank you for this real summary of events. Whenever a political or influential official uses 9/11 as a foundational basis for further aggression, I cringe. 9/11 perpetuated the actions which, in turn, caused the Islamic extremist growth of fanatical, crazed crusaders. The cave dwelling former CIA employee window dressing notwithstanding. The use and abuse of false flagged catastrophes have lost their appeal. They expired with the myth of MH17, and the limbo in which its facts now hang. If a candidate to office alludes to 9/11 as a Islamic attack on the USA, and the cause of all the revenge actions we must take, do not vote for that person, because that person reasons not. Only parrots propaganda to get elected. I guess this is the last place I should say that, because it seems to be like carrying coals to Newcastle, but it just feels good tell the truth anyway.

fireant's picture

Jennings' explosion has to be corroborated. It can't be.

If it can't be corroborated, a grand jury won't hear it.
All the evidence says his time line is mistaken. Here's a start; the south face of 7 after South Tower collapse:
WTC7 Jennings South Face Anotated
The video, with shots around and inside the lobby of 7, and no sign of any explosion:

More evidence his time line is mistaken here: http://wtc7fact.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/fact-barry-jennings...
This is all the type evidence which will be presented to a grand jury. jennings' story must be corroborated in order to overcome in court.

Undo what Wilson did

One thing is for sure.

No matter which method of methods were used, just a cursory review of the evidence proves contrary to the "official report". Just taking time to review video footage should give anyone with the ability to think, reason to question.

What disturbs me the most, are the reactions of people I tell.

Where is the American Sprirt? Why aren't more people steaming at the simple fact that we've been lied to?

This particular lie is the one I keep as a reminder for when I start to doubt the rest of them. If I start to doubt the truth about how bad the Fed really is, I step back and think about 911 as a benchmark for the measures people are willing to take to advance an agenda. This benchmark makes me question everything that seems the least bit off center.

I guess it's good that many people I tell, already have some doubt about 911. I guess I set my expectations to high when I look for people to get as concerned as me. Even if the claim to know, most of their reactions are identical to those who didn't know. That reaction is, to change the subject as soon as possible.

The way I see it though, is the only effective weapon we have right now is our mouth! I've reached a point where I don't care if people get pissed at me. I do my best, even if they walk away mad, to plant as many seeds as possible in hopes it will eventually lead them to take notice.

911 is a litmus. test for America! If people are willing to ignore, not only the 911 lie itself, but the implications and atrocities that spawned from this horrible event, do they deserve to be free?

Red herring!

Bogging down in red chips, explosions, and light poles is a waste of time.

The hijackers were Saudi, Bin Laden was Saudi, Saudi royalty funded and helped, and the House of Saud faced ZERO consequence. 9/11 was approved, at LEAST afterwards, by the US government. The US government was complicit with the Saudis by not going after them.

There is no difference in intent between hiring a hitman, performing the hit yourself, or willfully allowing a hit. Their guilt is self-admitted, based on facts subject to no conjecture.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!


Lol keep drinking the Jones

Lol keep drinking the Jones kool-aid.

The elephant in the room is getting larger and larger each day. One day it may just blow out the walls of the room and no one will have to actually open their eyes too look.

Anyone with a single truth bone in their body knows what group was the perpetrator of the 9/11 event in whatever fashion it may have ultimately transpired

fireant's picture

Worth repeating

"The hijackers were Saudi, Bin Laden was Saudi, Saudi royalty funded and helped, and the House of Saud faced ZERO consequence. 9/11 was approved, at LEAST afterwards, by the US government. The US government was complicit with the Saudis by not going after them."

Undo what Wilson did


who can read and comprehend Operation Northwoods, from the George Washington University website, would understand that the puppetmasters would gladly kill a few thousand of us in order to use their war machines and tighten control of the peasants.

You are a juror in a court of law. What would be your verdict?

My verdict would be that you combine hard physical evidence with speculative conspiracy. Thus you lose credibility.

You were most persuasive when you were sticking to the hard,verifiable physical evidence.

What if

it's a conspiracy case?

then it seems like you would have to

tie specific evidence to a specific accused conspirator.

None of that was accomplished in the OP.

The Hard physical evidence and consistent testimony from unrelated witnesses portion of the presentation is compelling.

The conspiracy portion is speculative, weak, and not compelling.

(Down vote if you want or help the OP refine his case. HE ASKED US TO BE A JURROR.)


What exactly was the experiment...that you could get me to play along by telling me i was participating in an experiment-it worked.

William Cooper

Predicted 9/11. He just didn't say what day it would happen.

Don't forget ol Rummy Don

Don't forget ol Rummy Don explaining that 2.3 Trillion dollars are missing from the Defense Budget just days before 911.

I still don't get what happened to all the security cam footage of the 'plane' hitting the pentagon except for the 8 frames of an explosion? With all those camera's everywhere and somehow it is national security we cant see them while we have tons of footage of planes hitting the 911 buildings? How is that even national security anyway? Wouldn't there be hundreds of eye witnesses talking about the rumble of a massive jet right overhead due to the shallow angle of impact?

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

The $2.3 Trillion.

Has anyone seen a study on the total significance of the $2.3 Trillion?
Was it a coincidence that it was mentioned the day before?
Was there some strategic reason they needed to mention it the day before?
It seems, with all the careful and intricate planning that an "event" like this might have required, they might have realized this would lead people to connect the dots to the accounting office.
If they were trying to cover up the missing $2.3 Trillion, why even mention it?

Not 'days' before

but the very day before, as in September 10th.

I stand corrected. My God

I stand corrected. My God that's like me calling my bank and having them say, "Hey your life savings is unaccounted for, sorry." Then the next day the bank mysteriously burns to the ground.

It reminds me of the Goodfellas...

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

You are exactly correct..

great scene.

Another oddity not mentioned here

was the fact that the entire Trade Center was in the process of its networks being updated in the summer of 2001. Demolition cable looks almost exactly like computer cat 5 cable. If I saw it laying around, I wouldn't know the difference. Also, the Trade Center went on lock down the weekend before the event. The employees that had worked there for many years had never rememberd a time when they could not enter the buildings (I belive this was Sunday, 9/9). The way the buildings were constructed, basically hollow silos with cross members going to the center section, they would be very easy to wire. Just run the cables straight up the elevator shafts which were all constructed in the center area. Popular mechanics, which I used to love the magazine, (and haven't bought an issue since), tryed to debunk 9/11 claiming the collapse in each tower started where the planes entered. This is true, but if the demolition cables were severed at those points, then that is as far as the electrical charge could rise. Anything above those floors doesn't matter. Gravity will take them with the building. The fact that the buildings collapsed in their own footprints is proof that everything falling was having a path of lease resistance blown out of the way first.

Or that oh so timely and

Or that oh so timely and 'lucky' insurance policy. Or who didn't show up for work that day.

911docs.net, an excellent 9/11 site.

I hope I live to see the day Cheney and his lacky puppet Bush hang by their slimy necks.

911docs.net, an excellent 9/11 site.

I hope I live to see the day Cheney and his lacky puppet Bush hang by their slimy necks.

i have no idea to the facts

i have no idea to the facts of the situation but i feel it in my bones that somethings not right with the situation and how it was reported

taking a step back and trying to look at the whole picture, i suspect that their is many factions involved, being one of the reasons why they are so reluctant to go into detail, one faction can only account for themselves, faction reaveling something another faction cant support, deny, explain, is not a situation they want, assuming ive gof this right

Another thing, russo says this was planned, that the "event" purpose was to create FICTIONAL global terrorism, an illusion to mask, explain actions that would be, could be seen in a negative way, suddenly invading another country, installing pipelines, and creating a base in the middle east, knowing that may cost many lives, its not beyond the scope of reason that, this "event" could have been a reason to pre-explain actions they new they were gonna make but would be seen negatively, if they didnt have the "war on terrorism" to mask the real intent, something that would have been obvious otherwise.

As for the bbc reporting a building that fell, having that building in the backshoot of that report, fully intact, assuming that this "events" sole purpose was to build up the peoples compliance, i would not be surprised to learn that originally, they were gonna tell the people it was infact controlled demolitions, but used it as dramatic affect otherwise, what if originally, the demolitions were there as a safety measure, if this was indeed planned, and they were worried it might get out of hand, fires spreading, affecting more buildings then intended, or thoughts along those lines......or possible not, may they intalled explosives after, but that would still mean some of this was planned ahead of schedule, unless everysingle government employee has the knowledge to install explosives in the right places to create a perfect controlled demolition, if it was after they either have the local experts on speedcall, or they were ready

Theories, all theories........because something stinks

Good post. I differ in that I think that

the nanothermite is only one of many smoking guns. Where do you start? I doubt even the conspirators ever hoped in their wildest dreams that so many Americans could be this stupid in the face of overwhelming evidence, molten steel rivers, beams flung hither and yon in straight peices, the damn things blowing apart before our eyes.

My choice for a grand-daddy of all the smoking guns is the fundamental laws of physics. Comprehend this and there can be no fancy footwork to tap dance around it: Galileo. There is one speed at which all objects fall to Earth discounting negligible differences in air resistance, and this speed can only be attained through thin air. The towers and WTC7 were not thin air, therefore the official story is impossible. Mass does not go faster as it "accumulates" into a "pile driver" demolishing all resistance below it. That is pretending it is a house of cards. A skyscraper is not a house of cards.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

it will never be put to rest--

there are those who don't believe the official story (I include myself), and those who do--

there are those who think that it damages the cause of liberty to discuss it, and there are those who believe that it is central to the cause of liberty to discuss it--

there are those who can discuss it intelligently, and those who cannot--

the beat goes on--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Well Done...

It was always obvious to me that 9/11 was something different that what we were told, right from the 1st day, because of so many elements:


1. Scattered News reports and Eye witness reports, on the day as things were happening, about explosions and secondary explosions.

2. WTC-7 dropping down into its own footprint at free fall speed (when nothing hit it).

3. The weird fact that the WTC Tower that was hit second, was yet the very first one to collapse -- and only after 1 hour of fire (-?). Even a wooden house would not collapse and disintegrate after just 1 hour of fire.

4. The fact that even of you accept the concept that steel-frame buildings would "melt" from fire, this still would not explain the massive pulverization of Concrete that was seen that had created gigantic dust clouds which blanketed the entire City of New York and the entire skyline for miles and miles. And there is no explanation for steel columns to be shot out of the buildings and embedded into other building that were blocks away. These events do not square with a "melted" building scenario (even if that were possible).

5. The fact that The Pentagon is the most secure building on the face of the planet, and there is no way a plane could just enter its airspace without immediately being shot down. Especially, after the other incidences had preceded it.

6. The fact that there was no visible airplane wreckage at the Pentagon building site and on the lawn (which was nearly pristine), and that the hole in the building was far too small for a commercial airliner to have passed through it (and disintegrated?).

7. The fact that Dick Cheney was operating simulated Defense War Games that morning, to redirect NORAD and the FAA -- neither of which performed their jobs and normal function on that day (and how could a "terrorist" arrange that?).

8. The behavior and reaction of George Bush, who was placed in a totally contrived "innocent" setting of reading to school children (is that the job function of U.S. Presidents?), and then took no action whatsoever as not one ... but two planes had attacked buildings. Yet he did nothing, until the full operation had been fully played out and executed (including the Pentagon attack).

9. The fact that from day two, the Bush Adminstration had drawn up plans for an unlawful, unprovoked Military destruction of Iraq .. which had nothing to do with what just had happened.

10. The fact that the BBC TV News made a broadcast announcing that "we are told that a 3rd building WTC-7 has also now fallen", but in the background of that film footage you can still see WTC-7 standing up, and not in any state of demolition. This is proof that the news media (and we're talking international news media as well as U.S.) was given a pre-planned script to read and broadcast to the public. Who could have arranged for this? A man in a cave, or The CIA?


Clearly, this was not the work of just 19 religious men (who liked stripped clubs?), and could not fly well ... with a few "boxcutters" ... and who were taking their orders from a old, sick man with bad kidneys from a far away cave in Afghanistan.

It is amazing that the American people can be so gullible, to ever believe such tripe.

All you need to know about 9/11

Highly recommend sharing these and saving for future reference.

It Wasn't Muslims


"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

The Santa Claus analagy

The Santa Claus analogy occurred to me a couple days ago out of the blue. How very strange to read this post today.