64 votes

The Top 40 Reasons To Doubt The Official Story Of 9/11

http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?

THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)

FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.

10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

Continued:
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Great links.

Lots of traffic today probably.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Bump for more discussion...

...be ready - the time is close...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

What

What about the Israeli special agents captured and released. #41

Oh, but that would be "anti

Oh, but that would be "anti Semitic" dont ya know. sigh.

You don't need 40

One reason... watch "All Wars Are Bankers Wars" by Michael Rivero

All the other reasons you mention are just sub-reasons of that one.

Although the reason that one is allowed to exist is because of the belief in "authority".. watch some larkenrose.com videos and you will see that you are the reason it ultimately occurred...

all wars are banker wars...

watch it here
http://www.dailypaul.com/278573/all-wars-are-bankers-wars-ex...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

...

"As early as 9/11 itself, the question of what happened was producing some bizarre accounts. It wasn't long before the Day of Days turned into the Tale of Tales." (pg.232)

John Farmer
Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission
As published in The Ground Truth
The Untold Story of America Under Attach on 9/11

Wow, are you saying the government and the MSM cannot

be trusted?

I'm shocked!

I like those images

Indicates (or rather proves) CGI or fake video. Definitely not caused by any fantasy energy weapon as this obvious shill claims.

Should also be found in 911 TV Archive (live news archive), but at a lower quality: http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/

What a surprise! Judy Wood's disinfo arrives! F-off! Bye byes!

Obviously threatened by many honest facts above.

Disinfo?

It is no surprise that every time Dr. Judy's name is mentioned, somebody has to mouth off as if they really know who the "disinfo agent" is. There is so much evidence beyond the "spire" that proves that the 911 movement is steered in a circle. You might want to really read her book. You also might want to check into Steven Jones' backround. By the way the steel spandrels also were pulverizing before they ht the ground. How do you explain the path of hurricane Erin and magnetic pole shift, barometric pressure , wind speed,all flatlining with the closest proximity of the hurricane, which was not even reported that day.
Explosive demolition theory only deals with one part of the issue, and not well. I would have backed you demo people one year ago; but your are talking out of your ass. Read the f**king book and get back to me.

Mikoni

[laughs]

“It is no surprise that every time Dr. Judy's name is mentioned, somebody has to mouth off as if they really know who the "disinfo agent" is. [...] You might want to really read her book.”

I have read several of her 100% purposefully nonsense claims - she's completely worthless. What I'd really like to do is punch her straight in her lying, disinfo face; not further waste my time and “read her book.”

“Read the f**king book and get back to me.”

Naw, kill yourself. Take Judy with you.

PS. Hilarious how you refer to her as “Dr. Judy,” as though her being a doctor somehow legitimizes her b u l l s h i t. Dr. Joseph Mengele was also a doctor (defend that b i t c h, I dare you.) You might fool retards but you won't fool me. I have been actively participating in, and researching 9/11 since Spring 2003 (since you might be too dumb to count, that's 10 years.) Judy Wood = D i s i n f o B i t c h. You = L i k e M i n d e d.

RPWins.. Thanks for your thoughtful , predictable remarks.

I am glad you are open minded to all that seek truth.

Mikoni

If someone has answered

the question of what caused the steel to pulverize, I must have missed it, too.

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

You meant "concrete," correct?

;)

No. The spire wasn't made of concrete.

The photo shows the spire--- Poof! pulverizing into dust. (It was captured on film from various angles.) Has anyone yet explained what could cause that?

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

You are right about the steel.

It wasn't hauled away, a lot of it never hit the ground. The concrete and much of the steel was not on the ground . If controlled demolition was the case you should still have a significant heap of chunks at the bottom. How did the 14 people walk out of stairwell B of WTC1 after the building of 500,000 tons came down on them? How did the basement levels under the site not get crushed? Oh shit there were 3000 toilets in each of the towers , no evidence of them, I am not shitting you.

Mikoni

LOL

"It wasn't hauled away, a lot of it never hit the ground. The concrete and much of the steel was not on the ground ."

You're either, a) A lying b i t c h, or b) Incompetently stupid.

You should look at a satellite image (14 mb, 9400x9400 pixels) of the WTC, from just after 9/11. See how much steel is visible (virtually all of it.) This is a zoomed out 1687x1687 capture from it:

http://www.harrold.org/rfhextra/images/wtce3c.jpg

I have the original 9400x9400 on my other computer. If I "have to," I will post it later.

Why are you so MEAN?

Nice picture; but 110 stories and 500,000 tons each tower flattened out pretty well. Are you Dr. Jones or Richard Gage? Or just offended by anyone who has a different opinion?

Mikoni

Fake video - an animation

Fake film and fake video is as old as film and video.

No, it doesn't.

In lesser-quality resolutions, what you're likely referring, the 'spire' does appear to disintegrate (not pulverize.) When viewed in better-quality, however, it's clearly obvious that it collapses.

The light weight dust ("coating" that core section) from the immediately-prior tower collapse, dissipates and partially obscures the visibility of it falling. But it does indeed fall. Look for better-quality versions; not the grainy, pixelated, misinfo.

Whether the 'spire' collapse was from other debris still collapsing near or at the base (impacting the 'spire' base,) or further demolition, I'm not sure. And the foreground buildings and dust obscure visibilty of that tower's base.

I see that the spire falls.

Or starts to, anyway. But there's something not right. To me, it looks as if either it turns to dust soon after it begins to fall; or, as it goes down, it somehow leaves a dust image of itself behind.

I do think that the photo of the spire as per the original comment is misleading, i.e., the four-picture grouping: the heights are different. Nonetheless, what I'm talking about can be seen in the third picture. It's still there in the fourth - when the spire (in any solid form) is no longer visible. It looks the same to me in this video clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDgsd3XD7FI

My initial reply regarded the spire. But yes, I also question how all that cement was pulverized - beginning so soon into the collapse and without slowing down the overall speed of the collapse. I'm not an engineer, but I've read why engineers have said it would be impossible. Forgetting even how soon it began to happen, it seems that *either* the cement floors could have been pulverized into dust or the building could have collapsed as quickly as it did, but not both - at least not without the infusion of some additional energy source into the circumstance.

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

Watch in 1080, at 50 seconds.

The 'spire' collapses; it doesn't disintegrate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQcnWwnkuA

PS. I am not going to type a lengthy reply to your other comment about Judy Wood, why she is a disinfo agent, what benefit or motive she would have, etc. She is 100% a paid disinformation agent.

Let me start by saying, I'm

Let me start by saying, I'm glad that our dialogue thus far has been civil. I know that, to certain users of this website (whether they're “trolls,” very misinformed or just incompetently stupid) I am sometimes very combative, and usually rightly so. See my other comments in this thread to user 'mikoni'. So I'm happy to have this casual back 'n forth with you.

“Or starts to, anyway. But there's something not right. To me, it looks as if either it turns to dust soon after it begins to fall; or, as it goes down, it somehow leaves a dust image of itself behind.”

Yes, I agree. But I think the answer is quite simple. It has to do with time. The dust is light weight; whereas the steel weighs tens of thousands of pounds. In many, repeated viewings of the 'spire' collapse, I have concluded that the steel falls out of sight in less than two seconds.

Also, the tip of the 'spire' is thin, so obviously it's not going to visually represent as any significantly visible and noticable collapsation. It happens in less than two seconds and as I mentioned previously, is partially obscured.

I guarantee that the 'spire' doesn't disintegrate during collapse, it just collapses out of sight so quickly it has the appearance of “disintegrating” mid-air. Watch it a few dozen more times lol.

“But yes, I also question how all that cement was pulverized - beginning so soon into the collapse and without slowing down the overall speed of the collapse. I'm not an engineer, but I've read why engineers have said it would be impossible.”

The speed of the collapses, from the “official story” reason, is completely impossible. It's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the official story reason is demonstrably, logically and laws-of-physics wise, completely false and fraudulent. Purposefully. It's obvious the towers' collapes were demolitions.

It could either be called 'controlled demolition' or 'assisted demolition.' You probably haven't heard the phrase 'assisted demolition' before, because as far as I know, I'm the only person who has been saying it. I believe the towers' demolitions weren't entirely controlled from start to finish, they were instead significantly "assisted."

“Forgetting even how soon it began to happen, it seems that *either* the cement floors could have been pulverized into dust or the building could have collapsed as quickly as it did, but not both - at least not without the infusion of some additional energy source into the circumstance.”

Yes - and I'm not saying you agreed with the liars - but it's important to not confuse incendiary devices and/or other explosive devices in the towers, with the purposeful disinfo that liars (such as Judy Wood) propagate, things like “it was laser weapons from space” or 'exotic weapons.' The latter are 100% purposeful disinformation. Hence my combative tone toward users 'EthanNL' and 'mikoni.'

I still don't know why

you accuse Dr. Woods of being some sort of disinformation agent. What would have been her motivation? It seems to me that for what she put out there she was mostly mocked by peers. The woman does have relevant professional expertise. It seems normal to me that, as the case with others in related fields, the pictures and official story didn't make sense to her. And so she developed a hypothesis. That's what scientists do! Just because it might seem wacky to some isn't reason in itself to assume she had some malicious intent or ulterior motive.

I'm not defending her because I think her theory is right. I wouldn't know. It would seem to me that the consensus among engineers is that it was a controlled (or assisted) demolition. And that would be damning enough! But *could* there be some sort of exotic weaponry out there that the public might not be aware of? It seems to me within the realm of possibility. How long was there a denial of the government being involved with sophisticated methods of weather modification (including for use against an enemy), only later admitted? And btw, this included the "wacky" idea, apparently put forth first by Russia, of shooting particles into the stratosphere, i.e., what might be described as potential "weapons from space." (I think there was some sort of treaty to end that possible scenario.)

And if so, if there *were* some sort of secret weaponry (maybe ours but not necessarily), *could* it have been used on 9-11, alone or perhaps in combination with other, more traditional, means of collapsing a skyscraper? As far as I'm concerned, that would remain within the realm of possibility.

Maybe by this time, with so many anomalies concerning 9-11, and with different theories as to how and by whom it could have been accomplished - theories, debunking of theories, and debunking of the debunkings - there is, um, just a bit of a *trust* issue? You accuse others, but maybe *you* are the disinformation agent insisting it was a matter of conventional technology! :)

Okay, here's why I will defend Dr. Woods. Whether she's smarter than everyone, totally out of her mind, or some plant, she *was* among those publicly speaking against the official story and posting information and questions for the world to see. Initially, based on some panel discussion I'd heard on C-Span, I didn't come away with a high opinion of "truthers." One angry guy seemed like a rabid anti-American. I more or less dismissed the idea. And I had my own concerns at the time (our failed education system). Looking into 9-11 wasn't a priority for me.

As it turned out, I have since joined those questioning the official story, and that's thanks to (a while ago) my coming across some post of Dr. Wood's. I went to her website and read every word - most of it over my head, although I did try to understand, going off on all sorts of tangents in the process. Well, I'm sure you know how it works on the internet, how one thing leads to another and you can find yourself swiftly falling down the rabbit hole. Btw, if you haven't seen it, I recommend Nick Begich's tutorial on HAARP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b-gA9qq3o

So for the issues she raised to explain why the official story could not be valid, for helping to spread awareness, I, for one, am grateful. As to her idea of what did happen, well, if all the questions she's raised that she believes could only be explained by some exotic free-energy technology actually have more mundane explanations, then good! It narrows things down.

Lastly, I do have another question, one that JW raised. How could that cloud that came spewing out of the towers horizontally and rolled down the streets (what looked like a volcanic ash cloud) melt doorhandles, the gaskets on windshields, and rubber tires yet leave papers and other more perishable materials intact - including, one would the think, the clothes, if not skin, of those who were caught in it? And you're correct. I'm *not* agreeing with Wood's explanation. I'm quite satisfied to go with the "simpler explanation" if there is one.

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

Thanks for your open minded and fair outlook.

I have been very afraid to mention Judy Wood for obvious reasons if you have seen other posts here. Judy does not say how exactly the deed was done on the WTC, but shows her observations and calculations and all kinds of things that the theory of controlled demolition does not address. She is trying to prove the evidence of the use of directed energy technology used as a weapon. She is not a fraud and needs to be defended here. Her field of expertise is in moire interferometry, ( Optical measurement of stresses on materials). She has invented tools to measure interferences related to frequencies that affect may types of materials. She is more qualified in the analysis of photographic evidence available than most scientists. She also takes a step by step analysis at an applied physics angle to show her calculations and observations. She and another scientist, Morgan Renolds, are the only ones to pursue a Qui Tam lawsuit, request for correction, and scientific fraud case against NIST in about 2007. Her book "Where Did the Towers Go" is a fascinating read. I begins with the speed of collapse calculations and seismic data and those comparisons to known other controlled demos. She goes into other evidence and documented personal accounts of EMT and Fire Rescue personel; but then other evidence such as transmutation of materials, levels of tritium found , damage to vehicles at ground level even no where near the WTC. Explanation of field effects , the Hutchinson effect,
hurricane Erin's B line for NYC and hovering there during the events.
Proof of shift of magnetic north during the events on 911 from satelite and magnetometer stations.
These are only the highlights...... Does this sound like someone who is trying to NOT find the truth.
I have been reamed for defending this research by those who are so closed minded and have a know it all attitude; but only talk about the demolition aspect. Judy Wood has at least exposed other evidence related to that day and the Entire WTC complex. One year ago I might have agreed with those others; but I couldn't be as vicious.

Mikoni

Re 911 and Dr. Judy Wood

I hadn't thought about Judy Wood in a long time. But noticing the reply to EthanNL's comment, I was curious what image he'd posted that could have caused such an extreme reaction. As it turned out, I had also questioned what had happened to that "spire."

After my dialogue there with RonPaulWins2012, I've now gone back to JW's website. I watched the posted presentation she gave last year. (It was similar in content to the book you described.) I found it compelling. http://vimeo.com/57923364 She raised issues that seem not to be explainable by the demolitions theory. And she countered some of the claims by some in that camp.

I've also now read a critique by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth of Judy Wood/Directed Energy having been used. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae...
In JW's presentation, she'd responded to some of their criticisms. But I also thought they did explain (from a demolitions perspective) at least some of what she said couldn't be. Though not all.

For one, I don't buy their explanation that drops of molten iron could have caused those "toasted cars." I don't think they came close to explaining that highly unusual phenomenon (no matter where the cars had been parked at the time). And I don't recall them addressing at all, for one, the seismic data that would appear to be incompatible with events if as much debris hit the ground as they claim. And as you mentioned, she raised issues concerning other WTC buildings, buildings I wasn't even aware until now had been destroyed. But I don't think she's adequately accounted for the loud explosions that were heard. So there's questions either way.

I'm no expert, but I don't think there is a strong enough argument to yet rule out the possibility of something having been involved more than (only) what is used in conventional demolitions. I'd love to see a bona fide debate between AE911T and JW - point by point - going down her long list. But what I find really unfortunate is that both sides DO AGREE that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THE WAY WE'VE BEEN TOLD. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE. Too bad with the strength of conviction they both have on that point, they can't be UNITED in an effort to have a new investigation.

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

911 debates and egos ...

Before I read into JW's material/book, I thought it had to be a clear case of controlled demolition at the WTC site. I was telling everyone who would listen about Dr. Jones' study of thermitics in the dust, Richard Gage's presentations, Engineers speak out, etc. I forwarded this stuff all the time. I did think it would have been quite a project to rig that demolition, though. Upon learning other evidence and things that don't add up, I realized how wrong I was.
Some people get so defensive, stating how long they have been studying 911 and figure they will run with it to the death; and will defend it with pretty nasty insults. I chimed in just to defend EthanNL's post of a JW link. I was a little critical also, having seen JW ridicule repeated over and over. There is a book, 9/11 Finding the Truth, by Andrew Johnson, which is a history of the "soap opera" and internal politics of the "Scholars for 911 truth". JW and A Johnson were members. There is definitely manipulations against JW. It goes back to the science of LENR,low energy nuclear reactions, and Pons and Fliechman. Steven Jones was involved in that technology, and coined the term "cold fusion". He jokes about the technology now but he was in competition with Pons and F then.
Jones and others in the 911 TM have connections with Los Alamos and LL Laboratories and DEWs. Others like Robert Bowman, who was director of the "Star Wars" program, are very involved in the truth movement. I don't know what the deal is with Dr Greg Jenkins,;but his interview with JW has manipulation written all over it.
As for a debate between the factions of the 911TM, I am for it, but will the egos allow it?
Maybe both sides are right... Planes? hide the real method of destruction. Explosive charges and thermitics create the audio and visual witness evidence. That way the Truth movement goes nowhere because the conflict detracts from the real cause, possibly, free energy technology.
Thanks for the great links. I had seen them previous. I will try not to go into the politics of this in the future, and approach the subject without stirring up trouble. We should be united.

Mikoni

Re 911, yes, maybe both sides are right.

That's really where I'm coming out. I, too, have heard some insist that they've looked into things extensively and are sure it's a demolition where thermite was involved, also those ("Tesla people") who've eagerly assumed JW is right. But, it makes sense to me that more than one method might have been used. That *would* explain how there could be both certain phenomena that each hypothesis could NOT explain; and certain phenomena that only one or the other COULD.

And yes, the plane crashes could have been a ruse to distract from the real method of destruction. They also would have provided another objective: to get people evacuated. About 3,000 died anyway. But imagine if the *50,000 people* who worked at the World Trade Center had all perished. Americans might not have been so complacent re how the matter was treated afterwards, especially with 15-20X the number of relatives of the deceased demanding answers.

Looking again at JW's website and related articles, I came across a reference to a documentary, "9/11: THE SENSIBLE DOUBT," a Danish documentary. It made me sad to see how they view us. It's true, what one engineer said re getting a new investigation, "If you fight you might lose, if you don't you've already lost." The challenge, though, is expressed well by the Tolstoy quote the film ends on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Qq3...

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