Watch the video:
Inside 9/11 - 7 Facts (English version)
There are other troubling facts besides those mentioned in the video.
None of the facts are "theory" and none of them talk about "conspiracy," though I don't doubt that some who comment here will call this entire discussion "conspiracy theory."
I wonder: Do they think that there has never been a conspiracy in the history of humanity?
Do they think that bankers and owners of corporations are never greedy?
Do they think that no one has ever murdered others out of greed?
Do they think that the American government can be trusted at all times?
Do they think that no one has ever kept a secret in the entire history of America?
I've communicated with some here on Hub Pages who seem to think these things. How naive.
But here are some other facts:
* Mayor Giuliani committed a felony by destroying crime scene evidence. A good deal of that evidence was shipped off to China long before the "official," "set up to fail" (quote from one of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission) investigation began.
* Top military officers responsible for the massive security failures on 9/11 all received promotions instead of courts martial. Since when do we reward incompetence (or complicity)?
* High-tech incendiary material was found in the 9/11 dust in New York; some unspent, some partially spent with iron microspheres attached.
* An estimated several tons of iron microspheres were in the 9/11 dust. Such microspheres prove extremely high temperatures (far higher than jet fuel fires and office fires). Such microspheres are a natural byproduct of thermitic reactions (used in controlled demolitions). Some have said that iron microspheres are also a byproduct of burning steel wool. They're wrong. They would be steel microspheres, not iron microspheres. And you would need to have a source of several tons of steel wool to account for what was found in the 9/11 dust. Plus, steel wool microspheres usually have bits of fiber sticking out of them (not perfectly round).
* It takes months to prepare for controlled demolitions of the scope that brought down all 3 buildings on 9/11.
* Bush family members were part of the corporation which oversaw security at the World Trade Center in New York.
* Many whistleblowers came forward, but were ignored by the Corporate Party media. Some deniers like to say that someone would've talked. Well, guess what! They did, but the Corporate Party media wouldn't listen. One CIA asset (Susan Lindauer) who was the liaison to the Iraqi government before 9/11, was put in prison for a year under the new unPatriot Act. All charges (including the secret ones) were dropped.
* The ones who benefited most from 9/11 were the military-industrial complex corporations who set up shop in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria. These same corporations own the Corporate Party media.
* 7WTC fell at perfect free fall for 8 floors, as admitted by NIST in its "official" investigation of 9/11, but steel never offers zero resistance, unless controlled demolition is involved.
* Were Giuliani, top military brass and the government incompetent? Or were they covering something up?
* With the evidence of controlled demolition, who could've been behind it?
* Who were the real culprits of 9/11?
* What did they stand to gain?
* Why does the meaning of America -- its Constitution -- no longer exist as an active instrument of policy and law?
* Why should Obama get away with declaring war with Libya, when Congress is the only legal entity for declaring war?
* Why should Obama get away with his "kill list" which includes American citizens on it?
* Why should Obama get away with saying that Gitmo prisoners should stay there for ever, even if found innocent? Even Hitler didn't go that far.
Meet The 9/11 Whistleblowers
CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything (Extreme Prejudice)
NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake speaks at National Press Club - March 15, 2013
Well, I got through #1, where the day before there was money to be made in the stock market. Insider trading is claimed, but has never been proven; this shows government complicity and the trading (making of money) shows foreknowledge.
May I offer more facts? Facts that can actually be verified rather than just assuming they are true?
1. The sun rose that morning, indicating that Helios, the sun god, knew what was coming and approved.
2. There was a high tide that day; an obvious attempt by Neptune to wash the evidence away.
3. The moon entered its final quarter the night before; It was waning because Selene, goddess of the moon, wanted her part in the evil to remain undiscovered in gathering darkness.
Now, you may disagree with the conclusions, but unlike "insider trading" the facts are certainly verifiable.
As an outsider (UK) watching the events unfold that day ( before all the conspiracy theories) I seem to remember there thoughts going through my mind.
How the hell did a planes bring those towers down, jet fuel would certainly not have caused the steel structure to have collapsed so catastrophically (I had just finished my FPA training)
All those poor people who would die ( I had recently read that between 30000 and 40000 people worked in the towers).
I wouldn't like to be the insurance company who would have to pick up the bill.
And when WTC7 collapsed I was even more amazed.
You Americans never do anything by halves do you!
Greetings LoneStar. I have not run into one of your 9/11 conspiracy threads since…what?…last month. Perhaps I missed some of them in the interim.
Sadly, many 9/11 truthers represent an intellectual disconnect between the real truth and the false statements they eagerly cut and paste on every forum they can find. A critical thinker would ask himself if any of these factual claims were real and supported by others. A critical thinker would research each claim to be sure it was factual. After all, when one posts an untrue statement, it reflects on his judgement and his own intellectual credentials.
Take, as an example, your claim, “Many whistleblowers came forward, but were ignored by the Corporate Party media. Some deniers like to say that someone would've talked. Well, guess what! They did, but “the Corporate Party media wouldn't listen. One CIA asset (Susan Lindauer) who was the liaison to the Iraqi government before 9/11, was put in prison for a year under the new unPatriot Act. All charges (including the secret ones) were dropped.”
The media did not listen??? Secret charges???
Ms. Lindauer was accused of conspiring to act as an unregistered agent for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions with the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Not only were there no “secret charges” but there was a huge amount of major media coverage. I can provide more links for those that would like to read them. Clearly, no one bothered to verify the truth before posting this falsehood. Therefore, I did the research myself. Here are some of the articles covering Ms. Lindaurer’s plights.
"An Antiwar Activist Known for Being Committed Yet Erratic”. New York Times.Dao, James (12 March 2004)
“Ex-Aide Accused of Being an Agent for Iraq”. Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times, 12 March 2004.
"Neighbor Seemed Activist, Not Agent". Washington Post. 12 March 2004.
”Suspect in Iraq Spy Case Released; Lindauer, a Takoma Park Antiwar Activist, to Be Arraigned Monday.”. Washington Post, 13 March 2004.
“Suspect is remembered as worldly”. Anchorage Daily News. 13 March 2004.
David Samuels (29 August 2004). “Susan Lindauer’s Mission to Baghdad”. New York Times.
Rick Anderson, "From 'Spy' to Psychotic: The latest on the very strange story of former Seattle journalist Susan Lindauer", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 15 February 2006.
“Antiwar Activist Returns to Court for Iraq Spy Case”. New York Times. Feuer, Alan (18 June 2008)
”Ex-journalist in spy case unfit for trial”. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 16 September 2008.
” Case Dropped Against Md. Woman”.Washington Post. 17 January 2009.
All of these serves to prove that many posters make no effort to fact check the claims made by the fringe groups that they think are so convincing. Blindly, they cut and paste pages of unproven material and boldly defend the exaggerations like they were from their own research.
Unfortunately, checking the claims inevitably leads to an understanding they are false. That ruins the conspiracy, and is pretty obviously WHY they aren't checked. Or, if they are, the results of the check are carefully left unstated.
Unfortunately the real witnesses are dead!
No they're not - the claim as been all along that Bush and the CIA arranged for explosives to be planted. There are lots of witnesses to that "fact", Bush, the VIP's in the CIA, the people actually opening up the walls, planting explosives and covering them back up. The truck drivers that brought them in and the crews removing the demolition debris are all available, as are the janitors that stood by and watched it happen.
It just seems that none of those thousands of people will testify to the nefarious plot.
Actually Wilderness I am under the impression that there definitely was collusion.
My thoughts go back to when I first saw the news reports (as I mentioned in a previous post) I could not believe that three building would collapse in exactly the same way for what we are supposed to believe the reasons they gave.
From my own point of view the denials of any wrong doing seem to suggest that there was more than a little collusion in the whole event.
I think on the whole the American public cant accept that a few individuals in the US government would dare to kill Americans for political or financial gain and the machinery of political power keeps working towards the myth that the tragedy of the felling of the towers was purely am act of terrorism.
Well, that's kind of what I said. Some people think that thousands of people got together in secret to "mine" those buildings and bring them down, and most of those people will still be alive today. Heck, even the landfill operators would be in on it, as they accepted the construction debris from tearing down walls and ceilings! The people working in the offices had to know, too - you can't tear down ceilings/walls in occupied buildings without the secretary working under the new patch that suddenly appeared overnight noticing.
So, yes, the "collusion" went far beyond a handful of people and there were literally thousands of people knowing about it. People that have kept their mouths shut for over a decade while the "truthers" search for them.
Plus, of course, anyone denying collusion automatically suggests that collusion was there. That's a given, that anyone telling the truth that they weren't part of a collusion the conspiracy addicts believe in are not to be believed. Denying wrongdoing always means that it was there anyway.
"From my own point of view the denials of any wrong doing seem to suggest that there was more than a little collusion in the whole event."
Can you possibly imagine how silly that statement sounds? That anyone telling the truth about not collaborating is suspect simply because a handful of people suspect collaboration? That it doesn't matter what they say it will be used to support the conspiracy theory? If they say "Yes, I helped bomb the building" it means the conspiracy is true and if they say "No, I didn't help bomb the building" it means the conspiracy is true because then their statement is evidence of collusion? Can you understand how silly that sounds?
When I get some time I need to watch those videos you had links to. Amazing information. Thanks!
by Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago
I've corresponded and chatted with a number of Americans who think the 9/11 Truth movement has been thoroughly "debunked." But when pressed for details on the source of their belief, they can't provide any. One gentleman said that he didn't have time to investigate such things. My big...
by Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago
There have been numerous plans in American history for the government to murder American citizens for political gain.I seriously doubt that the Operation Northwoods document is the only tangible, direct evidence of such evil. That document lay hidden and classified for 35 years before it was...
by ArtzGirl 5 years ago
Do you think that Conspiracy Theories are worth investigating further?What is your feeling about the term "Conspiracy Theory"? Does this have a bad connotation and meaning to you?
by tgopfrich 4 years ago
How much do YOU know about the Illuminati?
by Leslie McCowen 7 years ago
"Before 9/11 there were 7 countries without Rothschild central banks;Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Cuba. I note a definite pattern here.Afganistan: invaded (now central bank)Iraq: invaded (now central bank)Libya: invadedNorth Korea: low level invasionIran: planned...
by kwade tweeling 14 months ago
What is the first thing you think of when you hear the phrase: "Conspiracy Theory"?Or if you prefer: What is the first thing you think when you hear a conspiracy theory. Do you dismiss it outright or consider the information before making a judgement? Why?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|