24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked

advertisement - learn more

9/11 has been one of the biggest events in recent history that sparked a mass awakening across the world. There has been much debate as to how it happened, who is responsible and why. To this day about 1/3 of americans do not believe the official story. In other areas of the world as much as 90% of the country does not believe the official story.

Here is a list of 24 facts that cannot be debunked about 9/11.

1) Nano Thermite was found in the dust at Ground Zero. Peer reviewed in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. ‘Niels Harrit’, ‘Thermite Bentham’, “The great thermate debate” Jon Cole, ‘Iron rich spheres’ Steven Jones, ‘Limited Metallurgical Examination (FEMA C-13, Appendix C-6)’. ‘Nano Tubes’

2) 1700+ Engineers and Architects support a real independent 9/11 investigation. Richard Gage, Founder. ‘Explosive Evidence’, ‘Blueprint for Truth’, ‘AE911′, ‘Toronto Hearings’, ‘Kevin Ryan’.

3) The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′.

4) Dick Cheney was in command of NORAD on 9/11 while running war games. ‘Stand down order’. “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?”. Norman Minetta testimony. “Gave order to shootdown Flight 93.”, ‘NORAD Drills’.

5) 6 out of the 10 Commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission report was “Setup to fail” Co-Chairs Hamilton and Kean, “It was a 30 year conspiracy”, “The whitehouse has played cover up”, ‘Max Cleland resigned’, ‘John Farmer’.

6) FBI confiscated 84/85 Videos from the Pentagon. ‘Moussaoui trial’ revealed these videos. Released Pentagon Security Camera (FOIA) does not show a 757 and is clearly Missing a frame. ‘Sheraton Hotel’, “Double tree’, ‘Citgo”.

7) Osama Bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” CIA created, trained and funded “Al Qaeda/Taliban” during the Mujahideen. OBL was a CIA asset named ‘Tim Osman’. OBL Reported dead in Dec 2001 (FOX).

8)100’s of Firefighters and witness testimony to BOMBS/EXPLOSIONS ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report. 9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses. “Explosions in the lobby and sub levels”, ‘Firefighter explosions’, ‘Barry Jennings’, ‘William Rodriguez’.

9) 100’s of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN METAL ignored by the Commission report. “Like you’re in a foundry”, “NIST’s John Gross denies the existence of Molten Metal”, ‘Swiss Cheese’, “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Leslie Robertson’.

10) ‘5 Dancing Israeli’s’ arrested in ‘Mossad Truck Bombs’ on 9/11 that stated “We were there to document the event.” ‘Urban Moving Systems’ front company, ‘Dominic Suter’. “$498,750 Business loan (June 2001)”. “Officer DeCarlo’, ‘Art Students’, ‘Israeli Spying’.

11) On September 10th, 2001. Rumsfeld reported $2.3 TRILLION missing from the Pentagon. ‘Dov Zakheim’ Pentagon Comptroller. Former VP of ‘Systems Planning Corporation’ (Flight Termination System). Signatore of PNAC document.

12) 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials question the official story. ‘9/11 Whistleblowers’, ‘Patriots for 9/11′. ‘Robert Bowman’, ‘Sibel Edmonds’, ‘Albert Stubblebine’, ‘Wesley Clark’, ‘Mark Dayton’, ‘Alan Sabrosky’, ‘Cyntha McKinney’, ‘Jesse Ventura’, ‘Kurt Sonnenfeld’. “patriotsquestion911.com”

13) Towers were built to withstand a Boeing jet(s). “I designed it for a 707 to hit it”, Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer. “Could probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners”, “like a pencil puncturing screen netting” Frank De Martini, deceased Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management. “As far as a plane knocking a building over, that would not happen.” Charlie Thornton, Structural Engineer.

14) History of American False Flag attacks. ‘USS Liberty’, ‘Gulf of Tonkin’, ‘Operation Northwoods’, ‘OKC Bombing (Murrah Building)’, ‘1993 WTC attacks’. ‘Patrick Clawson’. Project for the New American Century (PNAC) needed “a New Pearl Harbor”, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. 9/11 Achieved those goals.

15) BBC correspondent Jane Standley reported the collapse of WTC 7 (Soloman Brothers building) 20 minutes before it happened. CNN/FOX/MSNBC also had early reports. ‘BBC wtc 7′, ‘Jane Standley’, Ashleigh Banfield’.

16) “Flight 93″ debris was spread out over many miles. Cheney admits to giving the order to shootdown 93. “shot down the plane over Pennsylvania” Rumsfeld, “nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there” ‘Chris Konicki. “Not a drop of blood” Coroner Wallace Miller. “there was no plane.” Mayor Ernie Stull.

17) Bush hesitated for 441 days before starting the 911 Commission. ‘Jersey Girls’. ‘Phil Zelikow’ already wrote the outline before the commission began. Steel shipped over seas. Obstruction of justice. JFK and Pearl Harbor commissions were started within 7 days.

18) The 911 commission was given extremely limited funds. $15 million was given to investigate 9/11. (Over $60 Million was spent investigating Clintons’ affairs with Monica).

19) Bush said he watched the first plane crash into the North tower on TV before entering the classroom. “The TV was obviously on.” Was informed about the second impact while reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to the children. Remained for at least 8 more minutes while America was under “attack”.

20) The PATRIOT ACT was written before 9/11. Signed into law October 26th, 2001.

21) Marvin Bush was director of Stratasec (Securacom, ‘KuAm’) which was in charge of security of the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. All three were breached on 9/11. ICTS was another company that provided security at the airports. ‘Wirt Walker’, ‘Ezra Harel’, ‘ICTS”, ‘WTC power downs’.

22) “Who killed John O’Neil?”. Former FBI task force agent investigating Al Qaeda/Bin Laden. Transferred by Kroll Corporation to head the security just before 9/11. John O’Neil died in the Towers. ‘Jerome Hauer’ ‘Jules Kroll’.

23) Insider trading based upon foreknowledge. ‘Put Options.’ Never identified insiders made millions. ‘United and American Airlines’ ‘Raytheon.’

24) At least 7 of the 19 listed hijackers are still alive (BBC). No video footage of 19 hijackers or passengers boarding the 4 planes. Pilots of the 4 planes never squawked the hijacking code. ‘Alive hijackers’, ‘ACARS’, ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’.

WTC 7 (The Smoking Gun)


Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, it would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states in the United States. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001 in 6.5 Seconds at free fall acceleration. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.

Share this around http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Nrour7NZM&list=UUhJCg0zwLzZpqgug-N6DnIQ&index=1

Credit to https://www.facebook.com/kendoc911 and this awesome group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204686781/ for putting together the list.

Watch "The Truth About Cancer" Docu-Series Free

While we all throw around the term “Cancer” loosely, do we really know what it is and what it means?

Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades and the promise of a cure which is forever “just around the corner,” cancer continues to increase?

The Truth About Cancer is a powerful docu-series that goes through powerful research behind cancer, treatment and new information that we all should know.

Watch the free series here.

advertisement - learn more

More From 'Alternative News'

CE provides a space for free thinkers to explore and discuss new, alternative information and ideas. The goal? Question everything, think differently, spread love and live a joy filled life.

  1. Dean C

    ….The comment I made regarding “cognitive infiltration” was censored. Anyone who reads this internet site is advantaged to research Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. Those two people wrote a paper (“Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures”, 2008) describing “tactics” the government could employ to “break up” clusters of conspiracists. The method most favored by them was “cognitive diversity” that was provided by government agents and/or “friends of government” (omitted definite article).
    …..This internet site satisfies the criteria for this objective because it appeals to the conspiracy theorists at the superficial level. And it then leads them off into a non-productive investment of time. *(For example, Superclass Zionists perpetrated the 9/11 Inside Job, they continuously perpetrate the cover-up of that conspiracy, and they are now perpetrating the disinformation/misinformation program as part of that cover-up. Given this is the Truth, then the best internet site to help people learn the truth would be the internet site that provides empirical facts: pictures, videos, and a clearly produced analysis.) What does this internet site do regarding the “24 facts”?
    Criterion-1: Providing watered-down facts, weak facts, false-facts, and superfluous facts doesn’t help people learn the Truth. (check)
    Criterion-2: Providing those watered-down facts facilitates sock-puppets (Christ J or ‘anyone’) opportunities to ‘refute’ them. (check)
    Criterion-3: Cherry-picking comments facilitates sock-puppets’ fallacious ‘responses’, such as a Strawman fallacy, False Dilemma fallacy, and more. (check, Christ J)
    Criterion-4: Censoring comments facilitates directing the comment-section’s dialogue and direction, which then facilitates the overall objective of “cognitive diversity”. (check)
    Criterion-5: Promoting unsubstantiated or weak explanations (such as the Direct Energy Weapons (DEW) theory by Judy Wood, the No Plane Theory by Ace Baker, the Radical Islamics with Box-cutters theory by the government, the Red-Orange Molten Metal was Aluminum because of “furniture” theory by the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) and more) facilitates “cognitive diversity” (no check, yet)
    Conclusion: This internet site could be used as an example of disinformation/misinformation.
    ….You, the reader will be advantaged to research an review David Chandler’s YouTube videos, Jonathan Cole’s videos, videos of known controlled demolitions, videos of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-2 being demolished, videos of molten metals, videos and pictures of buildings that have experienced massive fires and remained standing, and more.
    ….The principle thrust of this comment is to further remind people of the Truth and provide this site’s operator the opportunity to censor more comments. Because censoring information is a very useful tool for deceivers, censoring information is employed by people who deceive.
    …..Every rational empiricist who investigates the 9/11 Attack concludes (after observing WTC-7’s collapse compared with >30 examples of known-imploded buildings) that WTC-7 was imploded. ‘Imploded’ buildings are pre-meditated. It’s this simple. Sock-puppets and “cognitive infiltrators” can produce an infinite amount of fallacious arguments and explanations (sometimes, ridiculously fallacious). But the empirical facts remain. That’s the facts, baby. And those facts infer (inductively, deductively, and abductively) today the same conclusion they inferred in 2006 and the same conclusion they will infer in 2026: Superclass Zionists perpetrated the 9/11 Inside Job.
    …..You, the reader, can also research and compare two papers on nanothermite:
    (1) Truthers; “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, by Harrit et. al. in 2009(?)
    (2) Sock-puppet: “Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC”, by James Millette in 2012(?)
    …..If you make a check-list of their respective scientific tests of the “red/gray chips”, then you will discover that those two groups (Truthers and a Sock-puppet) didn’t perform the same tests. Why?
    The Truthers performed a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) test (430 degrees celsius) to measure the exothermic spike (released energy) to then deduce the stored energy. They also used a high powered micro-scope (Back-Scatterning Electron (BSE)?)to look at and also photograph the nano-sized particles of aluminum. They also broke the chips open instead of trying to cut it open to prevent contaminants from entering the sample.
    “This 50,000X magnification REM/BSE image of a red/gray chip reveals uniform nano-sized faceted iron oxide (here whitish) and thin aluminum platelets embedded in a carbon-oxygen-silicon matrix.” (Harrit et. al., page ?) You can look for and at it yourself Christ J. (I don’t know what “REM” is an acronym for.)
    P1: Every clownfish is orange and white.
    P2: Nemo is a clownfish.
    C: Nemo is orange and white.
    (Christ J, you can reflect on this riddle: Who’s orange and white all over and brings knowledge lower an’ lower?
    (A) a clown in a car; (B) a clown in a bar; or (C) a clown that’s gone too far?
    If knowledge is justified belief, and college is expensive and brief, then why is Cambridge makin’ a thief?)
    The Sock-puppet (Millette) performed an Ashing test (400 degrees celsius) because it affects the nano-sized particles of aluminum in the “red/gray chips”, didn’t perform the DSC test because he’d see the spike and then need to cherry-pick (dismiss) it or explain it (which is impossible), and didn’t even try to photograph the nano-sized particles of aluminum. Millette also used a “diamond knife” to cut the chips, which introduces contaminants into the sample.
    ….. From Millett’s failure to duplicate Harrit et. al.’s (apostrophe?) test, one deduces Millette is either necessarily stupid (unable to read or understand the initial test procedures used by Harrit et. al.) or he is necessarily malovolent (unwilling to duplicate the test because such duplicated tests will confirm the initial reaction, analysis, and conclusion: the “Red/Gray Chips” contain nano-sized particles of aluminum, which means they are nanothermite, which means they were researched and developed by America’s Industrial-Military-Complex (IMC), which will, one day in the future, be overtly, not covertly, turned upon its apathetic, stupid, and pacifistic inhabitants.
    …..So what does this leave us with? Truth. Christ J is most probably the alias for a Compartmentalized Zionist Infrastructure Unit (CZIU). There are many types of CZIUs: enforcers, sock-puppets, positers, expostiers, puppets, puppet-masters, and so on. Christ J’s operator is probably associated with this internet site. I deduce this based on the previous comment being censored, which would have been performed by ‘Joe Martino’. And anyone will deduce such a conclusion regarding censorship of ‘facts’.
    …..Regarding facts, I could also talk about how it’s a fact that mixing blue with red makes purple. So what? I could also talk about profanity, nudity, homosexuality, sexuality, abortion, God, gods, metaphysics, physics, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Goldman Sacs, the FED, financial instruments, no-bid at-cost-plus contracts for Haliburton-KBR, Put-Call Stock-Market insider information trades by a company ran by a CIA officer who resigned a few weeks or months after 9/11, bone-chips from fire-fighters on the roof of a building adjacent to the WTC-Complex, gold found in trucks in the WTC-Complex’s basement, (place your distraction here …), and more. Which of these facts are useful if you want to produce an internet site that claims to make “24 Facts” regarding the 9/11 Inside Job?

    • Christ J

      ““This 50,000X magnification REM/BSE image of a red/gray chip reveals uniform nano-sized faceted iron oxide (here whitish) and thin aluminum platelets embedded in a carbon-oxygen-silicon matrix.” (Harrit et. al., page ?) You can look for and at it yourself Christ J.”

      – As for your above attempt at a sardonic attack, I invite you to consider the graph in fig. 30 of the Harrit fraud. I then invite you to note that his third and fourth samples contain energy in GREATER amounts than it is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for thermitic materials to contain. Got that?

      Good. Now I invite you to ruminate on the fact that Harrit et al have – for well over FIVE YEARS now – systematically refused to release ANY of their samples for verification, have made fictitious claims about additional data which they have never presented, and – most importantly – refused to perform a very simple additional analysis. Allow me to explain this latter point:

      The Harrit fraud contains several analyses of the energy content of the samples he carefully selected, but they are NEVER subjected to the most important test. Thermitic materials contain their own oxidizing agent, so they burn even when there is no atmospheric oxygen at all. All Harrit and his cadre of liars would have had to do is test these samples under an inert atmosphere and they would have determined whether their observed reactions were due to either the organic matrix, or the ferric material itself. Ever chemistry lab in the world has a few bottles of nitrogen on hand, and may of them – mine included – have several other inert gases. We have a little argon set aside – mainly for occasional titanium welding, which is rather cool (it involves a laser). Harrit even mentions that he is incapable of pinpointing the actual source of the energy in those samples, yet he never bothers to perform this simplest of verifications.

      Here is my conjecture. Harrit et al DID test them under an inert atmosphere, but they did not react. This means their samples were NOT thermitic, and the reaction was due entirely to the organic matrix. This is supported by the fact that it has proven impossible to cajole Harrit into doing this monumentally easy procedure himself, or releasing a couple of samples to allow an objective lab to do it under double-blind conditions. There is only a single viable reason for his evasion, and that is that he already knows his samples will not ignite under an inert atmosphere.

      Harrit is a fraud and a liar.

      “From Millett’s failure to duplicate Harrit et. al.’s (apostrophe?) test, one deduces Millette is either necessarily stupid (unable to read or understand the initial test procedures used by Harrit et. al.) or he is necessarily malovolent (unwilling to duplicate the test because such duplicated tests will confirm the initial reaction, analysis, and conclusion”

      – no, it’s the THIRD option: Millette couldn’t replicate the results because he did his testing PROPERLY, whereas Harrit et al doctored their data. Why else has he so consistently refused to send his samples anonymously for verification? Better yet is the fact that all the data needed to prove that Harrit is the fraud here is present in his own damn paper. His own test results conclusively prove that his samples cannot have been thermitic, so why are you too terrified to read it?

      “Christ J is most probably the alias for a Compartmentalized Zionist Infrastructure Unit (CZIU). ”

      – there we go. Out comes the racism.

      You have avoided ANY of the point I have made which have soundly refuted every single claim you have and are now reduced to repeatedly insisting that you are right in the face of all the evidence.

      I’m right and you’re wrong, and – crucially – I have proven it.

  2. keepbangin'on

    The author claims: “7) Osama Bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks.

    If not why was he hiding in the caves of Torah Bora instead of strolling the streets of Paris? Not only was he wanted, he was wanted dead or alive by two different presidents and the US congress. Congress put a $50M bounty on his head and the Airline Pilot association chipped in $2M, and Clint Eastwood would do it for the movie rights.

    Googling OBL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

    “Bin Laden became the 456th person listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, when he was added on June 7, 1999, following his indictment along with others for capital crimes in the 1998 embassy attacks. Attempts at assassination and requests for the extradition of bin Laden from the Taliban of Afghanistan were met with failure prior to the bombing of Afghanistan in October 2001.[157] In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton convinced the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to force the Taliban to extradite him.[158]

    Years later, on October 10, 2001, bin Laden appeared as well on the initial list of the top 22 FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, which was released to the public by the President of the United States George W. Bush, in direct response to the September 11 attacks, but which was again based on the indictment for the 1998 embassy attack. Bin Laden was among a group of thirteen fugitive terrorists wanted on that latter list for questioning about the 1998 embassy bombings. Bin Laden remains the only fugitive ever to be listed on both FBI fugitive lists.

    Despite the multiple indictments listed above and multiple requests, the Taliban refused to extradite Osama bin Laden. They did however offer to try him before an Islamic court if evidence of Osama bin Laden’s involvement in the September 11 attacks was provided. It was not until eight days after the bombing of Afghanistan began in October 2001 that the Taliban finally did offer to turn over Osama bin Laden to a third-party country for trial in return for the United States ending the bombing. This offer was rejected by President Bush stating that this was no longer negotiable, with Bush responding “there’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”[159]

    End quote. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

    While it’s true that OBL might not have been wanted for the 911 attacks per se, he was wanted by the FBI for other well developed charges. As the song says “I hate him, I’ll think of a reason later.’ Indeed, Bill Clinton already stapled up wanted, dead or alive posters in 1998, so Bush was just taking care of old business.

    Capturing Osama bin Laden had been an objective of the United States government since the presidency of Bill Clinton.[161] Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA (and specifically their elite Special Activities Division) to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized.[162] On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden’s training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours.[163] In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d’état;[163] in 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one in which bin Laden was riding.[162]

    Immediately after the September 11 attacks, U.S. government officials named bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization as the prime suspects and offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to his capture or death.[20][164] On July 13, 2007, the Senate voted to double the reward to $50 million though the amount was never changed.[165] The Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association offered an additional $2 million reward.[166] (ibid)

  3. keepbangin'on

    Christ j: I stumbled across this blog a few days ago and spent hours reading. I must say I’m impressed with your analytical skills, stamping out ignorance one ignoramus at a time. Perhaps equally useful is your ability to stay on topic: Many here go woo-gathering early and often, and I’m not immune, chasing meaningless butterflies.

    I’m interested in why you use momentum vs kinetic energy for your analysis of the WTC aircraft impacts. Ironically, I’ve done as you in a similar discussion about flight 93, but used kinetic energy for my argument. (17 march 15 entry) http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/10/08/over-2200-architects-engineers-crush-the-official-911-commission-report/

    Which is more appropriate, momentum vs kinetic, or do they lead to the same thing? I read scalar vs vector quantity discussions and still drool badly just thinking about it, so thought I’d ask.

    I used Ke only because I’m familiar with it. I learned to teach energy management in flight school where we set potential and kinetic energy equations equal to each other, genuflect then fly to demonstrate we didn’t have a clue. Add that someone is always breaking things down with a vector analysis, so I do what I know, comparing potential to kinetic energy. converting from one to the other. and maintaining energy reserves. I know just enough math and physics to be dangerous, but there are no smoking holes in my name. The bromide “never run out of airspeed, altitude and ideas at the same time” sums it up for gliders and trainers known for their fuel to noise ratios. “Massive amounts of thrust fix all mistakes’ work for those so blessed.

    I could never be a conspiracy theorist; conspiracy theorists believe in government competence.

    P.S.: to get the √ symbol, It is apparently application and font specific. If you have a numeric keypad, try ALT + 251 (note, no preceding zero). I can’t get it to work on the standard laptop keyboard, so I cut and paste these oddballs into a scratchpad. Or google, copy and paste.

    Did you know windows keyboards have six levels of unhappiness? Me neither, but here’s a guy who claims you can program it into your PC. I have not tried it. If you do and your keyboard catches fire don’t yell at me. http://fsymbols.com/keyboard/windows/layouts/

    • Christ J

      “I’m interested in why you use momentum vs kinetic energy for your analysis of the WTC aircraft impacts”

      – it’s easier for other, uneducated, people to follow. Momentum being a product of the mass of an object multiplied by its velocity is a very simple concept to grasp, whereas having to explain why 0.5 appears in a formula is extremely tricky when the person demanding the explanation has no prior training in the relevant subject.

      Furthermore, anyone who then takes this as a starting point in order to better understand the relevant physics then has an idea of the amount of force available to the planes. This then means they will have an easier time of it if they decide to determine how much force was expended on the perimeter walls, thus calculating the amount of time it would likely take for the aircraft to emerge from the far side – which can then be compared to the footage.

      Unsurprisingly, I have never encountered any “truth”er willing to try to make the effort to learn these things…

      “Which is more appropriate, momentum vs kinetic, or do they lead to the same thing? ”

      – as I said, it depends on the experience/intelligence of your intended target. I think momentum is the easier concept to grasp, but I don’t really have anything other than a subjective reason for that opinion.

      ” I read scalar vs vector quantity discussions and still drool badly just thinking about it,”

      – a scalar analysis would simply tell you which of two opposing forces would win out, whereas the directional components present in a vector-based analysis would tell you EXACTLY what happened when they met. Scalar analyses are simply the scorecards at the end of the fight, whereas vector analyses are the video footage of all 12 rounds.

      “I could never be a conspiracy theorist; conspiracy theorists believe in government competence.”

      – tell me about it. It’s astonishing that anyone can be so blind as to miss the squabbling rabble of below-average-intelligence, expensively-educated, spoilt scumbags we have collectively elected. Even the academic literature is filled with petty arguments and mud-slinging.

      They see things like the X-Files and automatically assume it is based in reality. In truth, most governments couldn’t organize an empty drawer without them resorting to whatever rich-boy witticisms they had people prepare in advance for them.

  4. Dean C

    Where’s the comment I made about Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermuele writing “Conspiracy Theories” that advocated “cognitive infiltration” to break up conspiracy theories with “cognitive diversity”, of which this site’s “weak sauce” 9/11 facts support ‘refutation’ by the site’s sock-puppet Christ J?

    • Christ J

      Well, if you think you can conjure up some valid, objective facts that support a conspiracy over any alternative explanation, then feel free to present them. Otherwise, I’ll just assume your attempt at an ad hominem attack is your way of soothing your ego after people like me have systematically destroyed every last vestige of your fabricated beliefs.

  5. Reg Fields

    No people died,No planes were used anywhere,at NYC they were added on by video production experts,.they towers exploded/blew out, no planes we’re ever there.lies and more lies, crisis actors using buzz words from their scripts. It was the best performance on TV.

    • No-planes lunatics are the bottom of the twoofer barrel. The hijacked planes were tracked from takeoff to crash on primary radar. Remains of their passengers and crews were found at the crash site. The crash UA 175 was seen by thousands of people. Phone calls from the planes describe hijackings in progress.

      Delusions are no substitute for reality.

  6. Thomas

    You dont need to be a scientist to see the dark powers at hand , maybe the american people will wake from there slumber , war after war , arms factories, and puppet governments bought to power from billionaires with there own interests, 911 was one the saddest days in the history of mankind, you have lost all credibility as country, land of the free my arse, please look into yourselves as what is ruling your nation.

  7. Christ J

    But when it all comes down to the facts, the truth is that nobody can say for sure exactly what happened. None of us KNOW.

    Am I right? Am I wrong? Maybe so, maybe not. But one thing for sure is that we are all entitled too our own opinion based off our own perception.

    • Christ J

      Would you like to explain why you’re trying to use my username? Are you trying to ape your intellectual superior in an ill-advised attempt to besmirch my character? You do realise that my previous comments will remain here, don’t you? You realise that my thorough and irrefutable decimation of every single “truth”er claim here will not vanish just because someone like you tries to slander me, don’t you?

      Your cult is evidently a haven for lying cowards like you.

      ” the truth is that nobody can say for sure exactly what happened”

      – yes, we can. Newtonian physics tell us precisely what happened in the collapses, and they are beyond dispute. “Truth”ers are wrong, and that’s all there is to it.

  8. hudson lewis

    here is the one thing that i dont understand, if you could clear this up that would be great. Three passenger jet planes dissintegrate on impact on the same day. ive looked it up, albeit brief, but there are examples of this happening, rare though they are, but three on one morning? and all three were hijacked planes? by the same group of people? just a thought and like i say, i would love to here this cleared up, Especially by christ j.

    • Christ J

      Look at it this way: is it REALLY that difficult to believe considering the stress placed upon each of them? After all, every plane that has ever crashed “disintegrated”, so this is evidently something that is guaranteed to happen when a plane crashes into something. Hell, quite a few vehicles can disintegrate WITHOUT actually crashing into anything, like the Challenger shuttle.

      Think about it: these planes each collided with something that had a substantial amount of inherent strength. While this inherent strength was insufficient to stop the plane in its tracks – so to speak – it was all that was needed to deform it beyond recognition. What you are asking people to explain is what Newton predicted would happen in such circumstances. A far more unbelievable prospect is the idea that the planes should have escaped such pacts with very little damage.

      Let’s start from the beginning with the hijackings. If there was a possibility of on of these hijacking succeeding then there as a similar possibility of ALL of them succeeding, as they took advantage of the exact same security flaws and procedural failings. Next up, if it was possible for one of these hijackers to hit his target then there is a comparable possibility that they would ALL do so, cause their targets are comparable in size and their planes comparable in every possible way. Furthermore, these people had very similar training and experience, meaning that they also had comparable skill levels. A of them were sufficiently well-trained to have become qualified pilots.

      Finally, now that we have established that the possibility of each of these planes reaching and hitting their target is perfectly feasible, what are the odds of one of these planes being destroyed by the impact trauma? Pretty high, I would suggest, considering the momentum and resistances involved. Then, as these are all comparable impact scenarios, we must conclude that the outcomes will also be similar, so we are forced to conclude that the same fate is all-but-certain to befall all of the planes.

      Your incredulity stems from a misapplication of statistics. When you account for the relevant factors – such as the intended flight paths, the physics involved in the impact, etc. – these three successful attacks are not mysterious. They are the necessary consequence of the known causal factors.

      • nich

        plane disintegrates , passport survives, logic(Y)

        • Christ J

          So, you’re saying that the passport and the rest of the plane experienced IDENTICAL circumstances, are you? Because that’s the only way you can compare them in the way you just did.

          Let me refute that ahead of time: By the time the passport encountered the outer edge of the WTC the plane had already torn the structure away, resulting in the passport experiencing no resistance to entry whatsoever. Then the passport was ejected from the far side, whereas the bulk of the plane had to burn for an hour and then get pummelled by >300,000 tonnes of falling steel and concrete., While this was happening, the passport was sitting on the road 300m below, experiencing no such physical phenomena.

          Notice how your incredulity evaporates when you factor in the relevant details? That shows that your initial implications were wilfully misrepresentative.

          • former marine

            There is so much evidence to prove that what we seen on tv was a cartoon, an illusion. You have to do some homework to really understand what occurred that day. An aluminum plane cannot cut steel like butter. Go look at the periodic table, big difference in aluminum and steel. Furthermore steel buildings are made 5 times stronger than actually necessary. You are going to me an airplane made of aluminum can cut a building 5 times stronger than the design of an airplane? What about the audio tape of all the fireman reporting explosions in the buildings? What about the molten medal for almost 3 months seen by the firemen and other first responders? What about the fact the people were obliterated into pieces? They were blown up by explosives, the building was loaded with nanothermite, the forensic evidence proves the thermite will cut steel like butter!

          • Christ J

            You sound like precisely the kind of mindless, obedient simpleton that people love to have in their platoon. I think the technical term for you is “human shield”.

            However, such an ad hominem attack is unnecessary, as I can embarrass you far more with plenty of simple facts that prove you wrong, so let’s get started…

            “An aluminum plane cannot cut steel like butter.”

            – a plane made of ANYTHING could have had that exact effect provided it had the same mass as a 767 200-ER. That is a fact, and you have no valid argument against it. Anything travelling at 223m/sec with a mass of ~120 tonnes WILL penetrate the side of the building as those planes did. Fact.

            Numbers don’t lie, sunshine – “truth”ers do. The towers were capable of resisting about 12% of the incoming force, and that’s it. The rest of the planes’ momentum pushed it straight through the glass and steel because there was – at that point – no impedance left.

            Come back when you know what p = mV means.

            “Go look at the periodic table, big difference in aluminum and steel. ”

            – steel is not an element, and thus does not appear on the periodic table of elements. While you’re learning some basic physics you should also ask about some basic chemistry.

            “Furthermore steel buildings are made 5 times stronger than actually necessary”

            – what a load of crap. This is an entirely arbitrary number you have just made up. You have no evidence for such an assertion, and – hilariously – it also makes no difference, as flight 175 possessed more than EIGHT times the amount of force required to penetrate the tower.

            You are refuted.

            ” What about the audio tape of all the fireman reporting explosions in the buildings?”

            – what about all those people who insisted that the sun crashed down from the sky in Portugal:


            – do you believe THEM too? No, you don’t, which makes you a hypocrite as well.

            I accept those accounts for what they are: instances of people assigning an unverified cause to an UNIDENTIFIED noise. You clearly wish they were explosions, so you have refused to properly analyse them. You are actively trying to delude yourself.

            ” What about the molten medal for almost 3 months seen by the firemen and other first responders”

            – it never existed, which is why you will now fail to find a single verified source which provides OBJECTIVE evidence for such a material. All you have are a few out-of-context anecdotes from many people WHO WERE NEVER THERE. I have only ever heard such an account from ONE person who actually visited the site, along with plenty of people who describe things which are physically impossible to have been liquid (molten). For example, several explicitly reported seeing “molten steel beams”. Sound convincing? Well, think about this: what is a “beam”? Is a “beam” a solid object? If so, then it is physically impossible for ANYTHING to be both “molten” and a “beam”, isn’t it?

            Any such account is internally inconsistent, and is thus unreliable by default until PROVEN otherwise by objective sources.

            ” What about the fact the people were obliterated into pieces?”

            – wow! You’re telling me that victims left no significant remains after being caught up in the collapse of two >300,000-tonne, 420m-high heaps of steel and concrete? How could this possible be…?


            ” What about the fact the people were obliterated into pieces?”

            – physically impossible. Thermitic materials burn in seconds, whereas the bowing which VISIBLY initiated the collapses was photographed over half an hour prior to collapse initiation, meaning that whatever caused the collapses had to act over at least that amount of time. Thermitic materials fall short of this by orders of magnitude.

            You are disproven.

            ” the forensic evidence proves the thermite will cut steel like butter!”

            – actually, forensic analysis of the dust produced in the collapses proves that it is physically impossible for thermitic materials to have been present. The truly hilarious thing is that this was demonstrated by a handful of liars/”truth”ers who were trying to fraudulently fabricate evidence for your above assertions.

            You are wrong, and they are wrong, and that is beyond dispute.

      • Disciple M

        Christ J, I got to say I am thoroughly impressed!

        I’ve read through several of your previously comments, and they are nothing short of art. The way you call out bullshit, deconstruct every “argument” and responds with cold unbiased facts and logic is a beauty rarely seen on the internet.
        I found your comments much more informative than the above article, and I appreciate you taking the time to write them. Which must have taken the patience of a saint, might I add. Seeing how so many seem unable to reflect on your answers, nor try to educate themselves. It’s clear to me that you know your stuff, and its immensely satisfying seeing you put these “tin-foil-hats” in their place.

        Just thought you should know that your work is appreciated, if not by the ones you respond to. Much respect and admitration.

        • Christ J

          Disciple M:

          No worries. People like me do things like this because – every once in a while – someone will actually check up on what we post. They will read these comments thoroughly and then look into things like “ground effect”, or Raoult’s Law, or simple Newtonian momentum for themselves, inevitably finding out that I am posting nothing but fact.

          Obviously, the overwhelming majority of people who visit these pages are seeking only to further entrench themselves in their religious fanaticism, but these people are so pitiful as to be ignored, as they are far too cowardly to ever act out their disgusting fantasies of presumed guilt-by-association on those they wish had perpetrated these acts. In fact, this may be a significant part of their reasoning – such as it is: they know that no “truth”er is sufficiently courageous as to act on their claims, which makes them assume that no Muslim would ever do so either. Throw in a plethora of psychological biases and we have a very simple explanation for the cult of the “truth”er…

          However, the handful of people who end up here with sufficient integrity to verify these comments for themselves will have learned plenty of simple physical principles, and will also have likely equipped themselves with the tools needed to properly scrutinize other aspects of these events, such as the claims concerning “molten steel” or “explosions”. In fact, I recommend that you follow up on a handful of these things yourself: what sources are there for such assertions? What sources SHOULD there be for such assertions? Are the extant sources verified?

          It says everything about the “truth”er cause that nobody is willing to actually engage in scientific discussion with me. I’m content to let people draw their own conclusions from their evasion.

          And, no – I’m really not that patient. However, I do type rather quickly and I don’t sleep much, which probably looks similar to everyone else.

        • Do you share a basement with Christo, or maybe are one and the same, since ‘he’ needs positive reinforcement for all the bunk he tries to sell. Here’s a funny and very short video for you conspiracy theorists who are trying to sell a theory abandoned by it’s creators.


          If that doesn’t cut into your thoughts, read this brief summary of what the actual ‘Commissioners’ said about their own report;

          In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version… is almost entirely untrue…

          The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

          Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities’ School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

          Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

          Farmer states…“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened… I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

          The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say… “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . ” When Bush’s own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

          9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, “No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again.”

          With the only “official” 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure.

          In 2006, The Washington Post reported…”Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission…”

          And add in that now that the FBI has admitted they don’t now, nor ever did have a bit of evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with it (which the attack on Afghanistan, planned for months before), and Afghans assurance they’d hand him over if the U.S., in keeping with international law, gave them a warrant and some proof (which Bush refused) I myself don’t know or care exactly how they did it, I have a rule when fishing out the lies of our criminal government. If there’s video cameras and they refuse to show them, that means they’re lying. It’s that simple. And no, despite what your TV ‘thought’ for you, there never was a video ‘confession’ from Bin Laden and the couple of bad frames from the dozens of cameras at the Pentagon don’t cut it either. It’s really that simple. And I guess your ‘thinking’ TV channel never mentioned the dozens and dozens of whistle blowers and foreign leaders who told you it’s all a big lie either, eh? It only proves to me that Gruber was right, and the ‘program’ that the CIAs been at for decades is now complete.

          “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” And that comes directly from the mouth of the CIA director, Bill Casey, in 1981. And makes just another stooge out of you and Christ boy.

          • constitutionalist

            • We know that the government is complicit in covering up the facts about 9/11. That tells us the government doesn’t want us to know the truth, but it doesn’t tell us who did 9/11, or how it was set up.

            • We also know that our government USED 9/11 as if it were a false flag operation, to justify illegal invasions of foreign countries. That still doesn’t tell us who did 9/11.

            • Was 9/11 an attack by a foreign enemy (corporate or military) that had our defenses so paralyzed we effectively had no defense. If so, it was the greatest financial heist in history. $2.3 trillion spirited out of Pentagon coffers. Missing gold from the vault below WTC 4. Destruction of financial records of the Enron debacle (WTC 7) and other scandals. How could such a thing happen? Simple. Use software back doors into the FAA, NORAD, Pentagon accounting systems, and advanced weaponry control systems. These back doors could be used to transfer funds abroad, put multiple false images in the radar screens, and control the weaponry that destroyed the WTC. Look at the company that developed the software and sold it to the government agencies. Look at the corporations who were contracted to develop advanced weapons systems (directed energy systems). Unfortunately, back doors can be erased or deleted without a trace, so there may not exist a way to trace the criminals.

            • Was 9/11 done by elements of our intelligence apparatus (CIA and/or military) controlled by Neo-cons whose goal was to arrange for more nations to be brought into their global monetary system. If so, that were somewhat successful, because Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya were not participating, and now are.

          • Disciple M


            That was indeed a funny and intriguing video, with a few aspects I haven’t look that much into, so thank you for that.
            Myself, beeing a norwegian, have never really had that good of a grasp on the inner workings of the American Government, nor the bureaucratic aftermath of 9/11. I will, however, check out this John Farmer guy, and if he seems like a well balanced guy I’ll give the book read and see “other side” of the story. Again thank you for the recommendation, much appreciated.

            (I’m assuming you belive 9/11 was a false flag operation, if thats not the case ignore the below)

            A thing thats bothering me about the false flag theories is that hijacking planes, crashing them into potentially rigged buildings and making them collaspse is too complicated. There are too many variables, too many people involved and essentially too much which potentially could be traced back to you or straight up fail.

            If I were to orchestrate a false flag operation, I would guess not beeing linked to the incident would be pretty high on my “to-do-list”. So why not keep it simple?
            You could create the same amount of public and international outrage with a couple of well placed bombs and a basic understanding of civil engineering; with considerable lesser risk of having it traced back to you.

            What I’m trying to ask is; why would one risk going for the “Rube Goldber machine” of false flag operations when you could achive the same in sevaral “safer” ways?

            That part doesn’t make sense to me. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

      • Im new to this site and in many ways its like alot of others but with one really great exemption. Every thread that has a discussion on aspects of 9/11 have a very informed member absolutely crushing all so called ”conspiracy theorists” comments or questions which is rare cause most arguments in this matter can be broken down to a couple monkeys throwing feces at one another.

        As for the thread itself alot of it has already been debunked As christ j can attest to. So points 7,11,14,16,17 could hold some merit maybe but there is alot of other information out there that needs to be put to rest in my mind.

        But what of these apparent experts on these threads? Christ j seems very educated and has plenty of evidence to make a documentary of his own to put most of these people in their place. Why not start a whole thead with evidence that most these ”conspiracy theorists” are uneducated ignorant sheep just following their cult of truthers? He apparently has time to do either by the amount he has invested in this thread alone.

        And I do apologize for the attack on a fellow member just for posting mostly facts and applaud him for helping me not have to hear certain drivel that comes out of certain threads like this one. But at the same time cant help but think of certain agencies set up by cass sunstein where one is hired to dilute the whole by reafirming the part.

        By no means is the 9/11 dibocl cut and dry but before we start hurling feces try to remember no one ever learns by being cut down and treated in a condescending manner usually it just strengthens their resolve.

        • Christ J

          “Christ j seems very educated and has plenty of evidence to make a documentary of his own to put most of these people in their place. Why not start a whole thead with evidence that most these ”conspiracy theorists” are uneducated ignorant sheep just following their cult of truthers? He apparently has time to do either by the amount he has invested in this thread alone.”

          – because I have more important things to do than repeat the exact same facts incessantly to people who refuse to accept them. I only return here when I get email notifications, and that only happens because I found this page a few years ago.

          “Truth”ers post demonstrable falsehoods, so I take a moment out of my workday to annihilate their claims. I type quickly, and research even faster, so these refutations take a few minutes apiece. These delusional fantasists are worth less than that, but the few who start to check up on my sources and references will quickly find that I am completely correct. THEY are the ones people like me post here for.

          As for the man who claims to be “Pilot”, allow me a moment to demonstrate my excellent capacity for analytical thought. This may hurt, but since you’re the kind of coward who says things like ” I probably won’t be back to read your reply” you’re evidently the kind of person who always has to have his fellow liars think he is merely absent, rather than devoid of a valid response.

          “For you to state that all planes that coach “disintegrate” is simply ludicrous.”

          – if something “disintegrates” it means it breaks up into smaller pieces. Technically, something that breaks into two equal halves can be described as “disintegrating”. In fact, I explicitly used this term in order to highlight this misrepresentation of the term to the OP, so your deliberate attempt to take it out of context will be accepted as evidence of your inherent dishonesty.

          ” Have you never seen a single plane crash in your lifetime”

          – nope, but I have worked on several RTAs as a SOCO, making my opinion vocationally and educationally justified by virtue of the fact that I have been educated to perform such analyses and have a working knowledge of the relevant procedures involved.

          What’s the matter – weren’t expecting me to be better-qualified at this than you? Well, tough.

          “An aircraft will never “disintegrate” on impact to the point of being unrecognizable as you boldly claim. ”

          – I made no such claim. I would not make such a claim because I know that 95% of flight 93 was recovered, as well as close to 50% of flight 77. I also know that some of flights 11 and 175 were recovered, although their exposure to the forces inherent to the collapse of a pair of >300,000-tonne buildings rather decreases the chances of recovering any debris, don’t you think…?

          ” me arguing against your (lack of) “logic” will only strengthen your own beliefs in your own mind”

          – HA! You don’t have a valid argument, which is why you are not only refusing to provide one while simultaneously claiming to have one, but also trying to misrepresent my actual statements and drag them so far out of context as to make your assertions illegal.

          I know I’m right because I have been taught the relevant scientific principles by people who know them, to the extent that I am now one of their number too. You know nothing but what lies you have allowed to squeeze out the last of your integrity in order to soothe your ego.

          “When you’re the only one with the different opinion in a crowded room…[snip]”

          – it makes no difference when I am the doctor on a psychiatric ward. In that instance I am the lone voice of sanity and reason. What a delightfully apt analogy that turned out to be in this den of lying “truth”ers…

          Feel free to try to refute me. Explain – in detail – how you think a plane is supposed to survive the impact forces, the resultant fires AND the resultant collapses.

          Your impending silence will speak volumes…

      • Pilot

        I’ve read through nearly all the comments here, but I don’t need to debate past just your most recent comment.

        For you to state that all planes that coach “disintegrate” is simply ludicrous. Have you never seen a single plane crash in your lifetime, yet consider yourself some kind of expert? An aircraft will never “disintegrate” on impact to the point of being unrecognizable as you boldly claim. Where does the nearly 1 million lbs of material go? Is it made of fairy dust?

        For you to base your entire debate on lies shows how little you actually know. The theories you use to back up your claims you misunderstand. Unfortunately me arguing against your (lack of) “logic” will only strengthen your own beliefs in your own mind, that statement is something that holds more scientific proof than these “facts” you’re trying to convince everyone of.

        I understand that you’re likely a sociopath or have some other condition and feel a strong connection to this 9-11 topic. I feel for you.

        When you’re the only one with the different opinion in a crowded room, there’s something to be said for taking into consideration the fact that maybe you’re the one who is wrong. I probably won’t be back to read your reply, and I think a comment below said it best: “your too far gone”

        • Christ J

          “When you’re the only one with the different opinion in a crowded room, there’s something to be said for taking into consideration the fact that maybe you’re the one who is wrong.”

          – not when I’m the only one with any evidence, sunshine. When I’m the only one who can prove himself correct – as I have done all over these pages – my word is simply beyond refute. I have debunked every last one of your fellow liars with nothing more than old-fashioned scientific analysis and raw data. You are wrong, and that’s all there is to it.

          “For you to state that all planes that coach “disintegrate” is simply ludicrous. ”

          – “disintegrate” means “break into two or more pieces”. IN this respect I am correct in the usage of the term as YOU cited it. However, this was not how I actually used it. I used the word in order to highlight this triviality in response to someone who was trying to use it in order to claim that the planes somehow vaporized upon impact – which nobody has ever actually claimed.

          For you to leap upon this so gleefully is testament to your innate dishonesty. You are thoroughly incapable of having any scientific integrity.

          “Where does the nearly 1 million lbs of material go”

          – well, rather a lot of it was actually recovered, so as well as blatant misrepresentation we can add delusional fantasism to your ever-growing repertoire of mental defects.

          You know nothing.

    • realist2015

      As someone who has interviewed scores of witnesses and victims’ relatives, and who still suffers the trauma of 9/11, this post is absurd and insulting.

  9. chutneyton

    I like how there’s a hardcore denier here insulting everyone. As deniers do, he tries to narrow the debate to little details, pretending as if proving one wrong proves the whole story wrong. The only way someone can watch wtc7 and believe fire did that, is pure denial, likely brought about by the ego; its too embarrassing for some to admit they are wrong.
    Thats why they come to sites like this and vehemently attack truthers, the most hostile deniers are generally older generations or people involved in Iraq/ME.
    I like how he obfuscates the entire list down to the towers, what about everything else?
    Whistleblowers, lets hear you deny that. And document govt lies, lets see you deny that.
    Lastly, are you arrogant enough to call the 911 Family Steering committee a bunch of cult conspiracy theorists?

    • CJ

      I like how this site agreed that I debunked #16, yet it is still on the list.

      • Christ J

        CJ, that’s par for the course with “truth”ers. They just ignore anything that refutes them, then go on to the next argument as if they were never proven wrong. It’s, technically speaking, a mental illness.

    • Christ J

      “The only way someone can watch wtc7 and believe fire did that, is pure denial, likely brought about by the ego; its too embarrassing for some to admit they are wrong.”

      – which is why you are trying to launch an ad hominem attack on me. You are utterly incapable of discussing the relevant science, because you don’t know anything about it, so you instead try to impugn my character. There is a very good reason this kind of argument is ubiquitously deemed a logical fallacy, you know…

      So, how about it, sunshine? How about you try to refute ANY of the points I have made in these comments? What do you have to lose? As things stand, I have debunked everything that you pathological liars have claimed, so your current assertions lie in ruins. You have NOTHING to lose by trying to address my rebuttals other than to prove to YOURSELF that you have no valid case. That is what you are terrified of, as being forced to accept that you are wrong is something that your ego will not allow you to do.

      “I like how he obfuscates the entire list down to the towers, what about everything else?”

      – wrong. I have decimated everything anyone has posted here. All you have to do to find it is click to reveal the rest of the older comments. I have used the same username, so just hit CTRL+F and type my name. Problem solved. In fact, one of my earlier posts consisted of me rattling through the first few points in this article in order, before their incessant inaccuracy rendered such thorough refutations unnecessary. Once the points have proven to be ubiquitously incorrect the veracity of the remaining points is automatically suspect. If a defendant lies about everything but then demands to be taken at his word he would rightly be rejected. Same with this article. As soon as any source tries to claim that WTC 7 took <7 seconds to collapse it is instantly rendered invalid. A stopwatch is not a difficult thing to use…

      "Whistleblowers, lets hear you deny that. "

      – deny what? Name one of them that has any credibility? Or one that presents some VERIFIABLE data? Do you know what I would do if I was the person they are CLAIMING to be? I would gather some objective evidence and present THAT to the media, not just make up some crap and hope that sycophantic morons gulp down everything I spurt at them.

      "And document govt lies, lets see you deny that."

      – guilt-by-association is invalid. Next.

      "Lastly, are you arrogant enough to call the 911 Family Steering committee a bunch of cult conspiracy theorists?"

      – why would I? They are not the ones trying to distort Newtonian physics to get their propaganda heard, are they? They had legitimate questions concerning the security lapses which allowed the planes to be taken, and they had somewhat legitimate grounds for questioning the objectivity of the Commission itself. However, this is not what is being discussed on these pages. What IS being claimed is that the WTC collapses were not the result of impact damage and fire, and that is simply false. If, perchance, and members of the FSC are also advocates of the views proffered by people like you then yes – they ARE cultists.

      Clear? Good. Now let's see if you can refute a single one of my points concerning the WTC collapses, or the Pentagon impact.

      • TimH

        I am not a scientist, I do however have thirty years of experience in construction, including structural steel and heavy construction. With that said. I still to this day have many questions concerning 9/11.
        Just for a moment though, let’s set aside the science.
        I could spend the next two days providing you links showing hard fact and events that discredit the official government story. However, this is all well known and counter-productive to waste your time and mine.
        I have worked with many engineers and architects over the years, and even the most respected and intelligent treated difference of opinion with respect.
        I think it is safe to say that no matter what I say, you will surely insult my intelligence with your phrases like “owned”, “try again”, etc…… .
        No matter how the towers fell, there is a lot more to the tragic day of 9/11.
        I will tell you and others like you – If you are sold on your science, then look to documented evidence prior to that day, and then tell me why you are so opposed to an independent investigation. At the end of the day all of us have a 50/50 chance of being right or being wrong.

        • Christ J

          “I am not a scientist, I do however have thirty years of experience in construction, including structural steel and heavy construction.”

          – so do industrial plasters, but that sure as hell doesn’t mean they know anything about momentum, does it?

          “I could spend the next two days providing you links showing hard fact and events that discredit the official government story.”

          – no, you can’t. Which is why you won’t. And, on top of which, there is no such things as an “official government story”. There is what the science says and nothing else. The science says that the WTC buildings collapsed because of impact damage and fires: end of argument.

          “let’s set aside the science.”

          (raises eyebrow)

          “tell me why you are so opposed to an independent investigation.”

          – you already have one. You just don’t like the inevitable conclusions.

          Let’s clarify this: the NIST is directly affiliated with the US government. However, this des NOT render its reports biased. Every one of their data points is independently verifiable, and none have ever found to be in error. Not a single one. This is crucial.

          Now, the reports these data points were collated for use said data in order to determine the most likely collapse sequences of the three relevant buildings. In this, hey are successful, as no-one has ever managed to present a scientific refutation of any of these reports. Go on, try to find something. See if you can find a single source from a peer-reviewed physics journal. You won’. Oh, certainly there are people who CIM that these reports are in error, but they make these claims in documentaries funded by “truth”ers. They do this because their target audience is not scientists, but the kind of people who have no idea how scientific methodology works.

          The reason they are so careful to avoid any discussion in a scientific forum s because they will immediately lose their main source of income. There is a single viable conclusion to be drawn from the verifiable, indisputable data points compiled by the NIST, and this is that the building collapses are the result of impact damage and fire. None of your cherished sources will ever discuss this scientifically because they are terrified of this simple fact.

          “I have worked with many engineers and architects over the years, and even the most respected and intelligent treated difference of opinion with respect.”

          – difference of opinion I am tolerant of What I refuse to put up with is people lying to promote this crap. This is a religious cult which is based entirely on obfuscation, misrepresentation and outright fabrication. Nothing more.

          Why the hell should I show people who endorse this any respect? Do YOU respect Klansmen?

      • Wallace

        I’ve read about 10 of your comments on here, and none of them are as strong as you like to believe. You make claims about how newtonian physics proves what you are saying, yet you do not post any quantifiable equations to back up such claims. When someone stops replying to you, that doesn’t mean you’ve won an argument. That can be a sign that they think you are too far gone to bother with.

        • Pgkeen

          Lol! You asked for it. Tha guy is going to send you pages of bs and insult you and call you princess and explain that it’s very common for planes to vaporize and buildings to fall into there own footprint because of a fire. He’s quite amusing and has a formula that will surely make you a believer of the 9/11 Commision. Cheers.

          • Christ J

            ” explain that it’s very common for planes to vaporize”

            – but it isn’t, and they didn’t, so this is a straw man argument. Not a very promising start, young lady…

            “and buildings to fall into there own footprint ”

            – so you’re saying that WTC 7 was located WITHIN the footprint of WTC1, are you? Because this image:


            – proves, beyond ANY dispute, that WTC 1 pelted WTC 7 with steel and concrete.

            You are refuted.

            ” He…has a formula ”

            – no, Newton has a formula -well, FORMULAE, to be precise – I merely used them too prove your religion wrong.

            How does that taste?

        • Christ J

          “You make claims about how newtonian physics proves what you are saying, yet you do not post any quantifiable equations to back up such claims”

          – I he spent quite a bit of time providing the exact equations in several different previous posts. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “older comments” tab and you can find them there. Hit CTRL+F and type in my name – it has remained the same – and you’ll soon find them. Alternatively, type in “p = mV” instead d it should take you to a few examples of my calculations concerning either the impacts of the planes or the upper section as it falls onto the rest of the building.

          “When someone stops replying to you, that doesn’t mean you’ve won an argument. That can be a sign that they think you are too far gone to bother with.”

          – I don’t care what they think, as they are demonstrating that they have no valid opinion in the fist place. All that matters is that anyone who scrolls through these comment sections finds concise Newtonian data that proves them flat-out wrong.

          Job done.

      • This is just a game to you? I don’t disagree with your arguments but it is clear for all to see you are what the Scots call a ‘bawbag’!

        • Christ J

          Around a dozen comments in this thread, Kev., so try making it clear who you’re replying to.

  10. I would just like to plug what I consider far and away the best documentary on 9/11 coverup….called Sept 11th, The New Pearl Harbor. IT is 5 hours long, in 3 parts and is very professional and footnoted. Find it on You Tube.

  11. jeff

    Forgot about how the owner of the towers got insurance that just so happened to cover terrorist attacks, like a month before 9-11.

    • Christ J

      Sure, him getting a payout of about $4bn from damage amounting to over $7bn is CLEAR evidence of a fraud, isn’t it? After all, those figures clearly show how much he benefitted, don’t they…?

    • Jean-Luc Picard

      I thought it was actually like a day before…

      • CJ

        Silverstein signed a least on the WTC complex on July 24, 2001. Further, it only makes sense to have it insured against terror attacks, as it had been previously attacked and was under continued threat.

        • constitutionalist

          Silverstein was a shrewd businessman. No one has presented evidence that he was becoming demented. Would a shrewd businessman sign a lease that required him to foot the billion dollar cost of asbestos remediation for the towers, a known and (seemingly) unavoidable requirement born by the Port Authority, but shifted to Silverstein by the lease. It seemed a very strange business practice, but, as we note, he did avoid that cost and received a many-fold return on his investment.

          • Christ J

            Nice work, Connie – you may well have just refuted your own argument:

            “Silverstein was a shrewd businessman”

            – his insurance payout from these attacks was a little over $4bn, whereas the attacks COST him upwards of $7bn. Doesn’t sound like a very “shrewd” conspiracy now, does it, princess…?

            You’re someone who is trying to frame someone for these attacks just because you happen to dislike the race he was born into. You are repulsive. At least you’ve given up on lying about the science of these attacks in favour of showing what you REALLY want to believe.

          • constitutionalist

            I have retracted none of my review of the facts of what happened in Manhattan on 9/11. I have not tried to frame anyone. I asked a simple question, which you have not answered.

          • ChristJ

            Your comment contains no question-mark, so you have NOT asked a question at all. Couple this with the fact that these pages are riddled with me refuting everything you have uttered and your delusion sounds rather ingrained, doesn’t it? (now THAT was a question, albeit a rhetorical one).

            You my not have stated that you have retracted your religious tenets, but your newfound refusal to address ANY of the science involved after being brutally destroyed by myself and a few others shows how dishonest you are in your dogmatic adherence to a long-disproven worldview. You are no different to a flat-earther, although at least TH aren’t trying to frame people they don’t like for events that were not their doing.

            Perhaps you can address the (somewhat rhetorical) question that I asked last time, princess…

            ““Silverstein was a shrewd businessman”

            – his insurance payout from these attacks was a little over $4bn, whereas the attacks COST him upwards of $7bn. Doesn’t sound like a very “shrewd” conspiracy now, does it, princess…?”

            – want to address this little inconsistency with your claims? Nah, didn’t think so. After all, you CAN’T, so you probably have no intention of revealing your inability to square this fact with your claims, do you?

            Owned. Again.

          • Incorrigible Curmedgeon

            Connie said: “Would a shrewd businessman sign a lease that required him to foot the billion dollar cost of asbestos remediation for the towers, a known and (seemingly) unavoidable requirement born by the Port Authority, but shifted to Silverstein by the lease.”

            Well, what’s your answer?

            Do you have a reference?

            After the initial rush to remove asbestos from schools and the crushing cost, the EPA agreed that removal released more fibers/M^3 than entrainment in place with glues, paint etc. EPA guidance (the pink and purple books) has been to do as little as possible. Spray cans of carpet adhesive replace million dollar abatement companies. Despite the option, school boards still hang themselves, wasting millions to ‘save the children’ from unseen demons. if one googles ‘asbestos abatement gone bad’ I get 42,000 hits. Here’s one: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/22/nyregion/school-district-in-chaos-over-asbestos-removal.html

            If Silverstein discounted the lease price $1B below appraisal for pending maintenance, he was whole. If they later agreed it was unnecessary then he enjoyed a $1B windfall, and it was just a negotiating gambit. Smart guy.

  12. Will Small

    Spend a hour checking some evidence:

    The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy: 9/11 Mounting Evidence

    Or a great 5 hour examination:

  13. Quantum Flux

    No one seems to remember this but I do because I use to do cost estimates for an architectural firm and it caught my eye. Months before 9/11 I remember reading about a cost estimate to have the asbestos removed from the federal buildings and I remember that they said it would cost less money to demolish the buildings and start over from scratch than to pay to have the asbestos removed. See I also know from dealing with federal codes that according to federal law any public building that contains asbestos has to have it removed prior to any new construction or remodeling, this includes painting. So they could not do any upgrades to those building until the asbestos was removed. I also remember the patriot act bill was turned down a few times and even the anthrax scare was not enough for congress to shred the U.S. Constitution. I even have a photo of the columns protruding out of the dust while firefighters looked for bodies. Those columns were cut at 45° angles near the bases, just like the columns were prepped for demolition. I am sure the columns didn’t break off at perfect 45° angles because the buildings came strait down. Too many inconsistencies with physics. Those columns were wrapped in asbestos. There is no way, not even with a blow torch to burn through asbestos and yet the columns still melted? Smells fishy to me. I am positive it was not only an inside job but many government branches were involved. Was it a coincidence that the pentagon was hit in a part of the building that had just finished completing construction to reinforce for such an impact?

    • constitutionalist

      The column cut at 45° was done AFTER the building largely disintegrated into dust, as part of the illegal disturbance of the crime site (sometimes called “clean up’).

      • If the towers “largely disintegrated into dust, why was there roughly a million-and-a-half tons of rubble and debris on the ground?

    • They most likely cut most of the steel used to construct the buildings with Nano Thermite.

      • Christ J

        Despite the fact that it is physically impossible for thermitic materials – or, for that matter, ANY form of explosive or incendiary – to have caused the observed physical features?

        Newton says momentum did it after a fire-induced single-floor collapse, and Newton was – and still is – smarter than you. Debate over.

        • constitutionalist

          Newton says that your proposed scenario would have required over two minutes to happen, not the observed 10-15 seconds. Debate over.

          • Christ J

            Utter crap, and you damn well know it, Connie. I have provided you with these calculations on numerous occasions, and you are STILL proving that you are desperate to ignore them in favour of your own fantasy.

            So, do or die time: post a detailed explanation of your last comment. Provide me with a concise calculation that demonstrates that Newtonian physics require a single-floor progressive collapse of the WTC towers to take more than the 18-23 seconds they actually took. If you can’t, I’ll accept it as proof that your assertion is no more than your fervent attempt to avoid admitting something that every schoolchild knows is utterly wrong.

            I know my physics, and so did Newton. Both of us say that you are wrong, and BOTH of us can mathematically prove it. That is the debate-stopper. You’re backed up by absolutely no mathematical data whatsoever. You don’t even know the relevant equations, much less how to apply them.

  14. JC

    Anyone who doesn’t believe it was an inside job is hopeless! Keep believing you are safe and that America is the greatest country on earth, See where that gets you. SO thankful to be Canadian.

    • Christ J

      So, in addition to spouting the vicarious opinions of the people who sell you your opinions, you’re also a racist. Nice… It says everything about you people that you constantly resort to this kind of logical fallacy to cover up for the fact that you have no evidence supporting your claims and the ACTUAL evidence systematically decimates your case.

      Here’s a fun question for you: what kind of seismic waves are produced by explosives?

      Here’s another fun question: what kinds of seismic waves were actually present that day?

      Now, once you’ve refused to answer these questions due to their inability to justify your prejudices, you’ll be able to clearly ignore the fact that the seismic data conclusively rule out your explosives. You thus have no valid case whatsoever. Thanks for playing.

      • Tarikko


        • Christ J

          Well, well, well…it seems that Tarikko has surfaced again. Mayhaps you can get around to answering my response to your last comment? Here it is again for brevity:

          As for you, Tarikko, let’s see how deep your denial is ingrained. If we assume that a SINGLE floor the WTC was structurally compromised, is the force of the upper section sufficient to crush the lower section? Show your workings.

          For argument’s sake, use WTC 1 as your example. Let’s see if you’ve ever bothered to test your tenets…

    • stephen thompson

      It`s easy to talk when it`s not your country!

      • Yes it is, we still have a democracy in Canada.

  15. glen howard

    directed energy weapon and mini-nukes. inside job ~ research dr. judy wood’s evidence and more. read “where did the towers go?” by dr. judy wood. don’t stay in the dark. there’s a war on for your perception deception.

    • Will Small

      Few serious 9/11 researchers think particle beams or “mini nukes” could have been used, and consider Ms Wood a disinfo diversion.

      • constitutionalist

        I am not aware of a “Ms Wood” who has contributed to the understanding of 9/11.

        Dr. Judy Wood, who has a PhD in materials science, presents EVIDENCE and from that evidence constructs an hypothesis to explain the evidence. The hypothesis does NOT include “particle beams.” Concerning what turned the six buildings largely to dust, the EVIDENCE excludes a nuclear event and the EVIDENCE excludes any form of explosive, including any variant of thermite. Her hypothesis has not yet been excluded by any new EVIDENCE.

      • Christ J

        There’s no such thing as a “serious 9/11 researcher”. Anyone who looks into this event objectively will rapidly rule out your calamitous claims due to them being irrefutably disproven. These people are called @scientists@. On the other hand, those who retain your wilful ignorance of the relevant scientific principles are called fantasists@ a have no basis in reality for their claims.

        For example, you constantly ignore the conservation of energy when making laughable claims about “directed energy weapons”. Case in point:

        “Dr. Judy Wood, who has a PhD in materials science, presents EVIDENCE and from that evidence constructs an hypothesis to explain the evidence. ”

        – whereas what Judith the Liar ACTUALLY claims is that the entire structure of these buildings was – contradictory to the video footage and seismic data – instantly relieved of the metallically-bonded nuclei and the delocalised electron cloud that necessarily accompanies it. She is genuinely trying to claim that every single atom within those metallic bonds was simultaneously disrupted, which first requires that they be provided with sufficient energy to escape those bonds. What this means is that these atoms each had to be provided with enough energy to break free of the neighbouring atoms electromagnetic forces. This is called “melting”, and Judith is trying to claim – apparently in earnest that this exact amount of energy was imparted, despite the fact that it would have raised the temperature enough to have melted Manhattan.

        Physics says she is wrong, and physics trumps her crap any day of the week, princess.

        “Her hypothesis has not yet been excluded by any new EVIDENCE.

        – video data, seismic data, established laws of physics: how much more refuting evidence do you need, Connie?

        No matter how desperately you wish she was right, she isn’t. And she never will be because her claims violate the laws of physics.


        • constitutionalist

          Not owned. Your lies own nothing.

          Dr. Wood has presented video data, seismic data, isotopic data and has applied classical physics to show clearly that airplanes and/or upper floor explosions did not make the twin towers disappear, nor did an explosive-mediated implosion, nor a nuclear event. Nor did any of these cause the disintegration of WTC 7, WTC 3, or most of WTC 4 or remove a huge core from WTC 6 with close to no debris remaining. There must be another explanation. This evidence is irrefutable.

          She has proposed an hypothesis, which has not been yet been disproved.

          • Christ J

            Judy the liar has done no such thing. She has maintained her distortion of physics in order to sell you a comfortable lie and swell her bank account, and you ignorant morons are letting her do it without a single question.

            Seismic data proves that her “dustification” is a myth, just as it entirely refutes any ion of explosives. She has never presented any isotopic analysis of anything, much less done so in a peer-reviewed context. She has never presented a single momentum calculation to show that the impacts could not have occurred as observed, nor has she ever shown that momentum alone was not the cause of the global collapse from a fire-induced localised collapse. In these very comment sections I have presented you – several times – with conclusive mathematical proof that fires could have caused a single-floor collapse, and I have gone on to prove that a single-floor collapse MUST induce a global collapse. Judith has never refuted me, because she is every bit as terrified of these calculations as you are. She would have to resort to actually working for a living if she were to rediscover these simple Newtonian concepts, after all…

            By the way, I’d love for you to try to explain precisely how you think an “isotopic” analysis would provide evidence in support of some form of physics-defying directed energy lightsabers…

            While you’re at it, feel free to explain how her physics-defying phasers would actually go about making all those covalent and metallic bods vanish in an instant as well…

            WTC 3 and 4 were hit from above by collapsing buildings, which is precisely why their interiors were punched in from above. Judy the Liar fails to account for this, instead relying on her mindless shills perpetuating a myth that these buildings partially disappeared from the universe – yet another reason her lunatic claims are in violation of the laws of physics. “o debris remaining”? Then how do you intend to explain images like this:


            – well? How about it, princess? Want to have a go at ignoring yet ANOTHER piece of inconvenient data just because it is damaging to your little fantasy…?

            “She has proposed an hypothesis, which has not been yet been disproved.”

            no, she has invented a fairy tale that has no scientific value, and which is disproven in its entirety just by looking at it in light of the established laws of physics. She claims that the metallic bonds of every single iron atom in the support structure were simultaneously and instantaneously rendered non-existent, which is a violation of the laws of physics. Her ludicrous daydreams get no further than cursory glance because that is the point at which they become untenable and impossible.

            Owned, again. And if your only response is yet another deliberate attempt to ignore these issues and just parrot your slogans and wilful misrepresentations, I suggest you give up, because every time you repeat the exact same vague nonsenses in response to concise, conclusive refutations you simply highlight your lack of objective capacity further. All your last comment achieved was to make you lok like even more of an incompetent zealot who is incapable of dealing with facts. You are – apparently – trying to present yourself as a delusional schizophrenic.

  16. Peter

    I have a copy of the video disproving the official story. The US Government tried to ban it when it was released It quite damning

  17. Thomas

    Hijackers (not highjackers) you should fix it! Other than that great facts!

  18. definately inside job created by the government it was detonated to fall and isn’
    t it weird the government offices were all empty odd i’d say but fact is always stranger then fiction

    • Jake

      I could almost believe one of the towers falling straight down versus toppling over, but both doing a perfect vertical collapse? That along with people on the ground stating they heard what sounded like blasts. Something just doesn’t feel right.

      • Christ J

        Why? What SHOULD have happened? Which direction should they have fallen in? Remember that they can only move in a direction if a force is PUSHING them in that direction. In this case, the force of gravity is pushing them downwards, so feel free to explain – in great detail – where your mythical forces are coming from.

        This should be fun…

        ” people on the ground stating they heard what sounded like blasts.”

        – so? Are people ALWAYS perfectly accurate about w they experienced? Especially when they he no accurate way to determine the cause of the phenomena they experienced? If you think witnesses are infallible then I’d love to hear what you think happened in this Portuguese town:


        – you have two choices:

        1) accept that people are crap sources of data and admit that your witnesses are no more reliable than those in the above link, or

        2) try to claim that the above link contains a perfectly-accurate account of a phenomenon that ACTUALLY happened.

        Which is it going to be…?

        • 80 intact stories beat 20 stories any day. A falling object follows the path of least resistance, not the greatest. The tops should have toppled to the side or stopped. You mentioned earlier it took 18 – 23 seconds to fall? You need a new stopwatch. As soon as you lie about one issue, you lose all credibility. You have lost yours.

          • Christ J

            Chloe, you’re a moron. You are under the delusion that you have guessed physics better than Newton, because what you have just asserted is in direct contrast to his laws of motion – the same principles by which NASA will arrive at Pluto in a couple of months.

            “A falling object follows the path of least resistance,”

            – which was STRAIGHT DOWN. The path of GREATES resistance was STRAIGHT UP, because the entire earth was gravitationally resisting such movement. Likewise, there was no lateral force acting on the upper section, which means that the ONLY direction in which any force was acting was downwards due to the gravitational pull of the planet.

            What this means is that the upper section should either have fallen straight down or stayed where it was. You are wrong.

            “The tops should have toppled to the side”

            – physically impossible, no matter what your lack of education compels you to insist.

            “or stopped. ”

            – ONLY if the inherent strength of the topmost floor of the lower section was strong enough to resist the force applied to it. That means that the TOP FLOOR ALONE has to resist the entire momentum of the upper section, which it was not able to do.

            By my calculations, the lower sections’ topmost floor was capable of resisting about 10% of the force it was subjected to. Know what that means? It means that floor loses and the force exerted on it wins, which means the top section keeps on falling.

            So says Newton. How does THAT taste, honey…?

            ” 18 – 23 seconds to fall? You need a new stopwatch”

            – you need to learn to research things properly, princess:


            – that is the seismic data for the collapses and impacts. I stand corroborated.

            “You need a new stopwatch. As soon as you lie about one issue, you lose all credibility.”

            – couldn’t agree more! Now, about this statement:

            “80 intact stories beat 20 stories any day”

            – would you say that your skull is four times as massive as a 35mm-cube of gold? Yes? Me too. So, surely, you wouldn’t object to me firing it at your head…?

            What’s that? You WOULD object to me firing it at your head? My, my – could that possibly be because you don’t believe your own lies when they are applied to an analogous scenario? Could it be that you suddenly have to deal with the fact that you have just made a thoroughly nonsensical claim based on nothing more than the fact that you know nothing about the subject at hand?

            You are a liar, Chloe. You make assertions from total ignorance just because you lack the courage to verify your own lies beforehand. Your surname is apt, because your IQ is on a par with the average plant. What a shame that you lack their relative honesty and integrity…

  19. Nyke

    So, by “cannot be debunked” you mean you just won’t listen to what anyone else has to say. You can prove anything if you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

    • David A. Hereaux

      Debunk them then.


      Shanksville mayor Ernie Stull said there wasn’t much left of the plane after the explosion except for one of the engines lying in the bushes.

      Ernie Stull, mayor of the nearby village of Shanksville recalls

      [question] They had been sent here because of a crash but there was no plane?
      Ernie Stull: “No. Nothing . Only this hole.”
      [question] I thought it was a crash site…
      Ernie Stull: “And it is. But there was nothing there to see. The plane had completely disintegrated. Puff. It hit the ground and flew to pieces–completely.”
      Question: At the very first, what did you think it could be?
      Ernie Stull: “Well…that a plane had crashed. But when we got here, there wasn’t anything.”
      Question: What do you mean–there wasn’t anything?
      Ernie Stull: “Well…there was no plane. There was what you see a hole. and that is the dirt that the airliner threw out–and the hole, about 6 meters deep…and that was all there was.”


    • I’m listening my friend…off you go then…Oh, you have nothing more to say? So what is your point exactly then?

    • Go ahead, Nyke, start “debunking.”

      • Christ J

        There are several pages of comments here, and I have spent a considerable amount of time earing these claims to shreds. If you worthless morons are too ignorant to seek out refutations then you are beyond the point at which your prejudices may be re-evaluated in light of new data, which means you will likely just ignore those inconvenient facts anyway. Why, then, should the rest of us bother posting the EXACT same refutations to your liars and shills?

        How about you all try to grow up just a TINY bit and learn some of the relevant physics for yourselves? You can start with some momentum calculations, which will enable you to analyse the collapses of the twins. If you can’t be bothered do something as simple as that then you have forfeited your right to an opinion.

        Oh, and if some of you want to start learning some basic chemistry then we can also take a VERY close look at that Harrit fraud, because I rather enjoy pointing out what a bunch of liars those shills were in trying to sneak that rag through review process. The fact that it STILL appears on every single one of the sites you rely on for your information will embarrass you beautifully if you ever develop sufficient integrity to analyse it properly, which I will gleefully guide you through in excruciating detail.

        Bring it…

Leave a Reply

Featured TEDx Talk

TEDx - Agents of Change

Free Exclusive Film Screening!

Free Film Screening
advertisement - learn more
Connect, Inspire, Chat & Share!
CE Radio - Listen now!
advertisement - learn more
Subscribe to CE Magazine Monthly For Exclusive Content!
The Mind Unleashed

We Recommend


Trending Now


Another Amazing Story Of Reincarnation? 10 Year Old Boy Remembers Specific Details About Past Life

There are many stories of children who claim to vividly remember being someone else, but Ryan’s story is truly remarkable. No matter what your beliefs are in regards to what exactly happens after we die, this story is sure to…