20 Reasons To Question the Official Story of 9/11

Please see the original for links to supporting documents.

1. While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, the Secretary of Transportation testified before the 9/11 Commission that Vice President Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon and -- when a military man asked "do the orders still stand?" -- Cheney responded affirmatively.

2. The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building

3. The 9-11 Commission refused to examine the vast majority of evidence about 9/11, and even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

4. Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House

5. A retired Air Force Colonel who flew over 100 combat missions and was the director of the Star Wars defense program under both Republican and Democratic administrations (and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth) recently said:

"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!"
12. A third world trade center building, called building 7, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11, but was never hit by plane, fell at the same speed as if there were no floors or walls to cause resistance, contained only small fires before the collapse, and became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due to fire alone

13. USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

14. MSNBC stated that police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

15. The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

16. NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

17. The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"

18. Eyewitnesses have testified that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had even hit

19. A police officer testified that there were numerous, HUGE explosions at the top of one of the twin towers 15 minutes apart, before the tower collapsed

20. Numerous, credible ex-government officials are warning that the U.S. government might very well attack its own people to justify a further clampdown on civil rights and to justify additional wars

Jon Gold, you admitted

Jon Gold, you admitted yourself that you are talking out of your ass, i.e., by commenting on something you haven't even read. I merely make note of that fact.

Jon Gold and JL, below is my

Jon Gold and JL, below is my reply to you two from a thread about a week ago (see http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/113807675757595513/ ). I posted the below in said thread just alwhile ago, but I post it here also so that you two will have a better chance of seeing my below reply.


Jon Gold, as I've repeatedly explained before, "the world" is not acting like the Peak Oil scam is true. Rather, governments are acting like they always have throughout history, i.e., trying to obtain more power. The difference nowadays being that forming a one-world government and one-world religion has come into the realm of practicality for the Western governments due to the technological advances which have occured within the past century. Thus, the push by the globalist elites to form their self-termed New World Order has been stepped-up since they're getting close to achieving their goal.

JL, you have a fallacious notion of how our present world operates. Even if I had the investers to start my own oil company, we in the U.S. live under a mercantilist control-system--far, far removed from a free-market. There are so many laws and regulations in place that I would have to have many high-level politicians on my payrole before I would even stand a chance of being able to start my own oil company. And there is no chance of that happening because said politicians are already on the payrole of the establishment oil companies.

But, Jon Gold and JL, you two will be very happy to learn that the oil companies' profits are higher now than they have ever been in history. Below is just one example, concerning Chevron:

"Chevron 4Q Profit Up 20 Percent to $4.14B," Michael Liedtke, Associated Press (AP), January 27, 2006:


Below is an excerpt from the above article:

Chevron Corp. on Friday reported the highest quarterly and annual profits in its 126-year history, refocusing attention on the high fuel prices that have enriched the oil company's shareholders and exasperated consumers paying more to fill their gasoline tanks and heat their homes.

So the Peak Oil scam is already paying off quite well for the oil companies.

But as I've already said before, I don't merely *claim* that the globalist elite "Peak Oil" scam is a scam, I *prove* it. For just some of that massive amount of hardcore proof, see the below post by me:

"The 'Peak Oil' Scam," December 5, 2005:



For more articles written by me concerning governments and politics--and indeed, the meaning of life--see the below:

"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005:

The below two articles by me (published under my legal name) were originally published at Anti-State.com:


"Government Causes the Crime" by James Redford, c. October 2001:


I should mention one thing about the above article by me which might be confusing nowadays. I wrote the article in October of 2001 when the 9/11 death toll was being reported as around 7,000 people, which is the figure I mention in my said article. Now the 9/11 death toll is reported as being close to 3,000 people.

"Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005:


James... I saw this

James... I saw this recently, and I'm going to repeat it because it makes a lot of sense. Why don't you, and all of the other abiotic people start an oil company. I'm sure everyone would appreciate paying for your cheap, unlimited oil.

"Rather, governments are

"Rather, governments are acting like they always have throughout history, i.e., trying to obtain more power."

You're right. They are trying to obtain more power. Those who control the oil, have the power.

Reason being, it's in limited supply.

I think we've got some

I think we've got some serious COINTELPRO going on @ dailykos.

I agree with the

I agree with the professional. I've read the postings and these cointepro people stick to one issue only, say that they have expertise and knowledge no one else has, and then dismiss it as completely ridiculous. Informed people are needed to point out the 100's of problems with the 9/11 story starting with real facts. Include the Bin Laden lookalike too. It is provable that it is fake. By the way, didn't anyone notice that when looking at the two Bin Laden's, the 'fake' Bin Laden has skin tone and hair that is more African American than Arab.

Hey and why isn't Daily Kos

Hey and why isn't Daily Kos putting up more of the blatant problems with 9/11. Items 13 to 19 are all about secondary explosions which is essentially one issue, and sacrificed the additions of others that were more important.

COINTELPRO Agent Candidate

COINTELPRO Agent Candidate #1


His religious beliefs aren't at issue. His scientific judgement is.

The man claims to have SCIENTIFICALLY proven that Jesus visited the Maya. To me that calls into question anything else he claims to have scientifically proven.

Candidate #2

Bob Johnson

Can't we talk about Alito? (4.00 / 4)

Rather than this stuff?

I made my hat out of Heavy Duty Reynolds Wrap. That shit is still the best.

Candidate #3


(1) ingredients: aluminum foil made from aluminum alloy 8011:

AA 8011

Iron 0.65-0.86

Silicon 0.62-0.67


Candidate #4

Candidate #4


Being a photographer I'm truly mystified how the photographer who photographed the 1st palne hitting WTC knew where the plane would impact the building. If you watch this film the camera is already aimed at point of impact. Logically the camera would track the flight of the airliner to the point where it hit WTC.

Do I really need to tell you why? Good lord what is going on.

Um, Jon Gold, apparently you

Um, Jon Gold, apparently you aren't even reading what I write (I'd say obviously you aren't reading what I write, but I don't want to impute motives on your part at this point.)

I already addressed your above comment in my original post above, i.e., concerning starting my own oil company. See my reply to JL in the first post above, which is by me.

Either you have already read my above comments on this matter and you are (for whatever reason) playing stupid, or you did not even bother to read my above post in the first place before responding to it. Either way, it does not make your intellectual methodology look good, Jon Gold.

James... Admittedly, I

James... Admittedly, I didn't read your whole response. Still, my argument still applies.

I know how the world works. I spend every waking minute of every waking day (minus those that I sleep, and work) monitoring the news of the world, and I can say with great confidence that I have a pretty good idea of how the world works.

Feel free to go to Canada, South America, etc... and start your own oil company. Hugo might let you. You might have to pay a lot in taxes, but he might let you. I don't know about Canada. Considering they've recently elected right-wingers to lead them, it's hard to tell.

Tell me something James... if oil is plentiful, then what makes Russia think they can charge the Ukraine 4x the amount they usually pay for it?

If oil is plentiful, then why was it the United States' top priority to secure the oil fields of Iraq after the invasion?

If it's unlimited, then why does the United States need to import 50% of it? Shouldn't the wells found in Texas and off the Gulf coast sustain us if that was the case?

Doesn't the United States have enough wealth to drill for the unlimited oil you speak of?

Again, the world is acting as if we're running out. I can tell you about two wars currently taking place for oil, but I'm sure you're already aware of them.

Scientific American

Scientific American predicted what's happening now in 1998 - cover story - "the end of cheap oil".

People, there's plenty of oil, there's vast amounts locked in shale in Rockies. There is vast amounts locked in Canadian tar sands etc . . the problem isn't the availability of oil, it is the availability of "cheap oil".

Most of the worlds supply of oil will give us very little net energy.

I love the anecdotal stuff like when people say, "America gets most of its oil from Argentina, not the middle east" like that debunks the need for the American/British empire to control the region.

All the dumbass comments at the dailykos like, "I'm suprised that an airliner hasn't hit the pentagon before" as if the pentagon isn't well defended by missles and as if Hani Hanjour, the idiot pilot, could navigate a commercial airliner to strike the 1st floor of the pentagon leaving no marks on lawn.

Remeber when everyone was freaking out because for the first time in the history of elections, the exit polls were so wrong. How could that be? The exit polls had never been that wrong before? I guess the exit polls are wrong. duhhhhhh i is a smart person also know . . . uhhhhhhhh

Incidentally James... you

Incidentally James... you will never convince me that oil is abiotic. Sorry... I've read too much that implies oil is limited. Anyway... thanks for the chat.

Holy crap, 9/11 Truth on

Holy crap, 9/11 Truth on dailyKos? You're kidding me!

9/11 truth on Daily Kos, but

9/11 truth on Daily Kos, but like someone else said, there is some serious ignorance going on over there right now.all you hear is the typical "tin foil hat, show me a structural engineer who agrees,why isnt the media covering your theorys then?" typical bullshit.

Well, Jon Gold, it was quite

Well, Jon Gold, it was quite obvious that you were talking out of your ass. I must say, even though I am a genius, I don't have to be one to call you on your bullshit.

And yes, Jon Gold, oil is limited in a time-constrained sense, just like everything is (going by proper time; going by experiential time, nothing is limited).

And no, Jon Gold, there is nowhere on this Earth that I could go in which to start up an honest oil company. There is too much money and control involved for the governments of the world to not have their hands deep in the mix, so to speak.

But yes, there is more proven oil reserves in the world than anyone knows what to do with. (By "proven oil reserves," that means what is known to be economically profitable to extract and bring to market.) You ought to know this to be the case if you had read my post which demolishes the "Peak Oil" scam. Below it is again made available for you:

"The 'Peak Oil' Scam," December 5, 2005:


I also notice that you didn't bother to comment on the oil companies making record profits in the last quarter even though we're being told that gas prices are so high because oil is so rare, hence the gas prices being at record-high levels.

Concerning the Ukraine, one of the major points of invading Irak was to block other countries from obtaining Irak's oil. One of the original complaints against Irak by the Western governments was that Irak was flooding the market with oil, and thereby driving down the price of oil. The Western governments claimed that this was economic warfare.

Many countries, such as the Ukraine, are shut-off from a reliable supply of oil. It doesn't have anything to do with oil being rare, it has to do with their geography and their political entanglements.

Not all countries have massive proven oil reserves (and again, by "proven oil reserves" I mean what is economically profitable to extract and bring to market). Hence, they are dependant upon forces outside of their own country to supply their oil no matter how plentiful oil is.

As far as me "never [being able to] convince [you] that oil is abiotic," I suppose all that methane on Saturn's moon Titan is biological in origin. Far be it from me to try to convince you to the truth. How dare me. You have made quite clear that your mind is made up, and ain't nothing can unmake it. So be it. You just thereby make yourself irrelevant to anyone who cares about the truth.

James and Gold, Can you take

James and Gold,

Can you take your ongoing discussion elsewhere? Is there a need to have it publicly, or specifically on this site? Or in every thread?

Please take it to email, or on Gold's forum, or something.. no need to flood every post here with unrelated personal discussion.


hahaha, peak oil tends to do

hahaha, peak oil tends to do that to people dz.just look at the controversy that surrounds Mike Ruppert.

James, I said that because

James, I said that because as dz said, this isn't the place for it, and I was trying to be polite. You're more than welcome to come to my board, and see how I'm "talking out of my ass".

gentleman, why even bother


why even bother bringing up peak oil when discussing 9-11? It is hard enough to try to convince people of the truth about 9-11 without putting forth additional theories into the mix, such as peak oil.

Peak oil is just another theory that complicates things. We might be able to convince people of the truth about 9-11, but if you then try and tell them it is only because the world is running out of oil, they will tune you out. It has happened to me.

Besides, if you follow the markets, you'd know that because of the higher prices of oil, the oil sands in Canada are now able to be processed profitably, thereby bringing more oil to the market that was NOT considerd proven reserves because of the price associated with extracting it. Oil sands in Canada, once technology has developed, should contain more reserves than Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined.

Even though we can see that oil production has not kept up with demand it does not mean we need to harp on it as proof that 9-11 was an inside job...it is just a big a theory as saying George Bush engineered 9-11. We have no smoking gun proof that he engineered it. He definitely is covering up facts that the rest of the sheeple don't know, but you will never convince people that "George Bush did it" just by saying it. Much like peak oil, the theory is irrelevant to the fact the the government is lying about 9-11

This site is about 9-11 pure and simple, while peak oil may be a motivation to engineer 9-11, it is in no way the only reason.

In fact, the more we argue about theories as to why it is done, the less we do to promote that the government is lying about 9-11

I'm sorry for the rudeness if it comes out like that, but the comments section has become less about 9-11 and more about everything BUT 9-11. Hence, the reason i have not made too many comments these days.

I want the truth just like everyone else here (minus the few disinfo agents) but there is no need to bring up another theory that can be used to diminish the truth movement. Besides, it half of the movement believes it and the other half doesn't, then it becomes one of those issues that divides us, allowing us to continue to be conquered...like pods, missiles, holograms and other bullshit.

let's stick to what we can prove, like the fact that the government is lying about 9-11 and all the evidence that contradicts the official theory.

peace out and be safe.

Hey Rayrayjones, I agree,

Hey Rayrayjones, I agree, however sometimes you need to show motive before some people can accept the truth. Thats how it was for me.

If Peak Oil doesn't seem to be cutting it, then maybe its not the best answer. How about oil in general, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would disagree with the fact that iraq was invaded for oil.

So, when someone asks for motive, just say oil. The actions of the Bush Administration seem to support this, so use it and move on, no sense arguing about it.

Hi folks. Its DailyKoster,

Hi folks. Its DailyKoster, the guy who wrote the "20 reasons to question the official story of 9/11" at Daily Kos.

First of all, I think you are confusing the person who WROTE the diary with the people posting comments. Certainly, some of the people posting comments are disinfo agents or -- at the least -- "left gatekeepers".

Second, criticisms about what should have been in the list of 20 is fine. I have written on many, many additional issues concerning 9-11 in many different ways, but I was trying to push the 20 most stunning facts linked to UNIMPEACHABLE sources.

For example, I am part of a team of scientists and experts on bin laden trying to PROVE that the "Fat Osama" is not really the same dude. We hope to soon have irrefutable evidence (and we have already published what we have). But since this is not yet irrefutable to those who don't want to see, it didn't make my list of 20. I am also part of alot of other 9/11 efforts.

Finally, I got banned from Daily Kos 1 hour after posting the 20 questions. In fact, I have been banned 2 or 3 previous times, and had to sign up all over again with a new 1-week waiting period.

There is an infowar going on right now on Daily Kos, between 9/11 truth and left gatekeepers/disinfo agents.

So if instead of ONLY criticising, please sign up at Daily Kos and spread the 9/11 truth in the best way you can! Daily Kos is probably THE most influential Democratic power-player blog in the country, so it is an important place to spread truth.


Hey Koster, my posts were

Hey Koster, my posts were not directed toward your article, rather the comments. Did not mean to offend.

<sarcasm>It was that 20th

<sarcasm>It was that 20th one that really did it for me.</sarcasm>

Seriously, it only takes one counter-example to disprove a theory.

Before I talk to people about 9/11, I sometimes qualify them by asking, "how many holes in the official theory of 9/11 must I reveal to you before you consider rejecting the official conspiracy theory?" If the response is, "100", I've just saved myself a lot of time (ie, I move on; I don't believe that [m]any honest person could be unconvinced by 99, but suddenly swayed by the 100th "yeah, but").

Similarly, I think 20 may be too many; if 5 good unraveling points aren't enough for someone...

BTW, in case you couldn't tell, I am very wary of overstuffed 9/11 presentations. Example: in the Mariani case, Phil Berg came up with a list of 100 points indicative of prior knowledge of the 911 attacks. Very few people are able to notice what is missing from such large lists (in Berg's case, he'd left out Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements, which indicate prior knowledge). That seems to be the pattern; John Judge went on for 149 pages in his "Omission Report" and few (one?) noticed that he'd left out the omission which hoists the lying government by its own petard: the Pentagon Video Frames. It's much harder to notice what has been omitted from the huge web sites than from the more finely honed ones. (So if one wants to get away with leaving out the sharpest arguments, one wants to have an oversized web site, which takes weeks to fully read. Of course no one will ever read it all; it's all [well, mostly] just fluff to cover for and distract from what's been omitted.)

Please people: if you start with the strongest arguments, then any arguments you add after a certain point will distract from them, diluting your presentation. In that sense, more is not better; a bigger mountain of round-earth facts will not prevail against a confirmed flat-earther.

911blimp, I take your

911blimp, I take your comments seriously.

Stay tuned for list of 5 :)

Hey Professional, no offense

Hey Professional, no offense taken.

Got to run, folks (probably won't check back here).

But keep on fighting the infowars to get the truth out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Daily Kos is an important battleground: worth signing up and then blasting 9/11 truth there.

Also, writing letters to the editor of your local paper supporting, for example, Scholars for 9/11 Truth (www.ScholarsFor911Truth.org) might be a high-leverage effort.

Over and out...

Thanks, DailyKoster. I'm

Thanks, DailyKoster. I'm not sure that "5" is a magic number, or what the magic number is, or even if there is one. (in training a puppy, 4 is the magic number of repetitions)

It's probably best to mainly stick to the strongest points; too many to dismiss but not enough to make it self-diluting or appear too time-consuming or seem complicated; something for everyone...

Here's a list of