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.

What happened to the planes and everyone aboard them?

Sorry. Could'a sworn my cousin, who was on the Staten Island Ferry, witnessed the second plane crashing into the Twin Towers as the Ferry threw into reverse and returned across the harbor after the first attack. I ought to interview her again some time to make sure she saw the plane strike as she claimed back in 2001.

Anyway: What happened to the planes and everyone aboard them? The Pennsylvania crash is suspicious as, like with the others, there is no wreckage, just a black spot.

Even TWA 800 has had scraps recovered from the bottom of the Atlantic and reassembled into a tormented phantom image of what was once a plane.

Never saw a reconstuction of the PA plane that went down, or the pentagon plane.

Still, what about the phone calls from the passengers during the hijacking? They weren't all DOD people, were they?

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

ecorob's picture

Riddle me this...

EVERY walmart in America has AT LEAST 21 cameras rolling 24/7/365 on the front entrances. Don't believe me? Check it out. Its been that way ever since they opened.

Yet, the most heavily surveiled, most heavily defensed building in the WORLD can NOT produce a single video of a plane flying into it?

Did you see the video of the black girl who was there with her baby and hit the computer button just as the "missle/explosion" occurred? Listen to what she has to say. No plane, no bodies, no luggage, no jet fuel smell, no engines, NOTHING like a plane as she walked OUT of the building THROUGH the hole created by the explosion!

Just saw this video linked below. Thanks, constitutional.

NO VIDEO. Sandy Hoax? NO VIDEO. Aurora? NO VIDEO. Plenty of video of civilians ANY other time EXCEPT these times...hmmmmm?

False Flags, every one. Disinfo trolls can not stop this tide. It rolls like a tsunami. Lie all you want, trolls.

We will bury you with the truth.

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

Yeah April Gallop who says

Yeah April Gallop who says she saw no plane parts but sued American Airlines.

She also said she was in shock, it was very smoky, and she wasn't looking around for evidence.
I don't think it makes a difference either way, but I have a hard time believing her since she says she came out the hole. Why would you walk towards the explosion and fire and not the other way to get out? I mean show me where you think she walked out in these pictures:




Because she also says nothing was on fire, looks to me like she would have had to walk through fire or be sprayed by the firehoses putting out the fires.

This is a great comment.

Let's not look at the situation as a whole and just deal with small chunks at first. We can build a larger picture as we check these other items off the list.

So can somebody give a believable reason why it doesn't serve the public interest release a video that clearly shows a plane hitting the Pentagon? I've racked my brain and I can't think of one. The best I could do is that perhaps they don't want other terrorists seeing how to successfully crash a plane into the building but that sounds ridiculous when said aloud.

I have seen a youtube user video where the few frames that were made available were analyzed to best show how what was in the image may have been a plane but it took a lot of squinting and head-tilting to find much confidence in that. I certainly wouldn't say I was anywhere near believing it after seeing the damage to the building.

So let's hear it. Why does it serve the public not to see that plane crashing? I'm ready to be sold.

Same with Adam Lanza walking into the school entrance.

That event is pretty fresh so I will reserve judgement until they finalize their "investigation" but although I would agree that I don't need to see bloodied bodies, I do not see what is so harmful about seeing this weapon-laden skinny kid shoot his way into the front door.

If anything, this would help strengthen public opinion for gun control just because it shows the actual weapon in use. They don't use this video, not because it would cause trauma to the victim's families, but because it probably doesn't exist.

But again, we aren't over a decade out past that event so I'll reserve full judgement for later.

This Is


Jumbo jets had wings

last time I checked.... So a jumbo jet obviously didn't hit the pentagon since there were no marks from the 500 mph impact. Maybe a hologram was used one can purchase a holographic projection of a jet for 30,000 usd.

Highest Ranking Military Officer to Publicly Speak the Truth


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

Thought I'd share these since

Thought I'd share these since we are on the subject and the TS wants to put things to rest. This is for the Pentagon no-planers:





Do you people think truthers just believe videos?

And just haven't seen the "right" ones? It's laughable. Just be glad it's so hard to get fired from a government job because your office is full of incompetence. I'd request a transfer to a role that doesn't make me look like such a buffoon.

sharkhearted's picture


"Just be glad it's so hard to get fired from a government job because your office is full of incompetence."


Norfolk, VA

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

Well I think anyone who

Well I think anyone who believes that American Airlines flt 77 did not fly into the Pentagon on 9/11 has not done enough research or is simply refusing to acknowledge the facts for whatever reason. What are you saying? Did you watch the videos? How do you dismiss all those eyewitnesses? And the fact that not a single eyewitness say they saw anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon? And all the American Airlines plane parts found at the scene? And body parts from the passengers identified by dna? And the black box from AA flt 77?

I am not saying that about people who think the CIA or Mossad was involved with training and aiding the hijackers, or people who believe the WTC towers collapse may have been controlled demolition. Not truthers in general, just those who still hold that no plane hit the Pentagon.

Don't be like constitutional and just make personal attacks and completely avoid debating the issues, because that' a sure sign that you can't.

Let's talk about facts Mister B

Show me those eight foot jet engines made from chemical engineering, for the highest structural strength (ten times more structurally sound then the fuselage) that should have left a mark in the pentagon walls? Tell me why they couldn't even break a window traveling at those speeds?

Tell me why they covered a fuselage with a blue tarp as they carried it away on live TV. Is it because it was Willy Wonka's chocolate factory? If you have one grain of structural engineering in you, you would walk away right now.

TwelveOhOne's picture

You and Eric Hoffer seem similar

You said "I am not saying that about people who think the CIA or Mossad was involved with training and aiding the hijackers, or people who believe the WTC towers collapse may have been controlled demolition. Not truthers in general, just those who still hold that no plane hit the Pentagon."

You are taking the one specific item of "no plane hit the Pentagon" and are refuting it, ignoring (or giving pass to) all other items.

Similarly, Eric Hoffer is on a mission against "nano-thermite", and ignoring all other lines of inquiry.

I'm not calling anyone a paid shill, but this behavior is obvious to anyone who reads all the comments.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)


And while I respect MrBengal quite a bit and agree with his logic, I don't focus on the Pentagon as much... honestly, because I think the subset of truthers who think the Pentagon wasn't hit by planes is smaller than the number of truthers who think the Twin Towers were brought down by thermite or nano-thermite or explosives of another sort.

The way to bust a theory is to address each point logically. The way to put someone over on people, or to try and make something of an amorphous mass of conjecture is to continually shift topics on them and go, "but look at this coincidence here" not giving them enough time to work through any standing point. It works for shysters all over the world, just look at Bernie Madoff. Heck, look at the Fed!

When you examine each point with more than a cursory glance, that's when the conspiracy theories fall apart.

Similarly, Eric Hoffer is on a mission against "nano-thermite", and ignoring all other lines of inquiry.

Actually, if you've seen similar arguments I've been in here, dating back to 2007, you'll see that I've argued plenty against other theories, I'm just singling out this one because the OP suggested we "put things to rest" and then cited bogus studies. When the OP removes the bogus information, I'll move on to the next line of inquiry.

I feel like I've made my position on this fairly clear over the last, what 5-6 years? I believe the government at the highest levels could be complicit, or stood by and watched, or paid someone to do it, etc. However, I believe a more likely theory to be the one proposed by Ron Paul: Government bureaucracy and the cover your ass mentality got in the way of effective threat management, spurred on by blowback from our needless aggressive actions overseas. However, I'll DEFINITELY say that some people knew it was going to happen and covered their asses quick.

When we get to the physics of it though, that's where I have to draw the line, because the plausibility of thermiting up the whole building is less than that of a collapse due to impact from a plane and subsequent fires. Additionally, the evidence for thermite is based solely on conjecture and a botched "scientific" study published in a pay for play open publication, which has since been overturned by more complete science.

However, if you'd like to play the "I'm paid to be here" one, I can Google hangout with you and make the same arguments while I run my business.

I'm not calling anyone a paid shill, but this behavior is obvious to anyone who reads all the comments.

So then... you're calling me an unpaid shill? I mean, the implication is obviously insulting, no matter how you couch the accusation. However, it's fairly obvious that when you're beaten on logical footing or annoyed that someone would disagree with you on a cohesive basis, your only recourse is to attempt to cast aspersion on my motivations, while yours are obviously totally innocent.

Lets try reversing it: "There is a TON of money to be paid in peddling conspiracy theories, how much are you being paid to support this nonsense regarding the Harrit et al paper?"

Do you see why this line of inquiry is absurd and insulting in the context of a rational conversation?

Eric Hoffer

Let's talk relativity Eric, shall we?

"There is a TON of money to be paid in peddling conspiracy theories" Let me raise you a few trillion. Your logic seems to ignore the massive amounts of money that coincides with the profits of WAR!

So since you can't COMPREHEND this simple difference, how can I take you as a critical thinker at any level? You chastise reasonable theories to make your point, and yet you miss the big picture.

Tell me Eric, where is your motive? Clarify that and I might take you more serious.

Whatever lol. Just another

Whatever lol.

Just another person who has nothing, an empty comment with dumb personal claims about me. If you can refute me then do it.

I can show you a 3 hour film with nothing but interviews

And no one saw the plane hit anything. All the people who claimed to see a plane were associated with the DoD or the news media. I know your schtick brother. It's not a personal attack it's just reality. How long do you guys stay on one site? The whole office annoys me.

sharkhearted's picture

This comment made me fall off my chair.

"How long do you guys stay on one site? The whole office annoys me."

HAHAHA. Agreed 100%

Norfolk, VA

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

Let's see it. Show me one

Let's see it. Show me one video of an eyewitness that saw something other than a plane hit the Pentagon. Show me any evidence of anything other than a plane hitting the Pentagon.

You got nothing but personal attacks and opinions, no actual evidence whatsoever. If you could prove me wrong, why wouldn't you. You can't and you won't. And everyone who reads these comments will see that.

So down vote this all you want deniers, but none of you will produce a drop of real evidence to refute me.

What was the name of that

What was the name of that "eyewitness" shill reporter who said the wings folded backwards as it hit the pentagon as an explanation for why the hole was so small. Lol never let physics get in the way of a good story!



Even if you are crazy enough to believe this is a conspiracy that involved thousands of people including taxi drivers, construction workers, hotel workers, gas station workers, multiple news reporters, etc. You still don't have even one single eyewitness that say they saw something other than a plane hit the Pentagon. Not a one.

YO! Spook...

Your taxi driver confessed, WATCH THE VIDEO, I dare you!

NATIONAL SECURITY PENTAGON EYEWITNESSES. If you can't stand hanging with intelligent folks.... go away! we came here to be free of your ignorance and control.

sharkhearted's picture

I know. He confessed.

Way to call out the spook, for what he/she is.

Yeah...at the end of that video...the taxi driver admitted these three words for posterity:


Norfolk, VA

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

LOL, your photo is a bad

LOL, your photo is a bad joke. Must of been a helleva maneuver over the spools of wire. Also I found it Mike Walter USA Today reporter. The wings folded backwards LOL. As someone who has a degree in Aerospace Engineering I have no reservations about saying that is IMPOSSIBLE! So much for eyewitness accounts.


PS if you need further proof

PS if you need further proof consult with a 5 year old who has a balsa wood glider and have them fly it into a wall and see which direction the wings go.

Well when you or anyone else

Well when you or anyone else are ready to provide a drop of real evidence that something other than a plane hit the Pentagon, I'm here. The challenge is still out there and you fools have yet to show anything other than opinions to back your stance.

Show me even one eyewitness that says they saw something other than a plane hit the Pentagon.
Show any evidence of anything other than a plane found in the wreckage or at the scene.

And why do you have to focus on one guys account, how about all the others?

Many of us did...

Again and again and again.

I believe you are a computer program, mr Bungle. You no watchee videeos. You ask for evidence and we lay it out, then you say same thing, why? You go away now, big Tiger.

The "PentaCon"

films at PentaCon.com had a plane flying OVER THE PENTAGRAM as an explosion was setoff obfuscating the scam..Seems plausible, as there were none of the parts one would associate with a 767 laying anywhere around that hole in the Pentagram...perhaps the plane was rigged to launch a missile which made a small hole and disintegrated once it reached the C - D ring ( can't remember how far in it went before it destructed...

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

here you go .. for the fourth time