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.

Take The 30 Days of YOU Challenge!

Take the free 30 Days of You Challenge and discover more about your heart, mind and soul.

There are powerful benefits associated with taking time to relax, meditate, do something you love, journal, reflect or get started on a new hobby, but that means dedicating YOU time for it.

This challenge will help you set out on a journey to getting powerful habits started that can transform your life.

Join the free challenge and get the full guidelines on how to do it as well as support throughout the challenge.

Click 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. 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?

  2. Pingback: 24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked - Realities Watch

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Will Small

    Spend a hour checking some evidence:

    The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy: 9/11 Mounting Evidence

    Or a great 5 hour examination:

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Pingback: 24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked | Awareness

  10. 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

  11. Thomas

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

  12. 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…?

  13. Pingback: 9/11: hard facts and bitter truth | The Liberty Beacon®™ England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales

  14. Pingback: 24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked | Conspirify News Network

  15. 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…

  16. Hello! I have translated this article with your source and put it on http://www.nationalisti.ro

  17. CJ

    I googled one of the links provided, from Hard Fact 16, regarding flight 93, ..

    “there was no plane.” Mayor Ernie Stull

    The simple search reveals that his comments were taken out of context. Look it up for yourself.

    • David A. Hereaux

      OK, you can have this one. Now debunk the rest plx. :-)

      • Christ J

        Okie-dokie, princess. Grab a copy of the Harrit fraud (the very first point in this article) and look at fig. 30. This shows the energy content of thermite alongside the energy content of the samples they analysed. Harrit and his fellow liars claimed that those samples were thermite, yet their own results conclusively PROVE that the samples contain an amount of energy that it is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for thermite to contain – even if you ask it REALLY nicely.

        Debunked, refuted and disproven.

        Point 2 is irrelevant, because this is an attempted argument from authority/numbers which fails due to the fact that not a single one of them has a valid scientific reason for their claims. You can see this yourself by scanning the petition in question, as none of them are able to provide a viable SCIENTIFIC reason for their claim. It’s all just “free fall” this and “thermite” that, with not a scrap of data presented as evidence.

        Point 3 is laughable, as WTC 7 can be timed from the footage alone to take at least 13 seconds just to disappear from view from the onset of collapse. These liars can’t even use a stopwatch properly.

        In fact, we’re doing this the wrong way around. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate the veracity of these claims, not on me to refute them. Until you prove that they are accurate and correct no-one has any obligation to refute something that is nothing more than a vague claim made up by someone who is trying to sell you a cheap t-shirt with something like “ask questions” emblazoned across it. Try asking Harrit where his spectroscopic results are (five years after he claimed to have done them), for instance.

        • It”s quite amazing the aluminum hatted “19 Arab hijackers” conspiracy nuts are still trying to sell a story even N.I.S.T. has debunked (you can add in the 911 Commissioners who’ve decertified their own report, not that it’s necessary) Because no matter how many times you deny it, the FINAL N.I.S.T. report (none of the ‘preliminary’, ‘draft’ or any others) just the last one, as in FINAL. Because it states, without qualification, that building 7 fell at “free fall acceleration” for 2.25 seconds and incorporated one hundred and twenty some feet. In the physical world we live in, there are but two explanations. One is that a miracle occurred. All the trolls can figure out the second explanation themselves. Or find out if Obamacare covers mental illness or maybe assisted suicide.

          • Christ J

            You mean the bit where they explicitly mention that it was “ESSENTLLY free fall”[my emphasis], and shortly after they used an approximation (9.81m/sec/sec) which is actually FASTER than freefall? Is that the bit you’re talking about?

            Tell you what, how about you try clearing this all up? Was the actual fall rate 9.81m/sec/sec, or was it 9.80665m/sec/sec? Pick one.

            As for assisted suicide, set up a kickstarter and I’ll give you every penny you need to reach Switzerland, princess, because a world with one less of you is that little bit more intelligent.

            By the way, if you had ever bothered to read any of the NIST reports you would know that there are dozens of FINAL reports. Even for WTC 7 alone there are three of them, so you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about, do you, sunshine? And that’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

          • I wonder when the remnants of the “truth” cult will abandon the free fall myth:


      • CJ

        So… now you can remove #16 and change the title… 23 Facts..

  18. Tarikko

    Christ JR

    Still in denial it seems?

    • Chas

      The biggest problem I have with this video is that if you ask questions, your told rudely that your in denial or a sheep. It’s just the opposite. People that ask questions are the ones that are conscious. If you answer every question with an insult, it pretty much says you have no real facts behind you. Above, is someone that looked up the Mayor saying “there was no plane”, which was taken out of context. So, there is one proven lie or deception in the video. My first reaction is that they are all probably lies.

      • Christ J

        You people NEVER “ask questions”, you simply presume answers. You make up the answers you want to hear and then pretend you have proven them true.

        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…

  19. Pingback: The “War on Terror” wants you! | Conspiracy Theories……

  20. John_Hutchison 369

    The scary part is NONE of you mentioned the biggest elephant in the room. THERE WAS A HURRICANE ON 9/11/2001! Hurricane Erin…

    • Christ J

      So? Are you one of those cretins who insists that “The Government”™ somehow has the power to divert thousand-mile-wide systems of rapidly-moving particulate matter?

      • suzee

        Sounds like your the one in denial dude. Wake up to yourself mate, its an inside job.

        • constitutionalist

          There were two anomalous tropical storms in 2001.
          • Tropical Storm Allison came ashore, drenched Houston and went north 100 miles, stopped for two days, then TURNED AROUND, and came back to flood Houston and cause billions of dollars of damage. We had 28 inches of rain in about 15 hours at our location. Tropical storms that come ashore “ALWAYS” continue north and northeast, or may rarely head east, then east-southeast. This one did not.
          • Hurricane Erin took an anomalous perfectly straight north-northwest course from near Bermuda toward the tip of Long Island for 5 days, then stalled off shore near New York. On the MORNING of 9-11, as the twin towers disintegrated into dust, Erin made a 160° U-turn and headed back out toward what would have been its normal position at the time if it had followed the normal curvilinear course north and north-northeast.
          Were these anomalous tracks created by intervention? I have no idea, but I did review tropical storm tracks for over 30 years and found no other tracks that took a remotely similar course.

          • Frank Rizzo

            CJ_ ever hear of HAARP? being able to create/ divert weather patterns is a GREAT asset in military strategy. This has been a major study/undertaking for decades.
            OR just go back to slumberland cuz your gov’t only has your best interests & wellbeing in mind and will protect you !

          • Christ J

            “CJ_ ever hear of HAARP? being able to create/ divert weather patterns is a GREAT asset in military strategy. This has been a major study/undertaking for decades.”

            – ever looked into what HAARP ACTUALLY does? It analyses the ionosphere, whereas all the weather you refer to occurs miles below this in the troposphere. These two distinct zones never come into contact with one another, as they are separated by the stratosphere. he miniscule section of the ionosphere that lies directly above HAARP – which is incapable of redirecting its beams – has nothing to do with ANY part of the troposphere, let alone specific sections of it.

            “Sounds like your the one in denial dude. Wake up to yourself mate, its an inside job.”

            – more inane crap from someone with nothing relevant to say. Drag yourself out of your delusion and start putting your religious beliefs to the test, rather than seeking reinforcement from the lunatics who espouse your dogma.

            “There were two anomalous tropical storms in 2001.”

            – there were many, predominantly because the increasing temperature of the oceans is interfering with long-established weather cycles. Want to know who’s responsible for these abnormal storms? YOU are.

            “Tropical storms that come ashore “ALWAYS” continue north and northeast, or may rarely head east, then east-southeast. This one did not.”

            – Real Madrid or Barcelona ALWAYS win La Primera Liga. Last season, Atletico Madrid won it. Therefore, George Bush did it.

            Have you even bothered to look in to the relevant factors determining the way in which storms move? Do you know anything about how pressure regions affect them? And let’s not forget that your own statement was internally inconsistent – “ALWAYS” doesn’t really pair well with “or may rarely”.

            “Were these anomalous tracks created by intervention? I have no idea, but I did review tropical storm tracks for over 30 years and found no other tracks that took a remotely similar course.”

            – and how did you test this conclusion? Did you perform several other comparisons for other storms from this time in order to see if this deviation from “similar course[s]” was anomalous? After all, if the majority of storms from the years around this event feature multiple examples of storms deviating from established courses then it actually correlates rather well with increasing ocean temperatures, and completely fails to support your attempted inference of government causation.

            You have no idea how to perform anything remotely resembling a scientific analysis, so spare us this exemplary selection bias in future. All you’re doing is highlighting your own inabilities.

Leave a Reply

Sign Up For Updates

Free Exclusive Film Screening!

Free Film Screening

Featured TEDx Talk

TEDx - Agents of Change
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


NASA Cuts Live ISS Video Feed As UFO Appears (Real Footage)

NASA was recently accused of cutting their live feed from the International Space Station (ISS)  just as an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) was spotted hovering in sight. The event took place on January 15th and is causing quite a stir.…