911THEORY

Who To Blame For 9/11

WTC1 being annihilated:

Hypothesis	The Good	The Bad	The Ugly	Remarks
The Military-Industrial Complex	Who/what else had the capability of carrying out such a deceptive, deadly, complex attack involving exotic weaponry? (scroll down to "What To Blame..."/nanoparticles) Who/what else benefited (profited) so mightily from 9/11?	Requires accepting that we were betrayed/attacked by our enemy-needing, for-profit protectors, an impossible sell in the minds of many metanoid Americans.	Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory.	In his farewell address in 1961, President Eisenhower warned us about the danger posed by this powerful greedy conscienceless entity.
Bipartisan Elements Within the U.S. Government	Govt controls access to much information. Govt controls/stifles investigations. Govt has expanded powers in aftermath.	Requires accepting that we were betrayed and attacked by our leaders and government, and then they lied to us about it, an impossible sell in the minds of many metanoid Americans.	Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory, and believe that the USA is "the good guys" and would never do anything [that] bad. Evidently, the comforting belief that Dems and Reps keep an eye on one another, and don't let the other get away with treason, is invalid.	U.S. founding fathers were not only wary of political parties, they knew that every form of government was susceptible to corrupt influences.
The Military and Intelligence Communities	Those who failed to protect us on 9/11, when we suffered our worst ever defensive military failure, have never been held accountable, though some have been promoted and even decorated. NORAD failed us and lied about 9/11. All have remained complicitly silent regarding the highly unconventional devastation (including the too-rapid falls of the towers, the pyroclastic flows, nanoparticles in all that 'dust', molten metal weeks later) at Ground Zero.	Requires accepting that our guardians, who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, have sold us out, or at least lost their way.	Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory and believe that anyone who wraps themselves in the flag is incapable of treason. It's scary -- it's downright Nazi-like -- to see these officers acting as if they'd sworn allegiance to a leader instead of to the Constitution. Once one has seen the bogus Niger uranium documents, it becomes clear that the military and intelligence communities weren't collectively fooled; they were *lying*.	It's good to support the troops, but their commanders have stopped supporting the Constitution. The lesson of Nuremburg, that just following orders cannot excuse nor justify the commission of war crimes, including that of aggressive unprovoked war, has been been forgotten?
The Media (Mainstream and "alternative")	The central nervous system of any democracy. Controls the flow of information. Sets the boundary and thus limits of what gets discussed (and who gets elected). Acts as if it can't tell that the guy in the govt's "Osama Confession Video" looks and acts unlike Osama.	Requires accepting that all our corporate "town criers" are corrupt and have sold us out. Requires accepting that so-called alternative media are also not providing full disclosure.	Trying and convicting alleged purported perpetrators (real or not) in the media is downright un-American. The media continues to show us the same 19 faces and names as if there is no doubt (even as they keep coming up with different individuals on which to pin the highly presumptive and thus disinformative label "the 20th hijacker"). The hijacker-exculpatory evidence never gets mentioned. As Orwell said, lies of omission are the worst.	Their influence over We The People and politicians is vast, as is the influence of the military-industrial complex over the media. Duplicitous gatekeepers Amy Goodman, Mike Malloy, Alex Jones etc are not telling all the truth there is to tell, and not all of what they say is true.
The Bulk of the so-called 911 Truth Movement	911truth.org et al actively provide false, phony, fake opposition to the Mulsim hijacker blaming Official Government Conspiracy Theory In the name of "protecting the credibility of the movement", they a priori rule out all "outside the box" explanations for the over-the-top attack, and do their best to "protect" everyone from all such uneasy thoughts. They fail to honestly address the most revealing 9/11 evidence -- in some cases the same evidence as was omitted from the 9-11 Commission Report (the govt's own Pentagon video evidence, Ground Zero anomalies, Bush's 1st hit "TV" statements, WTC impact anomalies, etc) -- and label and disparage and/or ignore and marginalize those who do. They stage knowingly falsely framed arguments (including among themselves), divisively distracting from the truth and diverting skepticism away from the OGCT. They fake-argue over 9/11 fictions instead of proving that they are false, rejecting them, and moving on. Their soft questioning and subtle partial support of the OGCT, combined with their perceived leadership role, helps define 9/11 and thus helps enable the OGCT to remain in full effect.	911truth.org et al do get people to begin questioning many of the less-incriminating, OGCT-straining but not OGCT-breaking (especially those suspicious but still "hijacker"-blaming red herring) aspects of 9/11, but that leaves most of their disciples wavering between the govt's lies and their false leads and half truths, which makes it seem as if not rejecting all of the OGCT is an option (IOW, they get people to either believe in, or merely doubt and remain skeptical of, that which is impossibly false).	911truth.org et al keep people from honestly considering certain case-breaking evidence, either by suppressing it or lying about it. On behalf of the govt and the OGCT, these trusted double agents insinuate and argue about what hit the buildings, thus making it seem reasonable to go on believing that part of the OGCT, which makes it seem sane to go on blaming Islamic fundamentalists for 9/11. Their feeble phony opposition to the 9-11 Commission Report enables politicians to get away with competing to support it (and all that "homeland" and "terrorist" and "security" stuff), and enables the OCGT and the politics of fear to persist. Their 'failure' to call for Bush's 1st-hit "TV" statements to be questioned makes it possible for members of Congress to get away with failing to uphold their oath of office regarding 9/11 (so they all can get away with 9/11 treason together). Their 'failure' to point out the meaning of (the suppression of) the government's own Pentagon video evidence makes it much easier to go on believing as real the fiction of "Flight 77" piloted by "Hani Hanjour" having hit the Pentagon. etc. Honest independent 9/11 truth activists are misled by and mistaken for them, and drowned out by their well-financed well-promoted watered-down limited-disclosure noise, which is perceived by many as [the position of] "the other side". They thus perpetrate the final stage of the false-flag attack: sustaining the false-flag legend via false-flag fake opposition.	Kyle Hence, Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Alex Jones, David Kubiak, Nick Levis, Janice Matthews, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Sander Hicks, Fran Shure, Michael Wolsey, Mike Rivero, Carol Brouillet, Phil Berg, Paul Thompson, Ken Jenkins, David Ray Griffin, Fred Burks, Peter Dale Scott, John Judge, Les Jamieson, Jim Fetzer, etc. etc. etc.
Institutions of Higher Learning	These highly educated intellectuals have remained complicitly silent regarding 9/11, though a small number do actively promote various untruths about 9/11.	Requires recognizing that all our institutions of higher learning are under the powerful influence of government and of the m-i complex, and of those who control them.	Reaction by flat-earth metanoids who still cling to the belief that all our institutions are too good to be bad. Their silent complicity in other scams, both political and physical, has become institutionalized over generations. The secrets they now reflexively keep have grown larger and darker and more real and grave over time.	Shame on these intelligent but ethically- and morally-challenged spineless individuals.
Israel (Mossad)	5 Israelis were caught celebrating the event under suspicious circumstances. History: Previous act of war, against U.S.S. Liberty, was officially ignored.	The attacks were launched inside U.S. airspace, and could not have been carried out without U.S. involvement. Thus, Americans were betrayed by Americans. Israel is among the nations which supposedly forewarned the U.S. in 2001 that something was up, though information of this nature has been widely misused, to falsely imply that such warnings (consistent with the government's claims of the events of 9/11) prove that the government's claims must be valid and accurate.	Blaming shadowy, nebulous, religion-based entities halfway around the world distracts from domestic enemies to the Constitution.	Possibly a deep cover story secretly fed to legislators by the Executive branch in exchange for their silence. There seems to be some smoke here (worthy of investigation later, but not diversion now), once We've reclaimed control of Our own government.
Suicidal Muslim Hijackers armed with boxcutters = "Al Qaeda"	Prejudice/Believability: Recall how everyone was predisposed to blame Muslim terrorists for Oklahoma City at first. Everyone's heard this popularized conspiracy theory a thousand times by now.	Impossible: the purportedly-hijacked airliners are not what caused or led to the annihilation at Ground Zero. The highly unconventional GZ devastation could only have been caused by exotic weaponry not available to "hijackers". Some of "the 19" are still alive. No 757 hit the Pentagon, experienced pilots could not have hit the Pentagon in a 757, and purported 757 hijacker Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a Cessna. How could the accused (posthumously framed) have caused the required NTSB investigations to be skipped? The guy in the govt's Osama confession video looks unlike every other image of Osama, and writes with the wrong hand.	Blaming shadowy, nebulous, religion-based entities halfway around the world distracts from domestic enemies to the Constitution. Used as vague pretext for wars, death, destruction, and profit in Afghanistan and Iraq.	Unfounded speculation, appeals to those who believe the Official Government Conspiracy Theory with which they've been thoroughly propagandized. It's un-American to be tried and convicted in the media, especially without any evidence.

What To Blame For Ground Zero Devastation
(The buildings were reduced not just to dust, but to nanoparticles) WTC1 being annihilated:

Hypothesis The Good The Bad The Ugly Remarks

Exotic Weaponry (unconventional, secret weapons systems) We know that temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun can accomplish such disintegration.
It takes incredibly intense, highly unconventional energy to annihilate so much matter (especially without hurling it great distances).
Anyone who recognized their work being misused had already previously been sworn to secrecy.
It's also quite a feat for an aircraft to appear to penetrate a steel wall without significant deformation or deceleration. Requires accepting that we were betrayed/attacked by our protectors, an impossible sell in the minds of many metanoid Americans.
Most people wrongly presume that it remains impossible to have a nuclear detonation without the release of massive radiation. Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory, and their very strong belief that they already are and long have been hating the correct ambiguous enemy.
The fake 911truthers (wolves in sheepdogs clothing) who work to make it seem as if it's alright (not to mention possible) to go on blaming "Muslim 'hijackers'" for 9/11. In his farewell address in 1961, President Eisenhower warned us about the danger posed by "the military-industrial complex", a danger which he said would persist...
Clearly, some unknown source of free, relatively clean energy was unleashed, but not for the good of mankind.
A large number of tiny, directional, relatively clean "designer nukes" (or fusion triggers) plus a few small fissionless "tactical nukes" could very closely approximate what occurred.

Directed Energy Weapons It's not impossible, and could have actually been involved. Could be just science fiction being promoted to paint all those who recognize the use of exotic weaponry as kooky trekkie conspiracy theorists.
This hypothesis blatantly over-reaches what is supported by the evidence. Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the OGCT.
A willful distraction?
Note that few if any of those who promote this hypothesis have much to say about the brief brilliant burst of light as the 1st tower wall was hit. This hypothesis requires belief that a much fancier than necessary form of weaponry was used. While it can't be ruled out, it also can't be considered a leading hypothesis based upon its proponents' lack of solid or even good evidence.

Controlled Demolition, Thermite It's not impossible, and could have actually been involved in some small way. Can't account for the buildings being reduced to dust and fine particles (especially the nanoparticles, smaller than 1 micron).
Can't account for the mysterious huge energy surplus.
Therefore this hypothesis is blatantly and grossly inadequate; it under-reaches what is supported by the evidence. Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the OGCT.
Does not account for the huge energy surplus at GZ, but distracts from it.
It's much less than full disclosure.
A willful diversion. This is a conventional energy limited hangout being primarily perpetrated by a dishonest, plane-hugging ex-professor of physics; a U.S. DoE fusion expert with a 20-year history of unconventional fusion denying behaviors.
A dead-end diversion and distraction; a red herring.

Hijacked Airliner Crashes, Jet Fuel, Fires, Time, Gravity Everyone's heard this popularized but impossible hijacker-based conspiracy theory thousands of times by now. Impossible: gravity is not strong enough to accelerate things downward through such great [supposed] resistance at anywhere near free-fall rates.
Impossible: gravity is not strong enough to cause buildings to disintegrate under their own weight.
Impossible: jet fuel (kerosene) doesn't burn hot enough. (The WTC steel was UL-certified to withstand hours at higher temperatures.)
Impossible: the oversized, Hollywood-perfect fireballs could not have come from the insufficient fuel of a crashing 767.
The highly unconventional damage (limited region of total devastation) could only have been caused by exotic weaponry not available to "hijackers". By nefarious design, talk of "all that jet fuel" tends to reinforce false belief in "hijacked airliners", and thus in "hijackers".
Blaming shadowy, nebulous, religion-based entities halfway around the world distracts from domestic enemies to the Constitution.
Used as vague pretext for wars, death, destruction, and profit in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfounded speculation, appeals to those who believe the Official Government Conspiracy Theory.
It's un-American to be tried and convicted in the media.

Hypothesis	The Good	The Bad	The Ugly	Remarks
Exotic Weaponry (unconventional, secret weapons systems)	We know that temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun can accomplish such disintegration. It takes incredibly intense, highly unconventional energy to annihilate so much matter (especially without hurling it great distances). Anyone who recognized their work being misused had already previously been sworn to secrecy. It's also quite a feat for an aircraft to appear to penetrate a steel wall without significant deformation or deceleration.	Requires accepting that we were betrayed/attacked by our protectors, an impossible sell in the minds of many metanoid Americans. Most people wrongly presume that it remains impossible to have a nuclear detonation without the release of massive radiation.	Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory, and their very strong belief that they already are and long have been hating the correct ambiguous enemy. The fake 911truthers (wolves in sheepdogs clothing) who work to make it seem as if it's alright (not to mention possible) to go on blaming "Muslim 'hijackers'" for 9/11.	In his farewell address in 1961, President Eisenhower warned us about the danger posed by "the military-industrial complex", a danger which he said would persist... Clearly, some unknown source of free, relatively clean energy was unleashed, but not for the good of mankind. A large number of tiny, directional, relatively clean "designer nukes" (or fusion triggers) plus a few small fissionless "tactical nukes" could very closely approximate what occurred.
Directed Energy Weapons	It's not impossible, and could have actually been involved.	Could be just science fiction being promoted to paint all those who recognize the use of exotic weaponry as kooky trekkie conspiracy theorists. This hypothesis blatantly over-reaches what is supported by the evidence.	Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the OGCT. A willful distraction? Note that few if any of those who promote this hypothesis have much to say about the brief brilliant burst of light as the 1st tower wall was hit.	This hypothesis requires belief that a much fancier than necessary form of weaponry was used. While it can't be ruled out, it also can't be considered a leading hypothesis based upon its proponents' lack of solid or even good evidence.
Controlled Demolition, Thermite	It's not impossible, and could have actually been involved in some small way.	Can't account for the buildings being reduced to dust and fine particles (especially the nanoparticles, smaller than 1 micron). Can't account for the mysterious huge energy surplus. Therefore this hypothesis is blatantly and grossly inadequate; it under-reaches what is supported by the evidence.	Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the OGCT. Does not account for the huge energy surplus at GZ, but distracts from it. It's much less than full disclosure. A willful diversion.	This is a conventional energy limited hangout being primarily perpetrated by a dishonest, plane-hugging ex-professor of physics; a U.S. DoE fusion expert with a 20-year history of unconventional fusion denying behaviors. A dead-end diversion and distraction; a red herring.
Hijacked Airliner Crashes, Jet Fuel, Fires, Time, Gravity	Everyone's heard this popularized but impossible hijacker-based conspiracy theory thousands of times by now.	Impossible: gravity is not strong enough to accelerate things downward through such great [supposed] resistance at anywhere near free-fall rates. Impossible: gravity is not strong enough to cause buildings to disintegrate under their own weight. Impossible: jet fuel (kerosene) doesn't burn hot enough. (The WTC steel was UL-certified to withstand hours at higher temperatures.) Impossible: the oversized, Hollywood-perfect fireballs could not have come from the insufficient fuel of a crashing 767. The highly unconventional damage (limited region of total devastation) could only have been caused by exotic weaponry not available to "hijackers".	By nefarious design, talk of "all that jet fuel" tends to reinforce false belief in "hijacked airliners", and thus in "hijackers". Blaming shadowy, nebulous, religion-based entities halfway around the world distracts from domestic enemies to the Constitution. Used as vague pretext for wars, death, destruction, and profit in Afghanistan and Iraq.	Unfounded speculation, appeals to those who believe the Official Government Conspiracy Theory. It's un-American to be tried and convicted in the media.

What Hit The Towers
(We were told "Boeing 767s", which 'must' have been 'hijacked' by 'hijackers'...) Only known view of 1st impact:

Hypothesis The Good The Bad The Ugly Remarks

Small, specialized or customized military attack aircraft We have reasons to believe that there were actual aircraft, but no physical evidence in support of "767s"...
Some witnesses saw a smaller craft.
Some of the 767-supportive witness statements are highly suspect and dubious. Requires extrapolation beyond known (or at least familiar) weaponry, making possibilities seem far-out, if not weird:
Could the bulge in the belly of the 2nd aircraft have been a cruise missile with a special holographic coating that made it appear, at least from some angles, to be (mostly) embedded within a Boeing?
Could the burst of light have been from a directed-energy weapon, to soften up the wall just before impact, to facilitate entry?
The burst of light lined up perfectly with the belly bulge.
Could the larger, nearly-airplane-shaped holes have been made by well-timed and -placed explosive charges?
Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory. Anything which could be reported as a "hijacked 767", which could be blamed for the smoking holes and fires, which then could later be misperceived as being responsible for the razing of the 3 WTC skyscrapers, would do.

Nothing -- it was all just Video fakery It's not impossible that such technology could have been involved.
Instances of eyewitnesses who saw explosion but no plane. The very brief and bright burst of light appeared on each tower wall just before any other damage had appeared. Why "video fake" that, twice?
There was a visible bulge in the belly of the 2nd aircraft (which lined up perfectly with the off-center "flash"). Why "video fake" that?
There was some aircraft wreckage found.
Some apparently-independent witnesses saw what they said looked like a small plane.
Therefore this hypothesis seems insufficient to account for the evidence. Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory.
When this is disbelieved, it casts suspicion over all 911 truthers, perhaps intentionally.
Claiming to know precisely how 9/11 was done, without being able to prove it, diverts precious skepticism away from the OGCT.
A willful diversion? Even if one video was entirely faked, that does not necessarily mean they all were.

Boeing 767s being piloted by suicidal Muslim hijackers It's a popluar hypothesis, having been propagandized endlessly.
It makes people feel good, thinking they know what happened to some 767s they'd been told had been hijacked.
It makes it seem OK for people to go on clinging to their cherished blame and hatred of Islamic fundamentalists for 9/11. It's impossible.
It's disproven.
It's discredited.
It's obviously some kind of illusion -- the normal signs of impact (significant deceleration and serious deformation) were not present in the videos.
Damaged jet engine found on sidewalk is too small to power a 767.
No radar transponder (or hijack) codes seen.
No "black box" data ever released.
The holes weren't quite the correct shape.
The Hollywood-perfect WTC2 fireballs were too large to have resulted from a 767's fuel load.
Forces other than those generated by "airplanes" were caught on tape helping make the nearly-airplane-shaped hole in the tower wall. The widespread blatant deception.
The resulting mass delusion.
The way this lie has been leveraged.
It's as Voltaire said: Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Blaming shadowy, nebulous, religion-based entities halfway around the world distracts from domestic enemies to the Constitution. No one knows how a hijacked civilian 767 hitting a passive tower wall could have resulted in what happened.
Some people just want to be told whom to hate...

Hypothesis	The Good	The Bad	The Ugly	Remarks
Small, specialized or customized military attack aircraft	We have reasons to believe that there were actual aircraft, but no physical evidence in support of "767s"... Some witnesses saw a smaller craft. Some of the 767-supportive witness statements are highly suspect and dubious.	Requires extrapolation beyond known (or at least familiar) weaponry, making possibilities seem far-out, if not weird: Could the bulge in the belly of the 2nd aircraft have been a cruise missile with a special holographic coating that made it appear, at least from some angles, to be (mostly) embedded within a Boeing? Could the burst of light have been from a directed-energy weapon, to soften up the wall just before impact, to facilitate entry? The burst of light lined up perfectly with the belly bulge. Could the larger, nearly-airplane-shaped holes have been made by well-timed and -placed explosive charges?	Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory.	Anything which could be reported as a "hijacked 767", which could be blamed for the smoking holes and fires, which then could later be misperceived as being responsible for the razing of the 3 WTC skyscrapers, would do.
Nothing -- it was all just Video fakery	It's not impossible that such technology could have been involved. Instances of eyewitnesses who saw explosion but no plane.	The very brief and bright burst of light appeared on each tower wall just before any other damage had appeared. Why "video fake" that, twice? There was a visible bulge in the belly of the 2nd aircraft (which lined up perfectly with the off-center "flash"). Why "video fake" that? There was some aircraft wreckage found. Some apparently-independent witnesses saw what they said looked like a small plane. Therefore this hypothesis seems insufficient to account for the evidence.	Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory. When this is disbelieved, it casts suspicion over all 911 truthers, perhaps intentionally. Claiming to know precisely how 9/11 was done, without being able to prove it, diverts precious skepticism away from the OGCT. A willful diversion?	Even if one video was entirely faked, that does not necessarily mean they all were.
Boeing 767s being piloted by suicidal Muslim hijackers	It's a popluar hypothesis, having been propagandized endlessly. It makes people feel good, thinking they know what happened to some 767s they'd been told had been hijacked. It makes it seem OK for people to go on clinging to their cherished blame and hatred of Islamic fundamentalists for 9/11.	It's impossible. It's disproven. It's discredited. It's obviously some kind of illusion -- the normal signs of impact (significant deceleration and serious deformation) were not present in the videos. Damaged jet engine found on sidewalk is too small to power a 767. No radar transponder (or hijack) codes seen. No "black box" data ever released. The holes weren't quite the correct shape. The Hollywood-perfect WTC2 fireballs were too large to have resulted from a 767's fuel load. Forces other than those generated by "airplanes" were caught on tape helping make the nearly-airplane-shaped hole in the tower wall.	The widespread blatant deception. The resulting mass delusion. The way this lie has been leveraged. It's as Voltaire said: Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Blaming shadowy, nebulous, religion-based entities halfway around the world distracts from domestic enemies to the Constitution.	No one knows how a hijacked civilian 767 hitting a passive tower wall could have resulted in what happened. Some people just want to be told whom to hate...

The Cause of the
Naudet Video "Flash Frame"
(Burst of light came and went in less than 16 msec, before any other damage was evident, just before the aircraft intersected the wall) From the Naudet DVD:

Hypothesis The Good The Bad The Ugly Remarks

Directed Energy Weapon used to "soften up" tower wall (to help a special, smaller-than-767 attack aircraft penetrate a steel wall -- to facilitate the illusion that a fragile aluminum 767 could do so without serious deformation or deceleration) It is what it appears to be: output from an ultra-powerful flash gun.
Explains the purpose of the otherwise-unexplained phenomenon. Requires extrapolation beyond known (or at least familiar) weaponry:
Could the burst of light have been from a directed-energy weapon, to soften up the wall just before impact, to facilitate entry?
The 2nd tower's less brilliant burst of light lined up perfectly with the 2nd aircraft's belly bulge.
Could the larger, nearly-airplane-shaped hole have been made by well-timed and -placed explosive charges?
Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory. Hollywood's presentation of the concept.(Consider that lasers which destroy themselves as they lase do not continue to lase for seconds.)

Tower wall was rigged with explosives While that seems to be true, explosives are much better at making holes in walls than emitting 10-msec bursts of light. What kind of explosions emit bright light that comes and goes in less than 16 msec? Reaction by flat-earthers who are still unaware that explosions helped make the nearly-plane-shaped holes: NBC TV video of "coincidental" WTC explosions. (source)

It's [From] A Missile It's illogical -- firing a missile at such close range would be counter-productive, and obvious. How could a missile account for the < 16 msec duration of the burst of light? Unfounded speculation, appeals to fools and some "conspiracy theorists".

It's A Spark from the 767's aluminum nose striking steel Flint-like sparks are not that bright and do not appear and disappear so suddenly. By the time aluminum behind a 767's nose reached the wall, any such spark would be already blocked from view. Unfounded speculation, appeals to fools and some "conspiracy theorists".

Static Electricity That could be brief enough.
If you want to cling to the OGCT, it's pretty much all you've got. It's baseless; totally made up; cause unknown.
No known arc is as broad/wide/thick as that burst of light. It's dismissive; few if any people who say this even bother trying to explain their hypothesis, nor why the 2nd hit's "static electricity" appeared so much less bright, and off-center.
Curiously, many proponents of the use of "Directed Energy Weapons" at Ground Zero 'fail' to note this blatant visual evidence of their use on 9/11. A "forget about it, pay no attention to it" non-explanation.

Hypothesis	The Good	The Bad	The Ugly	Remarks
Directed Energy Weapon used to "soften up" tower wall (to help a special, smaller-than-767 attack aircraft penetrate a steel wall -- to facilitate the illusion that a fragile aluminum 767 could do so without serious deformation or deceleration)	It is what it appears to be: output from an ultra-powerful flash gun. Explains the purpose of the otherwise-unexplained phenomenon.	Requires extrapolation beyond known (or at least familiar) weaponry: Could the burst of light have been from a directed-energy weapon, to soften up the wall just before impact, to facilitate entry? The 2nd tower's less brilliant burst of light lined up perfectly with the 2nd aircraft's belly bulge. Could the larger, nearly-airplane-shaped hole have been made by well-timed and -placed explosive charges?	Reaction by flat-earthers who still cling to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory.	Hollywood's presentation of the concept.(Consider that lasers which destroy themselves as they lase do not continue to lase for seconds.)
Tower wall was rigged with explosives	While that seems to be true, explosives are much better at making holes in walls than emitting 10-msec bursts of light.	What kind of explosions emit bright light that comes and goes in less than 16 msec?	Reaction by flat-earthers who are still unaware that explosions helped make the nearly-plane-shaped holes:	NBC TV video of "coincidental" WTC explosions. (source)
It's [From] A Missile		It's illogical -- firing a missile at such close range would be counter-productive, and obvious.	How could a missile account for the < 16 msec duration of the burst of light?	Unfounded speculation, appeals to fools and some "conspiracy theorists".
It's A Spark from the 767's aluminum nose striking steel		Flint-like sparks are not that bright and do not appear and disappear so suddenly.	By the time aluminum behind a 767's nose reached the wall, any such spark would be already blocked from view.	Unfounded speculation, appeals to fools and some "conspiracy theorists".
Static Electricity	That could be brief enough. If you want to cling to the OGCT, it's pretty much all you've got.	It's baseless; totally made up; cause unknown. No known arc is as broad/wide/thick as that burst of light.	It's dismissive; few if any people who say this even bother trying to explain their hypothesis, nor why the 2nd hit's "static electricity" appeared so much less bright, and off-center. Curiously, many proponents of the use of "Directed Energy Weapons" at Ground Zero 'fail' to note this blatant visual evidence of their use on 9/11.	A "forget about it, pay no attention to it" non-explanation.

The Explanation for Bush's 9/11 Witness Statements
(Bush has twice confessed to having watched the 'secret' attack unfold on TV that morning.) What network carried the 'surprise' opening salvo on TV that morning?

Hypothesis The Good The Bad The Ugly Remarks

Bush slipped up (and revealed what he knew and when he knew it, and how, thus indicating prior knowledge of 9/11 -- whatever it was -- at the highest level of the U.S. govt) It is what it appears to be: an honest recollection.
It was an unscripted answer to a pair of "How did you feel?" questions.
Bush was in the limo at 8:46 when the attack began and could have seen it then and there via satellite, even though the only known video of the 1st impact would not be seen elsewhere until that night. Requires belief that Bush is not a perfect total liar, which is a tough sell to some Americans.
Requires belief that Bush is not God's messenger on Earth, incapable of treason, which is a tough sell to some Americans. The heaps of disinformation surrounding Bush's incriminating statements, most coming from within the 911truth movement.
The way people are not outraged, not only at the statements, but at the way they've remained uninvestigated, even unnoticed, by the likes of John Kerry and Michael Moore and Lee Hamilton and Nancy Pelosi and all other prominent Democrats (and the media). The government's response to a FOIA request confirms the viability of this treason-indicating hypothesis.
When a complicit Congress turns a deaf ear to a voluntary public admission of high treason, you know that checks-and-balances are absent, and thus the Constitution is not being upheld.

Bush was just babbling mindlessly It's not impossible. This is important. Shouldn't someone have asked the appropriate questions by now? The hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil behavior of all members of Congress smacks of massive collusion with monstrous treason. Decide for yourself: confession1 confession2
There is a standing $500 offer to anyone who can establish that Bush was wrong.

Bush was lying -- he must be, since it wasn't on TV that morning. Wishful thinking (or disinfo). It's baseless opinionated propaganda; totally made up.
Bush may be a liar, but he's not a perfect liar, and so only a fool would assume that everything he says is false.
Assumes that POTUS only gets the same video channels as everyone else, which is ridiculous. It's dismissive -- it gets people to ignore case-breaking evidence.
It convinces people that those who say they've seen through the lies of 9/11 just hate Bush.
Why would Mike Rivero (among others, including Village Voice's Jarrett Murphy) claim -- no, state -- that Bush was lying (or wrong), and then refuse to correct (or even acknowledge) that unfounded baseless conclusion (false impression) year after year? The fact that all elected and prominent Democrats simply pretend as if Bush never made such revelations should tell you all you need to know about the validity of the so-called opposition between U.S. political parties on matters of substance.
Do those who just assume that Bush was lying, instead of wondering why Dems never challenged or even questioned the statements, deserve to have the Constitution stolen out from under them?

Bush said "ordinary" or "regular" TV, and since that's impossible, we can ignore Bush's statements, because they can't be right. Disinfo (or wishful thinking). It's baseless; totally made up; untrue, false -- Bush never used those words or said anything like that. It's dismissive -- it gets people to ignore case-breaking evidence.
Why would leading 911truther Barrie Zwicker, a man with 50 years' experience in the journalism industry, make such an error repeatedly, publish it, and then refuse to correct (or even acknowledge) it? This hypothesis (based upon the published statements of Barrie Zwicker and others) is blatant disinformation.

Hypothesis	The Good	The Bad	The Ugly	Remarks
Bush slipped up (and revealed what he knew and when he knew it, and how, thus indicating prior knowledge of 9/11 -- whatever it was -- at the highest level of the U.S. govt)	It is what it appears to be: an honest recollection. It was an unscripted answer to a pair of "How did you feel?" questions. Bush was in the limo at 8:46 when the attack began and could have seen it then and there via satellite, even though the only known video of the 1st impact would not be seen elsewhere until that night.	Requires belief that Bush is not a perfect total liar, which is a tough sell to some Americans. Requires belief that Bush is not God's messenger on Earth, incapable of treason, which is a tough sell to some Americans.	The heaps of disinformation surrounding Bush's incriminating statements, most coming from within the 911truth movement. The way people are not outraged, not only at the statements, but at the way they've remained uninvestigated, even unnoticed, by the likes of John Kerry and Michael Moore and Lee Hamilton and Nancy Pelosi and all other prominent Democrats (and the media).	The government's response to a FOIA request confirms the viability of this treason-indicating hypothesis. When a complicit Congress turns a deaf ear to a voluntary public admission of high treason, you know that checks-and-balances are absent, and thus the Constitution is not being upheld.
Bush was just babbling mindlessly	It's not impossible.	This is important. Shouldn't someone have asked the appropriate questions by now?	The hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil behavior of all members of Congress smacks of massive collusion with monstrous treason.	Decide for yourself: confession1 confession2 There is a standing $500 offer to anyone who can establish that Bush was wrong.
Bush was lying -- he must be, since it wasn't on TV that morning.	Wishful thinking (or disinfo).	It's baseless opinionated propaganda; totally made up. Bush may be a liar, but he's not a perfect liar, and so only a fool would assume that everything he says is false. Assumes that POTUS only gets the same video channels as everyone else, which is ridiculous.	It's dismissive -- it gets people to ignore case-breaking evidence. It convinces people that those who say they've seen through the lies of 9/11 just hate Bush. Why would Mike Rivero (among others, including Village Voice's Jarrett Murphy) claim -- no, state -- that Bush was lying (or wrong), and then refuse to correct (or even acknowledge) that unfounded baseless conclusion (false impression) year after year?	The fact that all elected and prominent Democrats simply pretend as if Bush never made such revelations should tell you all you need to know about the validity of the so-called opposition between U.S. political parties on matters of substance. Do those who just assume that Bush was lying, instead of wondering why Dems never challenged or even questioned the statements, deserve to have the Constitution stolen out from under them?
Bush said "ordinary" or "regular" TV, and since that's impossible, we can ignore Bush's statements, because they can't be right.	Disinfo (or wishful thinking).	It's baseless; totally made up; untrue, false -- Bush never used those words or said anything like that.	It's dismissive -- it gets people to ignore case-breaking evidence. Why would leading 911truther Barrie Zwicker, a man with 50 years' experience in the journalism industry, make such an error repeatedly, publish it, and then refuse to correct (or even acknowledge) it?	This hypothesis (based upon the published statements of Barrie Zwicker and others) is blatant disinformation.

Stay tuned. (Bookmark this site.) More to come...

feedback