September 11, 2001: OH NO! Not Another 9/11 Conspiracy Theory! UGH! But Wait, Listen ...

Anytime people lose their lives, other people want to know "what happened". When murder happens, people want to know the truth, and they want justice. It does not matter what example we use; it is always the same. When people die, we want truth and justice. In cases of murder (especially when a lot of people have died), finding out who, what, when, where, why, how, and all the details is usually a priority -- this is a normal reaction to such a situation. Upon understanding and coming to terms with the details of the situation, then "serving justice" to guilty parties is always the most important thing to everyone involved -- especially to families of those who have been lost.

It is not disrespect, or dishonor, to examine these things. In order to properly show "honor and respect" in cases of mass murder and terrorism such as what happened on 9/11, we have to look at all of the facts. We have to examine all the possibilities, and look at all available information -- with an open mind. We must then come to a truly logical conclusion -- based on facts.

If we were to look away, and dismiss certain information concerning a murder, that would "dishonor and disrespect" those who lost their lives -- and their families.

9/11 was the "worst terror attack on America in its history"; over 3,000 people died that day. As a result, the whole world has been radically altered and fundamentally changed. Why would we ever look away from it? Why would we not investigate this event to the fullest, and explore every possibility? Why would we not look at everything we possibly can to understand what happened?

History repeats itself, if we forget; "looking away" is just an easy way of forgetting -- "out of sight out of mind". We cannot let history repeat itself; therefore, we cannot look away. Looking away does not honor or respect anyone. 9/11 was so important, and so trans-formative, that it does not matter how many times we go over it. We should go over it again and again, until no one anywhere has even one question remaining. All of the questions must be answered with absolute certainty before we can ever say we have been over this enough. As long as there is one person with one question, we have not gone over it enough. If not the event itself, the effects of 9/11 make it important enough to go over -- as many times as it takes.

Generally, upon posing questions about 9/11, people will dismiss you as being "on the fringes"; they immediately call you a "conspiracy theorist" (as if that is sufficient reason to dismiss anyone), but have no fear and do not worry -- you are not alone. Polls consistently show that vast numbers of people "have questions" about the "official story" of 9/11 -- especially when they become aware of Building 7, which was included nowhere in the 9/11 Commission Report. That alone makes it obvious that the 9/11 Commission Report cannot be complete or accurate.

Consistently, polls show that more than half of the people have "problems" with the official story. When asked if they have "questions" about the official story, even more people admitted that they did. Turns out, that an overwhelming majority of people have "at least some questions" concerning the completeness and accuracy of the 9/11 Commission Report. When it all comes down to it: more people believe there is "something wrong" with the official story than believe that the official story is "completely accurate". It is the minority who accept the "official story" without question; the majority believe "something is wrong" with the 9/11 Commission Report.

As soon as we hear "9/11 conspiracy theory", many people "tune out" right away. Immediately they pass judgement and say things like, "Nothing like that could or would ever happen." Instantly, they will dismiss anyone presenting any information that contradicts what they believe. Often, people in such states of denial will proclaim that "it would not be possible for so many people to keep such a secret"; they are exactly right in saying so, because "they" could not and did not "keep it a secret" -- we know what happened. If they were able to keep it a secret, we wouldn't have the information that we do; they were unable to keep it a secret

A "conspiracy theory" is nothing more than a theory that there was a conspiracy. A "conspiracy" is when people get together, in secret, and plan to do something illegal. The 9/11 Commission Report is just that; it is a conspiracy theory, but it is the "official" conspiracy theory -- so that makes it OK. Since it is "official" that makes it absolutely correct and complete, right? Since the "official" story is indeed, undeniably, and absolutely, a "conspiracy theory"; we should then simply dismiss it off the top, right? If all "conspiracy theories" are lunacy, then the 9/11 Commission Report should be considered crazy -- and dismissed right away. By the very definition, the "official story" is a "conspiracy theory".

The "official conspiracy theory" of 9/11 says: 19 Muslim fanatics hijacked four commercial airliners using box cutters. Then, the hijackers crashed three of the hijacked planes into three different buildings -- overcoming a 400 billion dollar defense system. All this, under the command of another radical Muslim, on a laptop computer -- hiding in a cave -- somewhere in Afghanistan. That sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy theory if there ever was one; someone somewhere is rolling on the floor laughing hysterically over this. How could anyone ever believe that? It is utterly ridiculous -- how could that possibly be anything other than nonsense? It couldn't be, because it is nonsense.

The World Trade Towers were constructed to withstand planes crashing into them. Inside the towers were 47 steel columns going up through the center of each building. Aluminum planes, that are constructed to be light enough to fly through the air, cannot penetrate steel columns.

We never see anything about the steel columns when they show the "official story" of 9/11 on TV every year. They show us how the buildings came down in a "pancake" type of collapse; each floor falls unobstructed down to the next from top to bottom. It was so perfect how they came down -- as if there were no columns in the center. The buildings went down exactly as they would have if there was absolutely nothing at all in between the floors.

The Twin Towers fell all the way to the ground at nearly free fall speed; this is simply not possible -- unless all resistance was removed. The "official story" suggests there was "enough jet fuel" and that jet fuel can somehow become "hot enough" to "sufficiently weaken" the inner structure of the buildings, allowing them to fall as they did -- it is exhaustively difficult to believe this. There would have had to have been much more jet fuel, a whole lot more time, and significantly more heat than what jet fuel can produce to even begin to believe this nonsense. To completely remove all resistance, all the way down the building, would require something much more powerful than "jet fuel" -- it's just absurd that anyone would believe this. Even if jet fuel was, by some miracle of physics, capable of causing such a disaster, how could "jet fuel" have caused the buildings to come down so precisely and so perfectly as they did? These buildings went straight to the ground -- no supports, no columns, no structure -- just a free falling building with nothing slowing it down. Jet fuel did this? Yes, sure it did, please tell me in what imaginary universe this all took place -- is the insanity not obvious?

Videos of the two buildings coming down, show very clearly that something extremely explosive was happening. It is obvious that floors below the collapsing floors were being "blown out" -- it looks exactly the same as every controlled demolition. The "official story" defies physics; it is impossible. The evidence is simply overwhelming: a "controlled demolition" was the true cause of the World Trade Tower collapses.

"Building 7", also known as the Salomon Brothers building, came down exactly the same way -- exactly the same way -- in an identical fashion as to how both of the Twin Towers came down. Now, we have three buildings coming down in this same way; what are the odds of that? Just buildings dropping here and there, happens all the time, huh? Nothing strange here. Don't ask any questions -- move along.

Twenty minutes before Building 7 went down, a BBC News broadcast was reporting Building 7 had already gone down, but it hadn't yet. In fact, Building 7 could be seen still standing -- in the video -- while the reporter was announcing that it had collapsed. It just does not get any more ridiculous (and obvious) than this. How could this be? Somebody knew -- in advance -- that's how.

No plane hit Building 7; it only sustained a small fire. There was no major structural damage at all, but somehow it came down exactly the same way as the other two buildings. How did this happen? Nothing like this has ever happened before, or since; this has never happened to any other building -- in the entire history of the world.

Why was Building 7 not included in the 9/11 Commission Report? It went down on the same day, in exactly the same manner as the Twin Towers, and was a direct result of the same attack, "officially" anyway. So, why was it never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?

People will tell you that a "false flag" attack could not happen -- "not in the United States of America", but there is evidence to the contrary.

There was a plan brought to President Kennedy in 1962 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff called "Operation Northwoods". Kennedy did not go along with it; there was a whole lot that JFK refused to go along with, which was "very problematic" for certain people. He ended up shutting the whole "operation" down, but it just goes to show; our government would indeed stage "false flag" events.

"Operation Northwoods" was very detailed and well-thought-out. The plan was to set off bombs, sink ships, and hijack planes (which were to be crashed or blown up) in an attempt to manipulate the American people into supporting military actions in Cuba; today we call this "terrorism". The United States Government, did, in fact, plan terror, terrorism, and terrorist acts. This is not somebody's opinion; this is directly from declassified "official" government documents. If not for John F. Kennedy, "they" would have carried out the fake attacks -- no, they sure wouldn't "ever do anything like that", now would they? Of course they would, they always do things like that. The whole idea was to blame it all on Fidel Castro to justify an invasion of Cuba. They even planned to have fake evidence to "make sure the public supported military action in Cuba".

Operation Northwoods would have been our own government committing acts of "terrorism" on the American people, and manipulating them into war -- all based on lies. Does this sound at all like 9/11, and the following invasion of Iraq? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing. The 9/11 attacks were something very similar to Operation Northwoods, but there was no one like JFK to stop it -- we had George W. Bush, who probably would have happily gone along with Operation Northwoods.

How many characteristics of a "duck" must something have before we can "officially" declare it to be a "duck"? It's a duck!

The World Trade Towers belonged to the Port Authority, and were built on land owned by the Rockefellers. Some people, including the owners, really did not like the buildings; they were "not profitable" and they "blocked the skyline". The South Tower was only half occupied, and both buildings were getting old; they were 30 years old at the time of the 9/11 terror attack, and in serious need of repair. The owners decided to have the buildings "torn down", but the city would not allow them to do so; there was too much asbestos in the buildings to allow for them to be torn down. This left the owners "stuck with" buildings they "did not want".

Several weeks before the 9/11 attacks, renovations had begun on the buildings; there was a lot of stuff going on during that time. Trucks and supplies were moving in and out; some people have claimed that "huge truckloads of gold" were removed from the towers during the time of these so-called "renovations". Employees and residents reported hearing a tremendous amount of activity, and they said there was "dust everywhere".

Larry Silverstein, one of the owners, had taken out a huge insurance policy just before the attacks -- that ended up paying him over $4 billion. The policy was to protect against a "terrorist attack", what are the odds of that? Silverstein became able, because of the attacks, to get rid of the buildings he didn't want anymore; he also made off like a bandit, raking in four and a half billion dollars -- things worked out very nicely for Mr. Silverstein, now didn't they?

Photographs of the Pentagon, before the wall collapsed, show a hole that looks to be about 12 feet by 20 feet. Upon examining all the pictures of the Pentagon that day: the lawn is OK, cars are OK, windows are OK, and there is just this one little hole in the side of the building -- this could not have been a plane. How could something with a 125 foot wingspan, and a tail that is 45 feet high, fit into a hole that is only 12 by 20? How did an aluminum plane make a hole in the first place? This is the Pentagon we are talking about here -- It is one of the most protected and reinforced buildings in the world. How could a plane puncture a hole in that building? It didn't -- because it couldn't. Where are the titanium engines, and the holes that they would have made if a "plane" is what penetrated the side of the Pentagon? In pictures, before the wall collapsed, these holes are nowhere ... and what happened to the engines; where did they go? The engines were never found, but titanium jet engines cannot just disappear. If there were no engines at the "crash" site, there was no plane there either -- it was a missile -- not a plane, that flew into the Pentagon.

Experts say that those type of planes (Boeing 757s) "cannot do" what the "official story" says they did. Other experts have explained that inexperienced pilots, as the hijackers are supposed to have been, "could have never executed those maneuvers". According to experts, no one could have ever gotten a "757" to do anything close to what it is supposed to have done. No matter how skilled the pilot -- that plane could not have made the maneuvers necessary for it to strike the Pentagon as we are told it did; it is just not possible. The laws of physics will once again need to be rearranged to accommodate the "official" version -- it just doesn't work -- it's never going to work.

The day after the Pearl Harbor attack, a commission was created to find out what happened. The day after JFK was assassinated, a commission was created to find out what happened. It was two years after 9/11 before there was an investigation; it was as if they already knew what happened. Only people who already know what happened don't feel the need to do investigations. The "worst attack on American soil in history", and for 2 years no investigation at all? Does that not seem odd?

Originally, George W. Bush did not even want to have an investigation; why would he have not wanted an investigation? Was Bush afraid of what an investigation might reveal? After being pressured, he finally agreed to spend $3 million on an investigation; the total ended up around $15 million. $15 million spent to find out everything about the "worst attack" on America in its history? What kind of nonsense is that? $15 million is not a lot of money, not compared to the amounts of money governments spend it isn't. This amount might be sufficient if all the answers have been provided, but that is not the case at all -- many questions still remain. In relation to other things, like 700 billion dollar bank bailouts, $15 million is really not that much money. It is also not very much money at all for an "investigation" of the "worst thing that has ever happened before" -- it is an insignificant amount of money, at best. That's how much someone would pay if they did not want any answers; that's how much you pay when you don't want the truth revealed.

They spent four times that much to get George W. Bush re-elected in 2004, which was $60 million. Our government spent $175 million investigating the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. They spent $152 million on the Columbia disaster investigation, and $30 million investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal, this goes on and on -- it is ridiculous. They spent more money trying to figure out what happened between "Bill and Monica" than they did on the "worst terror attack" in American history! Insane! Does it not seem odd that they would spend so very little -- basically nothing -- to investigate the "worst attack" in history? $15 million? Really? What an insult, what an abomination, and what a massive betrayal to the American people -- it is somewhere far beyond any words to describe such a disgusting act of filth.

At the exact time of the 9/11 attacks, there were "drills" happening -- for the exact same thing. According to George W. Bush, "No one could have imagined anything like terrorists flying planes into buildings." If that were true, why did the government have drills going on at the same time, that involved "planes flying into the World Trade Towers"? Obviously, someone did imagine this before it happened.

It should not be a surprise to anyone to hear that a politician has lied. We know they lie all the time, but Bush flat out lied about this -- right to our faces. So has the entire news media, yet we continue to buy their story and ridicule those who bring up any of this information -- it's pathetic. If Bush lied about 9/11 once, and if the media lied about it too, might they have told more lies as well? If so, does that not obviously scream for a new investigation of 9/11? If the "official story" of 9/11 is a sham, everything based on it would also be a sham. The whole thing is a sham, and it's all based on lies. if 9/11 was a lie, we are in some very serious trouble as a nation and as a people.

People tend to think this is preposterous and absurd, but a quick check of history reveals that all governments throughout all of history have always done things just like this. Why is it impossible to think this could be the case with 9/11? What makes it impossible? Nothing. It might be difficult to consider such things, but we must.

A large number of drills and exercises were going on at the same time as the attacks, and no one (those who normally would have done something about an attack) really knew what was actually happening. How were radar and flight controllers supposed to know the difference between the "real" and "simulated" attacks when they were nearly identical? If the two flight paths (one of the drills, the other of the attacks) are laid over the top of one another, it is impossible to tell the difference. How could it be that the very people, who would have protected our country, did not because they "thought it was a drill" instead of a real event? How could "terrorist" have known how the "drills" were going to look, so that they could pull off the attacks undetected? What are the chances of that? Something, very strange indeed, is going on here. We would need a very large calculator in order to figure the odds of that happening purely by chance.

The people at the radars (those who could have prevented the attacks) were deliberately confused into standing by and doing nothing. Who could have done that? Could Osama Bin Laden (in a cave somewhere) have done that? Someone had to have known something in order to have pulled this off, whoever it was. This was something that could have only been done by someone who really knew what was going on with America, inside and out. Much skill and knowledge was required to pull this off, could Osama Bin Laden ever have done it? It's blatant -- Osama Bin Laden could never have done anything even close to 9/11.

America might never be the same after 9/11. Our country today is very much a different place than it was before the attacks. Since then, we have seen our Constitution , and our freedoms, be gradually withered away; this all in the name of "security". It is almost as if that were the entire purpose of the attacks on 9/11.

Whoever really did this horrible thing, we may never know for sure; but if the goal was to "change our ideas about freedom", they have gotten exactly what they wanted.

Many people want a new and independent investigation into what really happened on 9/11; others just want the conspiracy theorists to "shut up". It seems that with all the nonsense our government spends money on, any time they feel like it, a new investigation could be something easily done. If you want the conspiracy theorists to "shut up", have a new investigation. It's going to have to be one that honestly and truly addresses all of the issues, and one that "looks away" from nothing.

This article has barely scratched the surface; there is so much more. Hopefully, one day, we will have the courage to confront this fully head-on. We need to do a proper and complete investigation, and deal with the consequences of that investigation -- no matter what they are.