9/11 Conspiracy Theory–Insane or Insightful?

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com 

I keep coming back to one question in the 9/11 conspiracy story: How did two jets knock down three New York City skyscrapers?  The jets only hit two buildings, and that is a fact.  I have posted a video from the group “RememberBuilding7.org” on the USAWatchdog.com site.  (Click here to see Building 7 implode.)  It clearly shows Building 7 of the World Trade Center imploding straight down, as if it was a controlled demolition.  I am not an expert, but it sure looks like that to me.  I, also, ran across this video from Corbettreport.com that summarizes the entire 9/11 conspiracy in less than 5 minutes. It was done on the 9/11 ten year anniversary.  I found it very well done and factually spot on, although it goes by fast, so you must watch closely.   Give it a look for yourself.  Do you think the 9/11 conspiracy theory is insane or insightful?—Greg Hunter.

Stay Connected
Comments
  1. brian

    i have also questioned #7 and its collapse. the reason the 1st 2 towers fell, they say;was due to the jet fuel and structural damage. although ALL steel buildings are rated to sustain heat at much higher temperatures, the experts say that the fuel along with the combustable items could have generated enough heat to cause a collapse. I dont agree but lets just say for arguments sake that they are right. what about 7? no fuel, some damage from the other building hitting it but nothing to the extent that the first 2 towers endured.
    I would also like any of your readers to dig up another instance where a U.S. made steel building collaped in a vertical heap from fire damage….ever….in the history of america. then i would ask someone to give me evidence of any steel building in the world collaping from fire damage. it just doesn’t add up.

    • devon

      Very interesting/disturbing. Could someone please answer my question?
      What happened to Todd Beamer, “let’s roll” fame and the hundreds of passengers and flight crews of those planes? Where are they?
      Thanks.

      • Scott

        Only the guilty know for sure. That “let’s roll” is so typical when they manufacture a story of heroism. Supposedly those were Pat Tillman’s last words as well. I think the suicidal Muslim martyrs/hijacking story was manufactured. Look up the now declassified ‘Operation Northwoods’ document, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff tried to create the pretext for an invasion of Cuba. That seems to provide a blueprint for the 9-11 attacks 4 decades later:

        “It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircrat attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States… An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft… At a designatied time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone… Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation.”

      • Radar

        Thoughtful article, on the question of passengers, over at VT:

        The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?

      • Robert E. Salt

        To the best of my knowledge Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Nothing wound up in that tiny hole in Shanksville. You’ll have to use your imagination as to what happened to the crew and passengers.

    • JH

      Greg et al:

      I believe we’re all interested in 911 for many reasons, but from a structural/engineering perspective Popular Mechanics has done the best job of debunking the many (perhaps too many) questions of the tragedy.

      Here is a link:
      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#wtc7

      Additionally, if you find the Pre-forward printed at a later date, you’ll find that even attempting to have a rational discussion on this subject can be virtually impossible as the authors quickly found out.

      JH

      • jim parker

        Nobody uses the Popular Mechanics arguments anymore. They avoid the difficult questions while attacking the wild conspiracy theories.

      • Scott

        ‘Popular Mechanics’ is a Hearst owned propaganda rag. Read David Griffin’s “Debunking 9-11 Debunking” where he counters every one of their arguments and points out their numerous ommissions.

        Fact: Shortly after 9-11, the editor and most of the staff at PM were replaced.

        • Pat

          David Ray Griffin? You mean the guy who brought us cognitive infiltration and the Cass Sunstein boogeyman? Please. If the guy’s not smart enough to stay clear of the Barnes Review, his opinion’s about 9/11 are worth squat.

          http://pdx911truthalliancedramatica.blogspot.com/2012/03/david-ray-griffin.html

          • Edward Rynearson

            “In the United States today, the phrase `conspiracy theory’ functions as a sort of giant cudgel, used to scare us out of talking openly about a broad (and ever-growing) range of scandals that the powerful cannot afford to let the people comprehend. In this new book, David Ray Griffin takes devastating aim at that repressive tactic, exposing it for what it really is. All those who cherish democracy, and intellectual freedom, owe it to themselves to read this brave analysis—and owe its author their sincerest thanks.” — Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Culture and Communication, New York University

            http://davidraygriffin.com/books/cognitive-infiltration-an-obama-appointees-plan-to-undermine-the-911-conspiracy-theory/

        • Henry

          JH, Popular mechanics does not explain WTC7’s free fall and symmetric drop, nor what caused the massive central core structures of the towers to disintegrate. They don’t explain the molten metal, either. Nor the presence of highly refined military grade nano thermetic material in steel and dust samples. Also, They ignore the eutectic (molten and vaporized) steel documented in the video below.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

          Also, are you aware that PM’s “senior researcher” was 25 year old Ben Chertoff, a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? He has no formal education in engineering or physics, either.

          • pebble garden

            Exactly so, Henry. Well said.

            I think it’s pretty obvious the whole event was staged, and scientifically designed to push the American peoples Fear button.

            I mean, come on. Just look at the date. 9-11? No Arab terrorist came up with that? It’s an obvious psyop, creating an instant and unavoidable association with “danger” and “save me!” The same people who came up with “Shock and Awe” (Shekinah) to ire the victims of their horrendous military attacks.

      • jp

        For a better proof of 9/11 operation look at the Pentagon’s “C” ring hole …

        Popular Mechanics says, landing gear of a plane punched it …

        http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

        But, after watching FBI’s videos taken inside of the Pentagon, it’s obvious that they lied again …

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3RaJHltYUY
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVcPe6lVJsM

      • Brian

        Popular Mechanics is a tabloid pop culture magazine. It certainly is entertaining, especially with things like covering future concept planes and cars, etc… But Popular Mechanics is not science which could be introduced into a court of law as a legal argument. I would recommend looking into Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth (dot) org). There you’ll find thousands of professional Architects and Engineers who have deeply examined the collapses and the evidence of Nano-Thermiteand and they’ve concluded beyond a doubt that the three towers were controlled demolition. As well, Daniel Jewenko, one of the top Controlled Demolition experts in the world has publicly stated that WTC 7 is unquestionably a Controlled Demolition. The group of Engineers and Architects do not get involved with Conspiracy Theories or who is responsible for the Controlled Demolition, they merely prove Controlled Demolition. It is unpleasant to think who might really have been behind those building collapses, but nobody should ever be afraid the truth, no matter what it is.

        • Jeffrey Orling RA

          Brian,

          There are not thousands of engineers and architects who have signed AE911T’s petition… and few structural engineers… less than 100 or so. I don’t know the exact number.

          I do know that the signers have NOT examined the details of the destruction and most have only a casual acquaintance with the event… just like the general public. A few have studied it.

          All signers believe that the official story was flawed and deceptive, incomplete and inaccurate and are demanding a new investigation.

          Asserting the the destruction of the 3 towers were controlled demolitions IS a conspiracy theory and AE911T pretty much is asserting that it was a MIHOP… an inside job.. made to happen on purpose but not by who we were told did it.

          There are some many bogus explanations even coming from engineers who have not studied the structure nor the observables and are offering opinions.. that includes Danny Jowenko and other experts.

          Even AE911T has not produced a building performance study or forensic analysis. They cited tell tale signs of CD and said looks like a duck so it’s a duck. That’s not a forensic study nor a building performance study. It’s conspiracy PR… masquerading to look “serious”.

          You’ve bought the snake oil.

          • Henry

            Jeffrey, when you speak about non existent 8 hour fuel oil fires and curtain walls in WTC7, and pancaking floors racing through the towers producing “400 mph mega force tornado winds”, and you completely fail to understand that free fall acceleration can only take place when there is no structural support, thereby proving demolition beyond any and all doubt, it’s quite clear who is pushing snake oil, and it’s not the thousand plus experts at http://ae911truth.org

      • Salvador

        I think popular mechanics debunking has been sufficiently debunked at this point.

    • Crabjuice

      “I would also like any of your readers to dig up another instance where a U.S. made steel building collaped in a vertical heap from fire damage…”

      I probably could if there ever was a prior instance of a fully loaded and fueled commercial passenger jet that slammed into a U.S. made steel building.

      • Henry

        “Crabjuice”, WTC7’s massive, hurricane and earth quake resistant, highly resilient, reinforced, and over engineered steel frame suddenly crushed itself at the same rate it would have fallen through air. No fully loaded and fueled commercial passenger jets slammed into WTC7, and it was not significant;y damaged by debris impacts from the tower demolitions. All it had were some ordinary, isolated office fires on a few floors.
        The false flag attack of 9-11 (911) was likely the most significant and pivotal event to take place in your lifetime. It’s a topic worthy of some fundamental research, don’t you think? Why not start with WTC7?

        http://911speakout.org
        http://911research.com

    • TXPatriot

      Just show us the damn Pentagon surveillance videos. All will be cool at
      that point.

  2. Scott

    That’s a great clip, Greg. Thanks for posting it.

    Building 7 is the “smoking gun” that proves the use of controlled demolitions. The symmetrical freefall implosion of that 47 story building into its own footprint could not have been caused by jet fuel, nor could that account for the destruction of the North and South Towers. It takes 2,800 degrees to melt steel, and the fires at the World Trade Center never surpassed 800 degrees (that’s not even hot enough to weaken steel, regardless of what the NIST, the MSM, ‘Popular Mechanics’ and ‘Frontline’ attempt to pass off as truth). There was still molten steel burning in lower Manhattan for more than 3 weeks after the attacks. The use of nano-thermite has been confirmed by a number of physicists who tested the residue from ground zero. The planes (possibly drones) were just a sideshow. The collapses were caused by well placed explosives and incendiaries. What could possibly account for enormous steel beams (heavier than the airplanes) hurling out hundreds of feet into adjacent buildings like Deutshe Bank and WTC 7?… Almost 1,700 licensed architects and engineers have petitioned for a new investigation into these mysterious collapses that defy all known laws of physics and thermodynamics: http://www.ae911truth.org/

    The two hour stand-down in air defenses, which allowed the Pentagon to be struck also needs a clear explanation (among many other unanswered questions). That’s the most heavily protected air space in the world. It’s only 10 miles from Andrew’s Air Force Base and is protected by ant-aircraft missile batteries.

    • Greg

      Thank you Scott, Ken and Tom H.
      Greg

  3. Ken

    I agree with you here Greg.

    WTC Building 7 is the smoking gun, and achilles heel Official Dogma.

    EVERYONE who looks at this issue should focus on that. There are many other good arguments against the Official Dogma, but the symmetrical and free fall collapse of WTC is something that the government simply can’t fit into its fair tale.

    They try to ignore it, and I find many people who still don’t know there was even a 3rd building that fell that day. When I tell them, they are confused, or think I’m confused, and often try to deny it because it’s something that they haven’t heard before.

    That is a failure of the Whore Media, but an opportunity for us. We don’t have to go into complicated theories and analysis. All we have to do is tell the truth about WTC 7, that’s it. No conspiracy theories need apply.

    -Ken

  4. Tregonsee

    Insane. Period.

    • Robert

      Wow! That’s some deep thinking. You want to give us a little clue as to why you think it is insane to question the official story, which does not explain the events of the day? Have you ever looked at Building 7 drop? A child can tell that’s controlled demolition. And careful analysis shows that it dropped at free fall, a point the government was forced to admit. This can only happen when there is nothing holding the building up. And there is only one way to remove all the support for a building simultaneously: controlled demolition.

  5. Art Barnes

    Greg, I think I remember Osama on video admitting the attacks just after 911. After the fist hit of one of the towers he told a another one of his group “just wait” there will be more, and, of course, there was. If all the above is true, then the video had to have been faked, which I don’t think it was.

    • Socrates

      OBL has denied MANY, many times that his forces did 9/11. Problem is, we don’t get that info in US. There are more than a half dozen interviews with him where he denied any participation.

  6. Doug Cowlthorp

    Greg.
    Thanks for posting this very important and totally ignored reality. Anyone that wants to look at the evidence with an open mind cannot help but ask a huge number of questions that have just been completely covered up. Just as in the picture that accompanies this piece, all those flames are burning jet fuel! That is a lot of fuel burning OUTSIDE of the tower. Now how can any remaining (small amount if any)fuel burn at such a rate and intensity to bring down that tower about 30 minutes later. Complete BS, and tower 7 is even more of a BS story. They even have one of the people on tape saying that they had to “bring it down” ie controlled demolition. Look at all the crazy new laws and freedom killing legislation your country has brought in in the name of 911. Scary.

  7. sensetti

    Sorry Greg
    My post should have read;
    I never have been able to reconcile WTC 7, that building dropping like it did makes no sense at all.

  8. Robert Hamburger

    Hi Greg. What about the Pentagon??? Google pictures of the Pentagon on 9/11 – the fire trucks are up against the building – where the wings, 2nd half of the fuselage, and tail of the plane should have been given the size of the hole in the building. That’s right, the hole in the Pentagon was only big enough for the front part of the fuselage, which would have left the back half of the plane to fall just short of the building. And yet not one scar on the ground against the building.

    The “official” explanation is that the heat of the jet fuel destroyed the plane, in full. Yet look more closely at the photos. The contents of the offices alongside the hole in the building, including papers on a desk, are intact and unburned. I think such would be an impossibility given the heat of a jet fuel fire.

    Am I suggesting that the idea of plane flying into the Pentagon is one of the greatest con jobs of all times? Looking at the photos I have no other suggestion.

    And what does it say about American Society that the top leaders (Bush/Cheney) were then allowed to testify not under oath.

    Hamburger