9/11 conspiracy theories debunked

The Guardian has a nice short summary article that debunks the 9/11 truther claims, here is a quick extract …

The twin towers were destroyed by controlled explosion

Truthers say video footage of the buildings falling points to demolition due to the way the towers bend before collapsing. Also, there appear to be explosions as the windows blow out, floor by floor, from the top downwards. One US academic claims to have tested samples from the wrecked towers which show the presence of chemical residue, suggesting explosives had been used.

But in controlled explosion demolition experts collapse a building from the bottom not the top. Experts say the windows were blown out as each floor collapsed on to the one below, sending debris and office equipment flying out.

It would also have taken considerable work, which would not have gone unnoticed, to plant sufficient explosives the length of the buildings to bring them down.

The Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane

The evidence for this, say sceptics, is that the major damage to the building comprised a roundish blast hole, not the more extended destruction some say would be caused by aeroplane wings. Truthers claim parts of a scrapped plane, including the tail, were moved to the Pentagon as part of the fabrication.

This theory ignores the considerable evidence of the bodies of passengers and crew at the site which were photographed. Thousands of people saw the plane circle then fly into the Pentagon. Some quickly photographed the scene. Anyone planting plane debris at the site afterwards would surely have been seen.

You can click this link to go read the rest.

Now, I must confess, I grow quite frustrated when faced with the crassly stupid 9/11 truther claims. Why? Well basically because all the claims made have been well and truly debunked. Key the phrase “9/11 conspiracy” into Google and the top hit gives you the wikipedia article “9/11 conspiracy theories“. There, it goes through it all in great detail, I need not repeat it all, if curious you can click the link and read just as well as I can.

Another interesting take on all this is the book, “Among the Truthers“, by Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay. He specifically examines the 9/11 Truth movement, but also covers other modern conspiracies such as the Bilderberg Group, the anti-vaccination movement, and Reptilians. The Wikipedia article on the book is found here. If this is a topic of interest, then you should get the book, its worth a read. What makes this worthwhile is that Jonathan has emerged with his sanity intact after immersing himself for several years in the wilder precincts of these conspiracy theories, so writes about all that he found from the inside, and also offers some interesting thoughts on why such ideas take root.

Of course, you can completely bypass all the 9/11 opinions and just read the commission report itself, it’s a full and complete account.

The point I’m making is simple, all the information needed to rapidly debunk 9/11 bunk and arrive at a reasonable evidence-based conclusion is out there and freely available, so anybody making any weird truther claims has no excuse … except perhaps gross stupidity, or is a crank drawn to the conspiracy theory after a mid-life crisis.


12 thoughts on “9/11 conspiracy theories debunked”

  1. Please supply me with ANY evidence you are aware of, that supports the official 911 conspiracy. ONLY evidence that would pass muster in a court of law. Not hearsay, unsupported statements, Govt declarations, pristine ‘hijacker’ passports, red bandanas. The 911 Commission report is not a serious document – it fails to mention Building 7.

    • A couple of observations Steve …

      1) A court of law is the wrong forum to seek as the high-bar. I’d recommend looking for evidence that is wholly objective, free from all human bias, and has been published within a credible well-recognised peer-reviewed scientific journal that aligns with the subject.

      2) Regarding the thought that the 911 commission report fails to mention WTC7, that’s not exactly a surprise. The report was commissioned … “to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks”, and not to analyse the structural failure of WTC. For that, you should refer to the NIST report. It covers the collapse in WTC7 in great detail.

      3) If you feel that the various official reports are incomplete or wrong, and you have evidence for that, then simply write it all up and publish within a reputable and appropriate journal so that you can then present your findings to the various subject matter experts.

      Best Of luck,

  2. How can the 150 witness testimony to secondary explosions in the towers and basement be explained?

    • Daniel, it is worth understanding the full conversation and not simply one side.

      Here for example is the argument and counter-argument together from the Wikipedia page that covers the topic

      Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth have collected eyewitness accounts[55] of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.[17][56] Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported of explosions happening before the collapse of the WTC towers, and the organization “International Center for 9/11 Studies” has published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard.[57] There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,[58] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.[59] Jones and others have argued that horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers would indicate that the towers had been brought down by controlled explosions.[60][61][62] NIST attributes these puffs to air pressure, created by the decreasing volume of the falling building above, traveling down elevator shafts and exiting from the open elevator shaft doors on lower levels).[63]

  3. There’s nothing strange about 9/11 at all except:
    1. Pilots with little to no experience were able to fly commercial jets at high speed into targets
    2. Flight 93’s flight path almost impossible for an experienced pilot let alone one who could not even pilot a Cessna.
    3. All three towers falling into their own footprint at near free-fall speed. For this to happen material supporting the structures would need to be removed rapidly.
    4. The cell phone calls made by passengers at high altitudes.
    5. The lack of black box evidence.
    6. The lack of serial numbers present in the report from the black box recorders.
    7. The lack of a plane, passengers and luggage at the Shanksville crash.
    8. The lack of consistent black smoke emanating from the crash site at Shanksville.
    9. The “White plane” leaving the scene of the Shanksville crash.
    10. The failure to reconstruct any of the planes to assess what occurred. Standard air crash investigative practise.
    11. The testimony of fire fighters who heard loud explosions in the basement of towers 1 & 2.
    12. The testimony of fire fighters who found a dead body in the cupboard at the base of tower 1.
    13. The fiscally disastrous World Trade Centres.
    14. The head of security at the World Trade Centre being former mossad.
    15. The convenient lease take over by Silverstein just prior. The large insurance pay out just post.
    16. The photographic evidence showing the planes that hit the towers were not standard commercial airliners.
    17. The 500mph+ speed of flight 77 – impossible for that aircraft at that altitude.
    18. The lack of a plane at the Pentagon.
    19. The lack of video of the Pentagon strike
    20. The doctored video released of the pentagon strike.
    21. The pools of molten metal reported by the firemen at the base of the World Trade Centre towers after collapse.
    22. The coincidence that military drills were being run on the same day as the 9/11 attack occurred.
    23. The rapid removal of all steel to China in a time when scrap steel was at a very low value.
    24. The way the nose of the plane supposedly punctured the inner walls of the Pentagon despite this being one of the weakest sections of an aircraft.
    25. The lack of a vertical and horizontal stabiliser debris or damage at the Pentagon.
    26. The virgin unmarked lawn of the Pentagon
    27. The coincidence that it was the newly reinforced, mostly vacant wing of the Pentagon that was struck.
    28. The discrepancies in timeline events at 9/11 testimonies.
    29. The presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.
    30. The 5 dancing Israelis who when released told Israeli TV they were there to “document the event.”
    Have a go at those – I’ve got about 30 more but we’ll see how you go with those. Good luck and happy debunking champ!

  4. Dave your really stupid if you can say you looked into this and still claims the official version is true. Ha ha ha. And you say “stupid 9/11 truther claims” & “if you wish to “believe” fine, but try not to got too upset when folks laugh at you.” Dave your wrong. Try explain the collapse of Building 7 and leave all bullshit out. Dave your fooled. Its incredible… yes. But that does not mean we shall deny the facts. 911 is our times most important event.

    • Seriously Markus … if you wish to assert a claim, that takes evidence. Posting debunked claims (“Try explain the collapse of Building 7”) does not cut it by any standard.

  5. Michael … if you wish to “believe” fine, but try not to got too upset when folks laugh at you. It really is not hard to debunk this … 2 mins on Google and I found this …


    A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

    “Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail,” said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

    The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers’ collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

    Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.

    Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers’ steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.

    That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

    Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.

    But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.

    Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero’s comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center.

    Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.

    “I’m very upset about that,” he said. “I’m not trying to say anything did or didn’t happen.”

  6. Unknown doesn’t mean explosives; but it doesn’t mean explained. What experts is The Guardian talking about? The ones at Debunking911.com? They don’t say. So, NIST experts > unnamed experts.

    Now, “pressure pulses” and “dust puffs” are very much euphemisms for explosives. Explosives are “pressure pulses” defined.

    These “pressure pulses” caused massive, multiton, high-speed, horizontally traveling, projectiles. Gravity didn’t cause that; fire didn’t cause that; “pressure pulses” caused massive horizontal projectiles. And, the NFPA 921 Field Guid would call those “pressure pulses” explosions, and they call those projectiles missiles.

  7. Michael … the word “Unknown”, does not = “Explosives”, it simply means that at the time of writing, they did not know.

    The commission closed in 2004, since then 7 years have passed, time in which a better understanding of the structural failures has been gained.

    If however you are truly curious, you can always surf on over to …http://www.debunking911.com/

  8. The Guardian says, “experts say the windows were blown out as each floor collapsed on to the one below, sending debris and office equipment flying out.”

    NIST says in NCSTAR 1-5a page 412, “…the sources for the pressure pulses that created the wides spread smoke and/or dust puffs observed on multiple faces of WTC 2 are unknown.”



Leave a Reply