State Department's Disinfo Page

Very lame attempt to refute the most popular conspiracy theories. Good way to tell what they think NEEDS "debunking".

25 October 2006

The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories

Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most prevalent myths are:

1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:

Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded any explosions during the tower collapses.
Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article on the WTC collapses, the National Institute of Science and Technology’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” and Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5.

2) No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11. Instead, it was a missile fired by elements “from inside the American state apparatus.”

Conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore several facts:

The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.
The flight’s black boxes were also recovered at the site.
Numerous eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Some saw passengers through the plane’s windows. Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers.
Numerous photographs show airplane debris at the crash site, as was also witnessed by survivors and rescue personnel. See sections 4:57 to 6:00 of the “911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77” video for pictures of airliner debris.
For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” and Popular Mechanics, part 6.

3) The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled.

Boeing, which manufactured the planes that struck the towers, stated that all its commercial jet transports are configured so that they can only be controlled from the flight deck of the aircraft.
Passengers onboard the flights made several phone calls. All reported that hijackers had commandeered the planes.
For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?”

4) United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down by a missile.

The cockpit voice recorder of this flight was recovered and showed that the passenger revolt caused the hijackers to deliberately crash the plane. The hijackers controlled the plane until its impact. See full transcript.
The U.S. military did not learn that flight 93 had been hijacked until four minutes after it crashed, as recently released tapes demonstrate.
The military never gave interceptor pilots authorization to shoot down United flight 93. See article on tapes.
Listen to the 45-second message left by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles on her home answering machine. Click on the “Lyles” file or the phone icon in the bottom left corner of the flight 93 page.
For more information, see The 9/11 Commission Report chapter 1, “We Have Some Planes,”pages 13-14.

5) World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.

This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters. For more details, see 9/11 Revealed?
Conspiracy theorists have interpreted the “pull it” remark as slang for demolishing the building with explosives. But demolition experts say “pulling” a building means attaching long cables to a weakened structure and literally pulling it down with bulldozers and other powerful machinery – not using explosives.
Seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies that would have indicated the use of explosives.
For more information, see ImplosionWorld article, the National Institute of Science and Technology’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” and Popular Mechanics, part 5.

6) Insider trading in the stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines just before September 11 is evidence of advance knowledge of the plot.

The 9/11 Commission investigated this issue in detail, concluding, “Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.”
For example, it stated, “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [Airlines stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.”
For other examples, see The 9/11 Commission Report, “Notes” section, page 499, footnote 130.

7) Four thousand Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11.

It appears from media reports that some 10-15% of WTC victims were Jewish, indicating there were no mass absences.
The “4,000” figure apparently came from an early statement by the Israeli Foreign Ministry that some “4,000 Israelis” were believed to be in the New York and Washington areas, where the attacks occurred. This figure was apparently seized upon by conspiracy theorists, in an attempt to bolster the false rumor.
For more information, see “The 4,000 Jews Rumor.”

8) Al Qaida is not responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Al Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have repeatedly confirmed that they planned and carried out the September 11 attacks.
In an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, bin Laden stated, “I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers … with those raids ….”
In a November 2001 tape, bin Laden said, “We calculated in advance the number of casualties … who would be killed …. I was the most optimistic of them all. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.”
For more information, see “Al Qaeda and September 11th.”
Also, in August 2006, Popular Mechanics expanded its article, referenced above, into a book, Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts. It provides excellent additional material debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, including many of those mentioned above and others.

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:
PAGE TOOLS Email this story
Print this story
XML Transcript

Tell us what you think about this article.

There is just so much here

There is just so much here one doesn't know where to start!

Two howlers pop out first off:

1. How is it again that there was pulverized concrete below the level of destruction?


2. The State Dept. is referring people to Popular Mechanics? Maybe it's just me (!), but this suggests a little footsie in that debunked piece. And having the diplomatic arm of the federal government suggest people get their info from PM is like the Surgeon General suggesting that people get their information on human anatomy from National Geographic.

Don't have time for more, but this should be a fun thread. Last one in is a rotten egg!

No Conspiracy Theory Here

This list is from the government? It sounds as if it is written for 8th graders. If this is the best they got (aside from near absolute control of mainstream media) they are done. It was certainly nice of them to put together a list for disecting. I won't do it all at the moment, but I would like to point out their contention about how normal demolitions wouldn't start from the top: first, there are many ways to skin a cat, and just as many ways to take down a building, especially if you don't care what a mess it will make; secondly, it's important to remember that each WTC tower was essentially 3 buildings stacked up on top of each other; each segment was divided by support floors- 1/3 up, 2/3 up, 3/3 up, so taking down the top segment first to begin the controlled demolition would in fact begin up near the top of the towers.

Anyway, this list is ridiculious. We should feel more and more confident. Also notice how they still try to shape what evidence and questions are driving the 911 Truth Movement. They completely avoid all of the Military exercises and War Games occuring on 911. They blatantly leave out WTC 7. And they still label the whole cause "Conspiracy Theorists" when a good many of us have no theory at all - we just have a mountain load of serious questions which demand answers. In sum, their tact in laying out this list is prooof that there is an organized effort trying to counter the Truth. One need only ask, who usually wants Truth supressed?

No Conspiracy Theory Here

Pull it

See how they again almost exclusively write about "pull it" in connection with WTC 7? That is because it is the least difficult thing to "explain away" and is conducive to endless semantic debates.

No needs of semantic debates

No needs of semantic debates around the silverstein's "pull it" comment. One just have to watch the video of the rag doll building to known it was CD.


Lucky Larry made the comment on the advice of his lawyers. Plausible deniability is the name of that game. To focus the debate on the comment is pointless. The debate should be focused on the obvious fact that the building was destroyed, who did it, and who has been helping to cover it up. I put the makers of the documentary America Rebuilds on that list.

They have no idea what's coming down on them--such is their arrogance and it will be their downfall.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


No Seismograph Readings!?!?

Interesting they try and use lack of seismograph spikes to prove WTC7 was not demolished but ignore seismograph spikes that prove the towers were!

seismograph spikes

timing the explosions in WTC7 (some of them anyway, probably including in the base) to coincide with the collapses of the twins could easily account for "missing" seismograph spikes in 7.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Seismic readings

The first tick on the seismic chart were the bombs in the basement.... the building would absorb the force of impact and that would not have registered anything too substantial.....

the same applies to demolishing the structure from the top down..... the explosive charges would not register quite the same as if the building had been blown from the bottom to the top.... this type of demolition would register a completely different seismic signature than a typical demolition (bottom to top)

The lower ten to twenty floors could have been left free from explosives because the falling debris would have done considerable damage.... the lower floors would only need the core coulmns severed from below.... a majority of the steel that required cutting came from the lower portion of the structure..... these lower floors would have also acted as a cushion for the falling debris.. lessening the impact on the seismic reading

Bigger Issue on Seismograph Readings

In the answer to the first question they state:

"Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded any explosions during the tower collapses."

Wait a second. Which demolition firms were these? Why did they have seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on Sept. 11? Can we please have access to the data from these "very sensitive" machines?

Sounds like a great subject for a FOIA request.

Nice catch! Definitely FOIA

Nice catch! Definitely FOIA worthy!

FOIA is only for government information, not private.

However, if this private information was cited in government reports, you may have a shot at it.

Keep in mind that the information could very well be bogus, still more cover for the perps.

Hope I didn't rain on your parade too much.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well.

I think seismograph info is in the Protec paper

I think that's the first place I ran across this suggestion that a bunch of different construction sites had seismographic devices going that morning, and I believe the implication was that it is SOP.


"Good way to tell what they think NEEDS "debunking".

That's one way of looking at it. I think another element is what they think is either a lost cause for them, like controlled demolition, or a straw man, like remoted planes or Flight 93 missiles, or discrediting, like 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work.

Popular Mechanics takes a similar tack, though they don't really address the strongest arguments for controlled demolition.

If "no planes" is so ridiculous and discrediting and easy to debunk, one might expect the State Department and Popular Mechanics to use that one.

I don't agree that all of these are among the most popular. Certainly 3 and 7 are not.

agreed I think it's a mix

4000 Jews is probably as you say, just meant to insinuate that we're "anti-semites", but I honestly think remote control was used, and the other stuff is pretty much the opposite of what they claim...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Ningen, I don't know how you


I don't know how you became convinced of the NP stuff, whether you are promoting it for nefarious purposes or just stumbled upon it and found it plausible. You have been consistent in bringing it up in most of your posts.

I strongly believe that it began as a disinformation campaign to divert attention away from WTC7. When people begin to conflate "No plane hit Building 7" with "No planes hit the Towers," the serious problem with the explanation of 7's implosion is diluted and dispersed. This is how disinfo works.

You seem committed to strong evidence in other areas -- how is it that you think a public No Planes campaign is strong enough evidence to pass through a disbeliever's filter when it doesn't pass with the majority of us who are already convinced of complicity? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, despite my suspicions.

Show "What proof do you have of PLANES?" by BegToDiffer (not verified)

You are out of line, LEH

You are right that you don't know me, and if you are in the habit of making unfounded accusations, I don't want to know you.

I don't ask for the benefit of your doubt, and could care you less if you suspect me.

If you want to read how I became convinced about no-planes, it is here, and here:

You are right, I am committed to strong evidence, though I don't know what other areas you are talking about. I mostly talk about the "planes." I also talk a lot about the dangers of hearsay about foreign intrigues supplied by government sources, because they can be spun all sorts of ways -- maybe you mean that.

Planes are the premise of so much. If they are not true, which I believe they are not, then I'm not going to pretend they exist for the sake of your unfounded suspicions or your presumptions as to what

I happen to think the opposite -- the faked South Tower videos are easy to understand and easy to believe.

Even if I did not think that, I would not be complicit in a bullshit story for the sake of promoting the "truth."

It is not enough to be "convinced of complicity," and I have already written about how dangerous that idea is in comments here:

II may be stupid and I may be misled. If you can show me that, I will change my views. But for you to accuse me of "disinfo" just because of a sincerely held and atinally based opinion is out of line.

She's not out of line and you need to think carefully.

This is the crux of the conflict on this board between NPT proponents and detractors. Are you trying to construct a persuasive argument, persuasive in the sense that it will convince a critical mass of Americans that we do not know the truth about 9/11, or are you researching for research's sake and damn the outcome?

The whole "we can't be afraid of the whole truth (sic)" argument just does NOT go over well with the people on this board who actually deal with the public, including me. And you are completely wrong to suggest that the "faked" (sic) videos of the South Tower impact are easy to understand OR to believe. The idea that the videos are fake and that there is no evidence of planes is about the MOST counter-intuitive thing you can propose to someone still operating under the consensus misunderstanding of events that day. It is not productive. But hey, if productive isn't what you're aiming for...

Again, I'm not going to vote your post down because I'm still acting on the assumption that you are sincere, but you're pushing it. Not being registered does not enhance your perceived sincerity, btw.

I second the sentiment, casseia.

And I will admit to giving negative points regarding the NPT on many occasions.

Let's get new,independent and complete investigations first and then see what comes from them.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well.

Show "So we should "be afraid of the whole truth"?" by daisyjane (not verified)

Accusing me of "disinfo" is out of line. Period.

The physics, and common sense, of that "Flight 11" wheel at Recter and West being falsified evidence is neither difficult nor counterintuitive. NIST has done the work on that -- read between the lines. I'm starting to think we might have some whistleblowers between the lines.

The physics of the "planes" being fake is not difficult either. I think it is common sense, once the mind is freed from the lies of 5 years. Ten weeks ago when I heard Morgan Reynolds talk "no planes," I was shocked, and my heart fell because I thought he was purposefully trying to discredit the "movement." That was before I read his paper and did my own research, and before I learned about the definition of "truth" in this movement.

Listen to how you are dealing with this problem -- not whether it is true, but whether it is marketable. I reject that on principle. I'm not here to trade a lie for another lie.

I also reject it as a strategy. You cannot prove a lie. And I do not see that the fact the buildings were blown up is any easier to accept. If you're interested, this is my view on the futility of self-censorship:

Look at the video. It is not right. Show it to a friend. She may not conclude it was faked, but I bet she will agree it is very weird. That's how my sister reacted. Her eyes glaze over when her husband and I talk about pipeline politics. The "plane" -- that's easy to see.

MIT expert Wiezbicki also thought is was weird. That's not what he concluded from the model he constructed, but read between the lines.

If we must treat this as a problem for the experts, our house physicist Steven Jones has already acknowledged that the question is how much decleration should be evident in the video given how much initial kinetic energy would be lost from the impact. He just didn't bother to research and analyze the most current literature on the subject. I am far from the best person to do that - Steven Jones should have been able to do it before his morning coffee on the day he announced for the "truth." But since no one else had bothered, I did it myself. It took me two weeks from the time I first heard that the plane videos might be faked to prove to myself that they were. I used the same basic method as Eric Salter and Steven Jones, and just plugged in better data. The videos are faked.

I'm not talking about space beams. As far as I can see, that is speculative. But there's nothing wrong with speculation. If space beams and no planes are so ridiculous and discrediting, the State Dept and Popular Mechanics should have had a field day setting them up and knocking them down. They didn't touch them.

It's not clear to me how registering here would prove my sincerity.

Who is trying to prove a lie?

There is a crucial difference between the effort to construct a persuasive argument for use with flesh and blood people steeped in the MSM and esoteric discussions about how many non-existent planes can dance on the head of a pin held by blogosphere wraiths. I don't find it necessary to discuss the existence of planes at all, believe it or not. But I can guarantee that if I was talking about this with a cocktail waitress, the second-to-last thing I would bring up is the validity of the video images.

As for being registered, here's the deal, which would appear to be intuitively obvious to most people here: by registering, you are agreeing to join our "discursive community" and to distinguish yourself from posters such as the one right above you.

The jury is out

on whether this is a "discursive community."

Discursive communities do not accuse people of being "disinfo" for making sincere and logical arguments, even though they have made no response to the facts and logic of those arguments.

I just showed how that is done by critiquing the flawed analyses by which Steven Jones and Eric Salter concluded that the videos are not faked. No accusations, just rational rebuttal. I will do this in more detail within the next week at my blog.

Discursive communities do not hide comments because they don't like what is being said.

I have distinguished myself from the commenter above me, and do not agree that you have ill intent. What does it get me? One less negative rating.

This is not what you would call a time-place-manner restriction. It's content-based. I know this is not a First Amendment case, but 9/11 is much too serious a subject for proprietary restrictions on speech.

Casseia, You've summed it


You've summed it up perfectly, and I would add that I didn't accuse him of disinfo, but rather stated my personal belief that the NP theory was begun and promoted initially as a disinfo tactic to draw attention from WTC7. (Remember, when folks started talking about 7, one of the first things they said is "...and it wasn't even hit by a plane.")  Also, numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions, etc. at the Towers are crucial to disproving the viability of the OCT.  For NPT to suggest that all eyewitness accounts must be dismissed, including those of seeing planes, just reeks, IMO.  If I were to write a disinfo script, this is exactly how I would go about it.

 Anyone can believe anything they want -- more power to 'em, and all that -- but I have no problem questioning the One Note Charlies.   


I think part of the no planes at the towers nonsense was to try to discredit the no plane at the pentagon business, which is obvious to most people. So while NPT(owers) is clearly bogus, NPP(entagon) is legit.

I KNOW, I KNOW--not everyone agrees that no plane hit the Pentagon. Big deal. Some say it was AA77 (very clearly false) some say it was a small unmanned drone. yet others believe it was a winged missile of which there exist types that amid chaos and confusion could be mistaken for a plane if it were painted to resemble one.

Anyway, I guess this is nothing new, but we should be conscious of the fact that many people looking at this info for the first time are going to be confused by the BS artists and every now and then be explicit about why we consider certain ideas disinfo.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Strange logic Real Truther

You concede (believe) that there was no AA77 at the pentagon. Therefore, you believe that the government lied and created videos to bolster that lie (concerning the pentagon "aircraft").

What is the difference with the story of planes at WTC?

Is it the witnesses? There were witnesses at the pentagon

Is it the videos? You've already concede these were faked (at the pentagon)

Is there physical evidence? NO, there is not. (just two holes in two buildings-no planes, no engines)

It would appear your inability to accept NP at WTC is based on 1) previously held beliefs which you prefer not to reconsider or 2) a general belief that such an idea is just "too far fetched". Neither of these is based on rational thought and examination of the evidence.

You have always appeared bright and your comments generally reflect reasonably sound thinking. I hope you will set aside your ego and examine the available evidence. Also, consider this: if they were going to fake one plane crash, why not all four (as I believe is the case). This is not meant as an attack but only intended to point out the flaw in your logic. If you need links to the evidence, just ask.

Take care and keep digging. Peace.


I'll answer your questions with a question. Why would "the govt" create such incredibly realistic fake videos for the towers and such a crummy fake video for the Pentagon?

The Pentagon video doesn't seem faked, it just doesn't show what they say it shows, and more than likely shows evidence of a missile (visible vapor trail, small size).

For that matter, none of the various videos of the WTC seem to be faked either.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


"such incredibly realistic

"such incredibly realistic fake videos for the towers "

The whole point of the no-planes argument is that the fake videos are incredibily UN-realistic, once viewed critically.

I think you underestimate the American people---they know that television is not real. Show the video and explain why it cannot be real. It could not be simpler.

Instead we have Steven Jones assuming, when all the evidence says otherwise, that there were 19 hijackers. And we're off in Pakistan trying to prove these non-existent hijackers really worked for the CIA, or were patsies for the CIA.

I disagree with the strength of the following evidence.

War games? Prove it was not coincidental. And it irrelevant if there were no planes, except that it might show how the "planes" ended up on radar. First you have to acknowledge the obvious -- no planes.

Stand down? Prove it, and if you do, make sure you're not sending innocent officers to jail. Again, no planes, no stand down. "There must have been a stand down" is an explanation for something that did not occur. Mineta's testimony? Child's play for a good lawyer.

Put options? Big deal. Someone got a whiff that was something was about to go down from someone who got a whiff that something was about to go down, and decided to take advantage of it. Insider trading, at most, unless the person had actionable information and a duty to respond. It might help solve the crime, ONCE YOU CORRECTLY DEFINE THE CRIME.

Demolition? Already proven, years ago, and the fact there were no planes puts the nail in the coffin of the "plane/fire" fairy tale.

WTC dust and the EPA declaring the air safe? Heinous, and something should be done to redress this. Lawsuits are ongoing, and if people in this movement want to support that, that is laudable. But it is a separate issue from the 9/11 crimes. The only relation I see is that it shows the callousness of our government to the lives of American citizens, which makes 9/11 inside job easier to believe, and it may relate to the financial motive for demolishing the towers because it shows how dangerous and expensive a proper demolition or dismantling would have been.

Impeachment for war issues? I can see an impeachment investigation being expanded to 9/11, so I agree with that.

I think the "focus" urged by Steven Jones is doomed to failure.

One question, Ningen

How does the no-planes thing go over with the guy in line at the grocery store who asks about your "Question 9/11" teeshirt/button/bumpersticker? I mean, that does happen to you, right?

I stand by my characterization of your accusations

Your personal belief that this began as disinfo is nothing more than speculation, and many people oppose no-planes theory even if true. In a "truth" movement.

Eyewitness testimony is less reliable than physical evidence.

Eyeswitness testimony is influenced after the fact by the media environment.

The planes are not "one note," and if they are, they set the tone for the whole story.

Eyewitness accounts of explosions are not the strongest evidence.

You can question me all you want. Just don't expect your unfounded accusations to go unanswered.

Stand wherever you like. We

Stand wherever you like. We disagree.

no planes and the state dept.

I don't think they'd gain anything by including NPT, because it is easily debunked. they are concerned with claims that people find compelling, or claims that are plausible and make the movement look bad. people will not believe that millions believe in NPT, but some people MAY believe that millions are anti-semitic. there was a special on PBS last called "the rise of anti-semitism in the twentieth century." convincing people that anti-semitism is rising because of 9/11 claims and that 9/11 claims are rising because of anti-semitism is part of their agenda. A circular argument, unsubstantiated, that makes 9/11 research seem unappealing to people. It's fine because since the "rise of anti-semitism" is not real, but the rise of anti-Islamism and anti-Arabism IS, it backfires on them. But they are so self-enamoured they don't see that!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


RT- I didn't mean that State


I didn't mean that State was promoting it, but rather that it is being promoted by some in the movement and State is "responding" to what is "out there."

We saw that PBS program last night as well. We were positively GAGGING, it was so circular. The layers of hypocrisy were like a real pancacked building -- and there was no mention of Israeli state-sponsored terrorism. I fully expected to see AIPAC listed as the sole sponsor!

It makes me so angry that blind allegiance to Israeli military policy is considered the only alternative to the anti-Semitic cretins who, unfortunately, do exist.

I didn't think so

I know State isn't promoting NPT... but honestly I'm getting confused! I just meant that the lack of NPT does NOT mean the state dept is afraid to list it because it's compelling, it means they're afraid of being laughed at for taking it seriously.

and yes, the real bigots do exist unfortunately. they are the unwitting allies of those they despise, which would be funny if they weren't BOTH against us, the people who don't think anyone is more special than anyone else in the eyes of god or in any other way.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Notice how the State Department dealt with CD

They didn't address the strongest argument, the physics.

They talk about how hard it would be to wire the buildings and how "controlled demolitions" are done differently (which incidentally is why the word "controlled demolition" is almost as misleading as the word "collapse.") Then they refer to unverifiable evidence.

That's quite similar to how "no plane" arguments are not dealt with here.

Real Truther, you are one of the people here that I agree with the most and that I disagree with the most.


1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.
This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:

Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.

[yea, they always do it from the bottom when they're trying to fake a building collapse from an airplane hit. And Building 7 did collapse from the bottom]

Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.

[yea right, even the stuff being blown out 30 floors below the collapse point.]

Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded any explosions during the tower collapses.

[seismographs recorded very small earthquakes of 2.1 and 2.3 for the Twin Towers from the shaking caused by the building hitting the ground. Not sure how explosions on the 70th floor would cause earthquakes.]

Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.

[clean-up crews weren't looking for signs of controlled demolitions, they were looking for live and dead people. But they did cart off practically all the evidence before investigators could examine it.]

Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.

[it obviously wasn't noticed. Why would charges placed inside the core area where people don't go be noticed?]

The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of

American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA...."

No engines, seats, luggage, etc., 16-foot wide initial impact hole, but the bodies of the crew & passengers were found? Where are photos of them? It's all Bullshit!!!

Furthermore, no way DNA nor any other methods could have IDed a plane full of people who smashed through walls @ 530 mph, exploded, & burned! Viable DNA could not be recovered for 65 people, no less!