Editor’s Note: There are likely tens of thousands of Americans who have done far more research than I have on 9/11. I spent perhaps a dozen or so hours researching it in the past and came to the conclusion that it was likely, as Alex Jones puts it, an “inside job” with help from outside forces. I didn’t dwell on it because I did not recognize at the time how this could still have implications today.
I figured the damage was done and they got their Patriot Act and endless wars in the Middle East, so diving into the conspiracies surrounding the triggering event itself was not a priority. I was wrong.
Based on what the powers-that-be have been doing to us for the last three years, I have moved 9/11 much higher on my priority list. I haven’t begun full-blown research yet, but I’ve done enough to realize 9/11 is one of the best keys to understanding massive conspiracies today that involve governments, NGOs, corporate media, the Deep State, the Military Industrial Complex, and seemingly unrelated entities like the World Economic Forum or the Council for Inclusive Capitalism.
The compilation below by Graeme MacQueen and Ted Walter with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is definitely worth the read, especially on this special anniversary of the terrorist attack. First is their current article followed by the longer, comprehensive investigation. Set aside some time and see this conspiracy through fresh eyes in light of what the globalist elites are doing to us today.
How the TV Networks Hid the Twin Towers’ Demolition on 9/11
This article is the second installment of a two-part research project we began in July 2020 with the article “How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11.”
In that article, our goal was to determine the prevalence, among television reporters on 9/11, of the hypothesis that explosions had brought down the Twin Towers.
Through careful review of approximately 70 hours of news coverage on 11 different channels, we found that the explosion hypothesis was not only common among reporters but was, in fact, the dominant hypothesis.
Our second question, which we set aside for the present article, was to determine how, despite its prevalence, the explosion hypothesis was supplanted by the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse.
In this article, we shall concentrate not on reporters in the field, as in Part 1, but on the news anchors and their guests who were tasked with discovering and making sense of what was happening. As we trace the supplanting of the explosion hypothesis with the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, we witness the great shift toward what quickly became the Official Narrative.
We do not see our task as trying to discover whether the Official Narrative of 9/11 is true or false. In the 21 years since the attacks took place, it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, we believe, that the Official Narrative is false.
While we support and participate in the further accumulation of evidence for this position, as well as the presentation of this evidence to the public, we believe it is also important to look into how the triumph of the Official Narrative was accomplished.
If we are able to discover this, we will greatly advance our understanding of the psychological operation conducted on September 11, 2001 — and, thus, our understanding of how other psychological operations are perpetrated on the public.
[You can read the full report below, or download it and read it later from ae911truth.org]
9/11 Conspiracy Revisited: 36 MSM Voices Reported Explosions That Betray Narrative of Fires Bringing Down the Towers
The widely held belief that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the airplane impacts and the resulting fires is, unbeknownst to most people, a revisionist theory. Among individuals who witnessed the event firsthand, the more prevalent hypothesis was that the Twin Towers had been brought down by massive explosions.
This observation was first made 14 years ago in the article, 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers.
A review of interviews conducted with 503 members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) in the weeks and months after 9/11 revealed that 118 of them described witnessing what they interpreted that day to be explosions.
Only 10 FDNY members were found describing the destruction in ways supportive of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
The interviews of fire marshal John Coyle and firefighter Christopher Fenyo explicitly support this finding.
Coyle remarked in his interview:
I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours afterwards… Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up.”
Similarly, Fenyo recalled in his interview:
At that point, a debate began to rage [about whether to continue rescue operations in the other, still-standing tower] because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges.”
News reporters constitute another group of individuals who witnessed the event firsthand and whose accounts were publicly documented.
While many people have seen a smattering of news clips on the internet in which reporters describe explosions, there has never been, as far as we know, a systematic attempt to collect these news clips and analyze them.
We decided to take on this task for two reasons. First, we wanted to know just how prevalent the explosion hypothesis was among reporters. Second, anticipating that this would be the more prevalent hypothesis, we wanted to determine exactly how it was supplanted by the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse.
In this article, we present our findings related to the first question. In a subsequent article, we will examine how the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse so quickly supplanted the originally dominant explosion hypothesis.
TELEVISION COVERAGE COMPILED
To determine how prevalent the explosion hypothesis was among reporters, we set out to review as much continuous news coverage as we could find from the major television networks, cable news channels, and local network affiliates covering the events in New York.
Through internet searches, we found continuous news coverage from 11 different television networks, cable news channels, and local network affiliates. These included the networks ABC, CBS, and NBC; cable news channels CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC; and local network affiliates WABC, WCBS, and WNBC.
We also incorporated coverage from New York One (NY1), a New York-based cable news channel owned by Time Warner (now Spectrum), which we grouped with the local network affiliates into a local channel category.
Unfortunately, we were not able to find coverage spanning most of the day for every channel. Thus, while the collection of news coverage we compiled is extensive, it is not comprehensive. To fill in the gaps where possible, we included excerpts of coverage that aired later in the day if we found that coverage to be relevant.
We also included one excerpt from USA Today’s coverage that we found to be relevant and three excerpts from an afternoon press conference with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Governor George Pataki that aired on almost every channel. In general, the times at which these excerpts aired are unknown, though in some cases we were able to identify an approximate time.
The news coverage we compiled and reviewed totaled approximately 70 hours.
Table 1: Television Coverage Compiled
Note: We invite anyone who has portions of the television coverage we were not able to find to send them to us at [email protected]. We will incorporate anything we receive and update this article accordingly. For anyone who wishes to replicate our work, the entire collection of footage can be downloaded here.
Criteria for Defining ‘Explosion’ Versus ‘Non-Explosion’ Reporters
We sought to answer one main question in our review of the news coverage: How many reporters described the occurrence of explosions — both the raw number of reporters and as a percentage of all reporters who covered the Twin Towers’ destruction — and what was the nature of their reporting?
To answer this question, we needed to establish clear criteria for identifying what we will call “explosion reporters” and “non-explosion reporters.”
We should make clear that this article addresses the statements of reporters only and does not address the statements of anchors, except in the case of one anchor (CNN’s Aaron Brown) who had a direct view of the Twin Towers.
In our next article, we will address statements made by anchors, who were also interpreting the Twin Towers’ destruction but without having witnessed it firsthand.
Because the airplane impacts were often referred to as explosions, we were careful to exclude any instances where it was not absolutely clear that the reporter was referring only to the destruction of the Twin Towers.
As we studied the news coverage and began to recognize patterns in how the Twin Towers’ destruction was reported, we developed three separate categories of reporting that would classify someone as an “explosion reporter”:
- eyewitness reporting
- narrative reporting
- source-based reporting.
Below we provide definitions of each.
Eyewitness Reporting
“Eyewitness reporting” is when a reporter is an eyewitness with a direct view of or in close proximity to the destruction of one or both of the Twin Towers and perceives an explosion or explosions in conjunction with the destruction — or perceives one or both of the towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting.
Although we usually excluded the word “boom,” which could apply either to an explosion or to a collapse, we included it in one case because the totality of what the reporter (Nina Pineda) described indicated that she viewed the event as being explosion-based.
We did not include reporters who described only a “shaking” or “trembling” of the ground. The perception of the ground shaking was widespread and constitutes important eyewitness evidence, but it does not necessarily reveal much about how the reporter interpreted what she or he was witnessing.
Among reporters who mentioned demolition, we excluded the ones who merely compared the destruction to a demolition whenever it was clear that the reporter believed it to be a collapse caused by structural failure. We also excluded reporters who used the word “implode” or “implosion” whenever it was clear that the reporter used it to describe the building collapsing in on itself, as opposed to a demolition.
Here is an example of eyewitness reporting:
David Lee Miller, Fox News, 10:01 AM:
Suddenly, while talking to an officer who was questioning me about my press credentials, we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us […] Not clear now is why this explosion took place. Was it because of the planes that, uh, two planes, dual attacks this morning, or was there some other attack, which is — there has been talk of here on the street.”
Narrative Reporting
“Narrative reporting” is when a reporter refers to the Twin Towers’ destruction as an explosion-based event when speaking of it in the course of his or her reporting. This could be a reporter who was an eyewitness to the destruction or a reporter who otherwise understood the destruction to be an explosion-based event.
The main distinction between eyewitness reporting and narrative reporting is that eyewitness reporting involves an eyewitness describing his or her direct perceptions, often uttering them spontaneously, while narrative reporting involves interpretation and/or outside influence, either of which inform the reporter’s developing narrative of what took place.
(In several cases, reporters go from engaging in eyewitness reporting around the time of the destruction to engaging in narrative reporting later on, with their direct perceptions informing their developing narrative).
This distinction is not meant to imply that one type of reporting is more valuable or reliable than another. In this analysis, eyewitness reporting tells us about what reporters perceived and immediately interpreted during, or shortly after, the event. It thus gives us more information about the actual event.
Narrative reporting, by contrast, tells us how reporters interpreted the event after having more time to process their perceptions and to synthesize additional information from other sources. Narrative reporting thus tells us about the collective narrative that was developing among reporters covering the event.
Here is an example of narrative reporting:
George Stephanopoulos, ABC, 12:27 PM:
“Well, Peter, I’m going to give you kind of a pool report from several of our correspondents down here of basically what happened down here in downtown New York between 9:45 and 10:45 when the two explosions and the collapse of the World Trade Center happened.
At the time, I was actually in the subway heading towards the World Trade Center right around Franklin Street. And after the first explosion the subway station started to fill with smoke. The subway cars started to fill with smoke, and the subways actually stopped.
They then diverted us around the World Trade Center to Park Place, which is one stop beyond the World Trade Center. We got to that train station at around 10:35, Peter, and it was a scene unlike I’ve ever seen before in my entire life.”
Source-based Reporting
“Source-based reporting” is when a reporter reports on the possible use of explosives based on information from government officials who said they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.
Source-based reporting is similar to narrative reporting in that it involves outside influence. The main distinction is that source-based reporting is based on information from government sources. Information from government sources inherently indicates how government agencies were interpreting the event and is sometimes given extra weight by reporters and viewers.
Here is an example of source-based reporting:
Pat Dawson, NBC, 11:55 AM:
Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department…[He] told me that shortly after 9 o’clock he had roughly 10 alarms, roughly 200 men in the building trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is, another bomb going off.
He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here.
So obviously, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building…But the bottom line is that, according to the Chief of Safety of the New York City Fire Department, he says that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions. And he said that there were literally hundreds if not thousands of people in those two towers when the explosions took place.”
Non-Explosion Reporters
The main criterion we developed for classifying someone as a “non-explosion reporter” was that she or he reported on the destruction of one or both of the Twin Towers and did not engage in any of the types of explosion reporting defined above.
To qualify as a non-explosion reporter, it was not necessary for the reporter to explicitly articulate the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. The mere absence of explosion reporting was enough to classify someone as a non-explosion reporter.
The challenge here lay not in identifying the absence of explosion reporting but in defining what constituted “reporting on the destruction.” In the end, we decided this should mean that the reporter had to describe the event of the destruction and not simply mention it in passing.
We should note that a reporter’s use of the word “collapse” did not necessarily qualify that person as a non-explosion reporter. Many explosion reporters described the occurrence of an explosion followed by collapse and they used the word “collapse” in their reporting (David Lee Miller, quoted above, is a prime example).
Thus, use of the word “collapse” is not incompatible with being an explosion reporter and did not qualify someone as a non-explosion reporter.
Also, if a reporter made a statement that qualified him or her as an explosion reporter and then subsequently made a statement explicitly supporting the fire-induced collapse hypothesis (which is the case for WABC’s Joe Torres), we classified this reporter as an explosion reporter because he or she engaged in some explosion reporting at some point during the day.
In this analysis, being classified as an “explosion reporter” does not imply a permanent stance. Rather, it just means that at some point in the day he or she reported the occurrence of explosions or the possible use of explosives in relation to the Twin Towers’ destruction.
Before we move on to the next section, it is important to note that because non-explosion reporters had to describe the event of the destruction and not simply mention it in passing, the only way to make a valid numerical comparison between explosion reporters and non-explosion reporters is to include only those who engaged in eyewitness reporting.
According to the criteria we developed, explosion reporters who engaged in narrative reporting were not describing the event of the destruction but rather were referring to it as an explosion-based event in the course of their reporting, i.e., in passing.
A comparable classification does not exist for non-explosion reporters, because we excluded those who only mentioned the event in passing (most commonly using the word “collapse”).
Numerical Analysis of ‘Explosion’ and ‘Non-Explosion’ Reporters
In total, we identified 36 explosion reporters and four non-explosion reporters in the approximately 70 hours of news coverage we reviewed. The 36 explosion reporters and their statements are listed in Appendix A. The four non-explosion reporters and their statements are listed in Appendix B. In addition, there were three borderline cases that we determined could not be clearly classified as either explosion or non-explosion reporters. Those cases are listed in Appendix C.
Of the 36 explosion reporters, 21 of them engaged in eyewitness reporting, 22 of them engaged in narrative reporting, and three of them engaged in source-based reporting. Recalling our definitions from above, this means the following:
- 21 reporters witnessed what they perceived as an explosion or explosions during the destruction of the Twin Towers or they perceived the Twin Towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting.
- 22 reporters (eight of whom also fall into the eyewitness reporting category) referred to the Twin Towers’ destruction as an explosion or an explosion-based event when speaking of it in the course of their reporting.
- Three reporters (two of whom also fall into the narrative reporting category) reported on the possible use of explosives based on information from government officials who said they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.
- Four reporters reported on the destruction of the Twin Towers and did not report explosions in any way (either having witnessed explosions, having interpreted the destruction as being an explosion-based event, or having been informed by government officials about the possible use of explosives).
In terms of the percentage of explosion and non-explosion reporters, 21 of the 25 reporters who directly witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, or 84%, either perceived an explosion or explosions or they perceived the Twin Towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting. In comparison, four of the 25 reporters who directly witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, or 16%, did not report explosions in any way.
The tables below list each reporter and each instance of reporting according to the time at which each report was made.
Table 2A: Eyewitness Reporting by Explosion Reporters
Table 2B: Narrative Reporting by Explosion Reporters
Table 2C: Source-based Reporting by Explosion Reporters
Table 2D: Non-Explosion Reporters
HOW REPORTERS REPORTED THE TWIN TOWERS’ DESTRUCTION
The picture that unmistakably emerges is that the great majority of reporters who witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers either perceived an explosion or perceived the towers as exploding.
This hypothesis of the Twin Towers’ destruction then continued to be prevalent among reporters covering the event, who essentially viewed the destruction of the towers as an explosion-based attack subsequent to the airplane strikes.
We learn from the source-based reporting that the same hypothesis was also held by officials in the FDNY, the New York Police Department (NYPD), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — three of the most important agencies involved in the response to the attacks. In particular, with regard to the FBI, we are told the explosion hypothesis was the agency’s “working theory” as of late in the afternoon on 9/11.
Unlike members of the FDNY, most of whom provided their accounts during interviews conducted weeks or months after the event, it was the job of reporters to spontaneously communicate their perception and interpretation of events.
Thus, when their reporting is compiled into one record, we are left with a rich and largely unfiltered collective account of what took place. Considered alongside the FDNY oral histories, these reporters’ statements, in our view, constitute strong corroborating evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
Survival Beef on sale now. Freeze dried Ribeye, NY Strip, and Premium beef cubes. Promo code “jdr” at checkout for 25% off! Prepper All-Naturals
Regarding the four non-explosion reporters, in addition to the fact that there are so few of them, we find that their individual accounts add little support to the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
Two of the reporters were quite far away from the Twin Towers at the time of their destruction relative to most of the explosion reporters: Drew Millhon was “about 10 to 12 blocks north of the World Trade Center,” at the intersection of Varick Street and Canal Street, while Bob Bazell was at St. Vincent’s hospital on West 12th Street, approximately two miles from the World Trade Center.
Meanwhile, Don Dahler, the only reporter who explicitly articulated the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, nonetheless likened the South Tower’s destruction to a controlled demolition, saying:
“The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off — when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings.”
The fourth non-explosion reporter, John Zito, was quite close to the South Tower when it came down. He did not describe an explosion, but he also did not attribute the destruction to a fire-induced collapse. It is worth noting that Ron Insana, whom Zito was with, vividly described seeing the building “exploding” and “blowing” and hearing a “noise associated with an implosion.”
- Preserve your retirement with physical precious metals. Receive your free gold guide from Genesis Precious Metals to learn how.
CONCLUSION
Returning to the first question posed at the top of this article, we conclude that the hypothesis of explosions bringing down the Twin Towers was not only prevalent among reporters but was, in fact, the dominant hypothesis.
Furthermore, the 21 instances of eyewitness reporting, all of which contain spontaneous descriptions of the phenomena the reporters witnessed, strongly corroborate the overwhelming scientific evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
In a subsequent article, we will examine how the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse so quickly supplanted the originally dominant explosion hypothesis.
Read through the appendixes with all referenced coverage.
Editor’s Additional Commentary: As I noted in my opening statement, I have not put in the necessary hours to call myself qualified to make certain judgments regarding 9/11. What I HAVE done is reviewed the footage referenced by the authors and they are correct in their assessment. The funny part is I would have had a much harder time coming to that conclusion in the months and even years immediately following September 11, 2001, because I was still allowing myself to suspend disbelief in evil forces setting the narratives and controlling the agenda.
In light of everything I’ve learned over the last three years regarding the cabals who operate against us, I can say with a 99% certainty that the assessments above are correct. Corporate media started with the narrative they created themselves based on what they witnessed. Then, there was an immediate shift as narrative-control kicked in. These “journalists” started reporting what they saw, then changed their story based on what they were told they saw. It’s a purely despicable scenario, one that we must not allow to happen again. It’s time to open your eyes if you haven’t already.
Controlling Protein Is One of the Globalists’ Primary Goals
Between the globalists, corporate interests, and our own government, the food supply is being targeted from multiple angles. It isn’t just silly regulations and misguided subsidies driving natural foods away. Bird flu, sabotaged food processing plants, mysterious deaths of entire cattle herds, arson attacks, and an incessant push to make climate change the primary consideration for all things are combining for a perfect storm to exacerbate the ongoing food crisis.
The primary target is protein. Specifically, they’re going after beef as the environmental boogeyman. They want us eating vegetable-based proteins, lab-grown meat, or even bugs instead of anything that walked the pastures of America. This is why we launched a long-term storage prepper beef company that provides high-quality food that’s shelf-stable for up to 25-years.
At Prepper All-Naturals, we believe Americans should be eating real food today and into the future regardless of what the powers-that-be demand of us. We will never use lab-grown beef. We will never allow our cattle to be injected with mRNA vaccines. We will never bow to the draconian diktats of the climate change cult.
Visit Prepper All-Naturals and use promo code “veterans25” to get 25% off plus free shipping on Ribeye, NY Strip, Tenderloin, and other high-quality cuts of beef. It’s cooked sous vide, then freeze dried and packaged with no other ingredients, just beef. Stock up for the long haul today.
9/11 truthers are my favorite kind of moron. The kind of person who is easily persuaded by cheesey youtube documentaries and then looks on others who don’t agree with them as naive simpletons who look at their own government with rose colored glasses.
When you want to rally your country against an enemy, you do with work simplicity, the way Putin simply detonated Russian military bombs planted in apartment buildings to kill Russian citizens and blame Chechens. You have to be truly touched in the brain to think that a government administration would think to train a bunch of Saudis in flight school for months in order to fly planes into buildings rather than simply set off bombs in the buildings — bombs that were built to look like typical al qaeda bombs. Not to mention that the planning of 9/11 would’ve had to start with the Clinton administration and handed off to Bush. Anyone who has the slightest clue as to how the world works or how human nature works knows that such a conspiracy would require tens of thousands of people to keep the biggest secret of the century, and that is impossible. All for what? To invade a third world mountainous country with no resources except poppy plants?
Someone needs to rethink this assertion. In a controlled demolition a building falls all at once (every time). Buildings collapsing like the towers involves “pancaking” where each floor falls on the next in a cascade. Video clearly shows it pancaking, not falling due to demolition.
Correct, and the debris and dust falls faster than the buildings, proving they did not free-fall.
Three towers collapsed, not two. Building 7 is the collapse that just can’t be explained by any other means but controlled demo.
There are good reasonable explanations but you have limited knowledge, believing nonsense like you just said.
This is painfully stupid. What kind of idiot takes the impression of terrified wimps over the video evidence?
And more importantly the evidence from physics. This article is embarrassing.
Every cop will tell you that those in a crisis are TERRIBLE witnesses.
Tell me genius; have you interviewed someone who explosively brings down structures for a lining? NO? Gee, it seems to me that would be the first thing you’d do. Do you have the slightest idea of how much prep it takes? Do you know how much they have to dismantle the building to do it?
Did you know that the annealing to the point of collapse for steel is only 800 F max?
Which fits perfectly with what we saw ON VIDEO!
But here is the real puzzling issue you need to explain:
The very fastest explosions are those of cutting charges. They have to be extremely powerful and fast to create the plasma to cut through steel (per your silly theory).
The reason professionals who take down structures dismantle the building, remove all of the loose items and ESPECIALLY remove the VERY THICK glass is because the power and speed of those charges would turn those windows (and everything else) into “bullets” that would zip right through every living thing for a LONG LONG way.
Do you recall the thousands of ppl on the streets around the towers being turned into sieves? NO? hmmm
This is a fantasy just like global warming and the idea that Green energy can pay for itself.
Occam’s Razor is a good guideline and something that can save you from spewing silly crap if you use it as a guide.
Good point.
There is video of one or two windows blowing out below the fire, but nothing like what would happen if bombs were exploding, and not nearly enough to indicate any significant number of bombs, as would be used with a controlled demolition, where they put charges on every pillar. Increased air pressure and flying debris easily explains that phenomena. Those one or two windows were likely in enclosed rooms, where pressure remained high relative to the negative pressure created by the chimney effect, and as the building began to fall, with the change in pressure on those floors, the windows were blown out like the popping of a balloon.
The Chimney effect also explains melting of the steel. Highly refined Kerosene (jet fuel), with a good supply of forced air, is plenty enough to heat steel enough to compromise it’s structural integrity. Air would’ve been sucked up through the smaller passageways, such as stairwells, elevator shafts, etc, up through the building, and the doors or other small openings where it came through to the fire, at higher velocity, which would’ve created an intensely hot fire at those spots.
It was the cops, military types and the fire brigade who made those observations….but dont worry about that, you know better.
Also metallurgists and architects claim the blaze made by jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel which supposedly brought down the towers…they are made in the way they are for this very possibility.
I saw plenty of perfectly sane, real men on the ground at the time who claimed to have heard typical explosions made during demolitions. Soldiers, coppers and fire brigade officers….all saying the same thing. Are they all idiots? They were there and all saying the same thing…but thankfully you came along and cleared it up for me….wanker.
And IF, as some morons say, the planes were empty when they hit the towers, what was done with the passengers?
it was a satanic attack
“the devil made me do it”
ADDENDUM:
Some conspiracy nut will probably come back at me with a bunch of silly questions because in their deluded minds unanswered questions equal proof. Of course, that is an absolute absurdity.
Here is the deal:
If they can not explain the reason the windows didn’t shoot out at 15,00 FPS and shred everyone in sight then they have proved they are clueless. No amount of “Yeah buts” or “Well what about this” will make their delusions real. Either the towers were loaded with explosives or they were not. Explosives do certain things and those things are governed by the LAWS OF PHYSICS. If the most simple and basic of those things didn’t happen then there were no explosives PERIOD. END OF DEBATE.
What I’d like to know (seriously) is how many of those who push this idiocy are on some sort of psychotropic meds. WHY would any sane person want to believe the govt is more evil than it clearly is? Can you possibly conceive of how many people had to be involved in prepping the towers for demo? Can you actually believe that none of them would have a crisis of conscience and come forward? For the love of sanity, everything the wicked do is discovered no matter how hard they try to hide it. Evil is pride and they can’t contain themselves. They ALWAYS get exposed and sooner than later.
There are so SOOO many layers of absurdity that one must swallow if you think this idea through. BUT
BUT….BUT NONE OF IT MATTERS…because physics proves it’s a big fat lie and only fools and the willingly obtuse (but I repeat myself) will defend it.
*IF* you much MUCH more science that destroys this foolishness watch this scientist’s videos:
https://www.youtube.com/user/chrismohr911/videos
(TYPO; should be 15,000 FPS)
Israel did 9/11.
Everyone knows this except you.
Where do low brained people like this come from?
In a controlled demolition a building falls all at once (everytime). Buildings collapsing like the towers involves “pancaking” where each floor falls on the next in a cascade. Video clearly shows it pancaking, not falling due to demolition. It is so ignorant and unlearned to spout totally unfounded stupid conspiracy.
Someone needs to rethink this assertion. In a controlled demolition a building falls all at once (every time). Buildings collapsing like the towers involves “pancaking” where each floor falls on the next in a cascade. Video clearly shows it pancaking, not falling due to demolition.
Everyone is missing the most obvious purpose of this “article”– it’s click-bait, National Enquirer-style click-bait. It’s all about boosting the click-through rate which then increases ad revenue.
The REAL terrorists have WON! THEY are in control.
I have never bought the inside job (explosion) theory and still don’t. Too many moving parts and too many required co-conspirators. There are even those that claim no plane hit the Pentagon. But my perception of our government’s willingness to be involved in evil acts and then cover its tracks has changed in light of Russia Russia Russia, the COVID scamdemic (wet market vs bioengineered, gain of function, lockdowns, masks, social distancing and most of all, “vaccines”). It has caused me to question virtually everything we are told about any major event or crisis: Kennedy assassination, Flight 800, WMDs, etc. Simply stop and ask yourself: who has a possible motive for the masses to accept the proffered narrative?
It always seemed likely to me that a self-destruct mechanism would HAVE to be put into such huge buildings to CONTROL an inevitable collapse in the event that the building looked as if it would collapse sideways (tip over) several blocks in any direction. It also seems prudent that such mechanisms, even their existence, would need to be very closely guarded secrets. In other words, explosive charges are just part of the building process in the unlikely emergency when there needs to be a way to control the fall of such massive structures. Without that, the collapse of 100 story buildings could destroy several blocks of structures and kill even more people.
Mainstream media personnel are NOT credible. The ones not working for the CIA/Deep State are prone to emotional sensationalism. The others (the majority) are skilled at providing fodder for psyops.
No doubt that exlosions were heard:
“Explosions” in any fire are common. Residual natural gas, propane, alcohol, large containers of flammable cleaning fuids, appliance freon, electrical panels, hot water tanks, water & gas stored in pipes and other receptacles, pressurized fire extinguisher cylinders, batteries, etc. can all explode under intense heat.
The expulsion of air and gas under tremendous pressure during the collapse would also cause multiple “explosions” and sounds like explosions. Steel beams and support girders can also loudly snap under intense heat.
In the actual collapse it would sound like popcorn expoding.
Airline ticket agents, airport workers, boarding personnel, and air traffic controllers at multiple airports, would all have to be in on the conspiracy.
Good points. Very true.
I despise and distrust the government, for good reason, as much or more than most. And the government has been historically known to engage in false flag activities.There are indeed conspiracies. As I’ve always said, there’s a reason the word conspiracy is in the dictionary – there is such a thing, they do exist, it is possible. But looking at it objectively, I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job. Continuing to claim it was, without adequate evidence, only destroys credibility. That’s why I’ve never much cared for Alex Jones. He’s right about many things, and maybe his heart is in the right place, but when you make anything and everything out to be a conspiracy, you are doing nothing but muddying the waters. At that point, you’re little more than controlled opposition, not much different than the half dozen infiltrators flying a nazi flag in the middle of a demonstration, to give the media fodder to claim anybody and everybody there was a nazi.
That said, there is no doubt that the corrupt and power hungry, authoritarian progressives, have not let that crisis go to waste. The original Patriot Act wasn’t that awful bad. But with every renewal, and every court case, since, it has been put on steroids. The training of, and approach to, law enforcement has also changed drastically. It wasn’t long after 9/11 that they started training law enforcement to believe the founding fathers were terrorists, even though most of the gorilla warfare and attacks on civilians were carried out by the redcoats. Now, anybody who isn’t in the center of the bell curve, as they define the criteria to draw that curve, is an “extremist.” Now it’s so bad, if you quote a Bible verse affirming the fact that homosexuality is an abominable sin, you are considered an extremist terrorist. If you don’t want your kindergartner groomed in school, you are an extremist. The destruction of western civilization has accelerated exponentially – which, ironically, is to have given the Al Queda terrorists exactly what they wanted.
Thank you for some clarity for dark times.
It definitely should be stated that criminals are always conspiring, cooperating, and manipulating others to achieve their desired outcomes…
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” 2 Timothy 3:13
These trends of the dividing of US are not good and most fimly have roots in my (our) pride.
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
Correction: meant to write CO-OPTING and NOT cooperating
You’re right in the ten ring. Great post.