Why We Need A New 9/11 Investigation

WTC Building 7 fell several hours after the Twin Towers. It collapsed onto its own footprint in near freefall speed. NIST concluded that fire brought it down.

This was my guest post on Subrosa’s blog this morning..

I was out and about on September 11th 2001 and the first inkling I had that the attacks had taken place was on seeing a picture of one of the Twin Towers on fire on a newspaper stand in the centre of Glasgow while changing buses. When I reached my friends’ house around dinner time, the telly was on and I was finally able to catch up with what had happened: the jets hitting the Towers and pulverising them, the attack on the Pentagon and the other plane that never reached its intended target but crashed in a Pennsylvanian field. Building 7 was still standing at this point (more on that later).

Naturally, I was gobsmacked with what I saw, but at the same time, I just could not believe that the authorities in the US could not have known that something this big was going to happen. I told a few people what I thought, but I pretty much kept quiet about it for the next couple of years – until I came across the “9/11 Truth Movement” and realised that millions of people had the same suspicions I had. I found out that not only did some people think that the government let it happen, but that they made it happen.

Further investigation was called for on my part.

I quickly learned that there were a great many inconsistencies and unbelievable coincidences in the official 9/11 story. For example, no steel framed skyscraper had ever completely collapsed due to fire before. Even those which had been ablaze for many hours never fell to the ground. Yet three of the World Trade Centre buildings fell completely – even the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) which was not hit by a plane.

For many, Building 7 is the biggest ‘smoking gun’ of all because it resembles a classic controlled demolition. 1,500 architects and engineers agree and want a new investigation. So many people in New York City have never seen footage of Building 7’s collapse, that a poster and TV ad campaign is underway this week.

And Building 7 wasn’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. But then, the chairman and vice chairman wrote in their book that the Commission was “set up to fail”.

When George W Bush gave his evidence to the Commission it was not under oath and he was chaperoned by Dick Cheney, the man responsible for making NORAD stand down, according to “conspiracy theorists”. Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified that the Vice President had ordered the plane heading for the Pentagon NOT to be shot down. This testimony was omitted from the Commission’s final report.

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating that restrictions on information from the Presidential Daily Briefs meant that the investigation was “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States”. Another Commissioner, Timothy Roemer said, “To paraphrase Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important documents with so many restrictions. The 10 commissioners should either have access to this or not at all.”

In Cheney’s new book, which seems to have been released to coincide with the tenth anniversary, he claims that he did order that Flight 77 could be shot down when it was eighty miles out then again when it was sixty miles out, but it was allowed to hit the Pentagon. He also claims that Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania because passengers stormed the cockpit, aware of what had already happened that morning, however, the large area across which the wreckage extends suggests that the plane exploded in mid-air, and pictures from the alleged crash site leave us wondering where the actual plane is, if it crashed without being blown out of the sky first.

It is also difficult to see how a large passenger jet could have made such little initial damage to the outside of the Pentagon, before the walls collapsed.

Osama bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for 9/11 (he had actually been a CIA ‘asset’ in Bosnia) and ‘al Qaeda’ was a name made up by Western intelligence to give the impression that disparate groups of Islamic terrorists had a united front. After the end of the Cold War, a new enemy was needed to try to frighten us into giving up our rights.

And 9/11 was the excuse the US Government needed to invade Afghanistan.

Many people find it impossible to believe that there could have been any government involvement, but history provides many examples of “false flag” terrorism where state-sponsored attacks were carried out and blamed on political enemies. Operation Gladio was the name given to the clandestine NATO “stay-behind” operations in Europe after World War II to keep communism in check, and many civilian deaths can be attributed to Gladio over decades which were to discredit the likes of the Red Brigades.

And a secret US Government document from 1962 called Operation Northwoods, now declassified, actually suggests hijacking planes then blowing them out of the sky and blaming it on Cuba as a pretext to invade the now Communist island.

I cannot possibly mention all the inconsistencies in a blog post where it has taken others whole books to set out their arguments, but I join the calls for a proper investigation into 9/11 because it just doesn’t add up.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts (father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury) wrote last month, “Even if there were definite proof of government complicity, it is uncertain that Americans could accept it. Architects, engineers, and scientists live in a fact-based community, but for most people facts are no match for emotions”.

I can appreciate that this is what keeps a great many people from questioning the official story. This weekend emotions will be high as we relive those desperate events of a decade ago, but many people who lost family members on 9/11 don’t believe the government’s version of events and have become activists for truth.

They aren’t afraid to face the truth because they want justice for their loved ones.

Further reading:
Here is a list of some of the things that 9/11 Commissioners, senior intelligence officers and Congressmen have said about 9/11
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Why We Need A New 9/11 Investigation

  1. Ian says:

    “Architects, engineers, and scientists live in a fact-based community, but for most people facts are no match for emotions”

    That explains why some people fall for conspiracy theories, but where’s your great revelatory 9/11 post which is going to change all our minds?

    I haven’t investigated every single 9/11 claim, but I have spent a while this weekend looking at some of them, and responses to them. Consistently the claims fall down when confronted by facts, logic and an understanding of how things work. For instance WTC7 wasn’t brought down just by fire. It was also damaged by rubble and debris from one of the world’s largest skyscrapers collapsing next to, and into, it.

    9/11 “Truth” is an insult to the people who died ten years ago.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    I think you’ve missed the point, Ian, when all those architects and engineers don’t believe the official story.

    For instance WTC7 wasn’t brought down just by fire. It was also damaged by rubble and debris from one of the world’s largest skyscrapers collapsing next to, and into, it.

    You’d better inform NIST then, who eventually decided it was the fires which brought it down.

    9/11 “Truth” is an insult to the people who died ten years ago.

    Emotional blackmail doesn’t work here.

  3. bjedwards says:

    I told you that you couldn’t bring a single piece of evidence to the table, Stewart, and you just confirmed it for all of your readers.

    Why you are think appeals to personal incredulity and repetition of long-since debunked misrepresentations will get you anywhere is a measure of your sad lack of education and lack of reasoning abilities.

    But you do illustrate the nature of the irrational conspiratorial mind at work. And that serves as a warning to others of what happens when one does not learn the necessity of thinking rationally for oneself: you turn your mind over to those who are happy to use you.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:


    You don’t seem to understand. The 9/11 Commission was a whitewash. They ignored evidence – evidence of thermite in the Towers, many testimonies of bombs in the buildings and so on.

    The evidence shows that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. The evidence shows that Flight 93 was shot down.

    There is evidence for all these claims.

    Do you understand that the 9/11 Commission was flawed and that there is contrary evidence?

    you turn your mind over to those who are happy to use you.


  5. Subrosa says:

    Bj, google ‘flight 93′ and you can read the testimonies of those who would have no reason other than to state the truth.

    Here to help.

  6. bjedwards says:


    You promised to bring evidence to the table, not more debunked claims. It’s clear that you cannot do so.

    Subrosa, Google “Logical Fallacies” and learn them.

    If all else fails, learn why the real world laughs at you:


  7. I think at this point, there’s no use in trying to convince anti-conspiracy theorists, but it is worth stating your position, as you do. The establishment would like to put this all in the past, but I think the energy that has been used in recent times to castigate those who still won’t bow to the official version is the last energy the other side will be able to muster, so the calls for a proper investigation will go on. The body of evidence refuting the official version is there for anyone who wishes to form an opinion.

  8. @ bjedwards,

    the ‘real world’ laughs at us? I can understand why this would bother a child in a playground, but why should an adult care about this? If you’re not sure of the answer, you could ask an adult.

  9. bjedwards says:

    The real world means all of us who think rationally Thompson. You do understand why denialists Iike Steward do not live in the real world, I trust.

  10. Bob says:

    In the ‘real world’ 85% of people polled don’t believe the narrative of 9/11 that has been given so far. 40% of people believe the US Govt were involved in some way or another. The attack on the Pentagon was an impossible piece of flying for a pilot with no experience on type and who was refused the hire of a light aircraft due to his incompetence. He even failed a state driving test in 2001.
    But I think you know all of this and enjoy being a troll.

  11. bjedwards says:


    Appeal to popular belief. Look up that fallacy.

    You then repeat debunked claims that you cannot support, just line Stewart. How gullible can you be?

  12. Bob says:

    You can easily google the dozens of polls that will confirm what I’ve said. The recent 2009 Canadian poll had the 85% result.
    But I think you know all of this and enjoy being a troll.

  13. bjedwards says:


    Do I have to hold your hand?


    Get a grip on reality, man.

  14. Ian says:

    Stewart et al.

    You can feel smug and keep telling yourselves that the rest of us have been conned, but the truth is you haven’t presented any compelling or convincing evidence to support your claims. In fact, you’ve hardly presented any evidence at all. The evidence that you’re wrong has the weight of physics and eye witness and photographic evidence to back it up. Face it, your smoking gun isn’t even a water pistol.

    Our government, and the US’s, did a lot of immoral and even illegal stuff in the wake of 9/11 and used the attacks to justify it. Your fantasies distract from that and lessen investigations into them. If someone were to tell me that the 9/11 Truth movement is a conspiracy to draw attention away from governments’ bad behaviour I’d consider that more plausible than anything the movement has claimed happened. (I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, but it’s a more believable theory than any of yours.)

  15. English Viking says:


  16. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello, English!

  17. Thinker says:

    just found this interesting report.

  18. English Viking says:


    I’ve just read the sites you link to, Very good.

    I’ve always had my suspicions about it, but now I’m convinced.

  19. Thinker says:

    I usually try to get some info that can be proven on subjects
    I answer to, but it can take me a little longer for some subjects than others.
    English Viking

  20. Stewart Cowan says:

    Trooper Thompson,

    Not sure if BJ Edwards is a paid disinfo agent. I understand there are many. If he is, I feel honoured to be worthy of such attention. People will continue to ‘wake up’ (like English Viking, below) and one day the real culprits will have nowhere to hide and the disinfo agents will be complicit in the cover-up of 3,000 murders.

  21. Stewart Cowan says:


    BJ obviously feels that the majority has some form of mental illness for not trusting the government, while he, who seems to trust them without question, is mentally sound.

    I think this exposes him for what he is: delusional.

  22. Stewart Cowan says:


    The evidence that you’re wrong has the weight of physics and eye witness and photographic evidence to back it up.

    How many times must I explain that many testimonies were not included in the Commission’s report? How many times can you watch a controlled demolition and say it looks likie a collapse due to fire?

    Your fantasies distract from that and lessen investigations into them.

    They certainly aren’t fantasies. I prefer to fantasise about more pleasant things. And there has been NO real investigation into the murder of nearly 3,000 people. Think about it.

    If someone were to tell me that the 9/11 Truth movement is a conspiracy to draw attention away from governments’ bad behaviour I’d consider that more plausible than anything the movement has claimed happened. (I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, but it’s a more believable theory than any of yours.)

    From what I see, 9/11 ‘Truthers’ are generally very political, so I dismiss this potential conspiracy. As you say, 9/11 was the spark for a whole lot of other bad behaviour, like curbs on our freedoms, which is very much part of 9/11 activism.

  23. Stewart Cowan says:


    Well done!

  24. jthomas says:

    Here’s some questions for you:

    1. What was the purpose of the 9/11 Commission?

    2. What was the purpose of the NIST and ASCE investigations?

    3. What is your definition of a “real” investigation?

    4. What “coverup” are you speaking of? Who is involved? How many?

    5. What caused you to conclude that “authorities” must have known about the attacks in advance?

    6. Where did you learn that the world trade center towers were NOT the only completely steel framed, steel cored towers to be hit by airplanes and not collapse? Please show us those steel framed, steel core towers that withstood that?

    7. Why did the towers remain standing for a period of time as designed to allow occupants to escape in case planes accidentally hit them and cause fires?

    8. Why is tower 7 a “smoking gun” when all towers that fall do so because of gravity?

    9. Why does the 9/11 truth movement claim that explosives hurled steel girders hundreds of feet from towers 1 and 2 into adjoining buildings but not into tower 7? What evidence supports their claim?

    10. What controlled demolition techniques are used to destroy each floor from the top down to collapse a building when the purpose of building demolition is to weaken structural supports near the bottom so gravity takes over? Why waste so many explosives? Why plant so many explosives and risk drawing attention to so many efforts to plant explosives in the right places on each floor?

    11. Why was building 7 not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report? See #1 and #2 above.

    12. What was the purpose of NORAD before 9/11?

    13. Why do you confuse flight 77 with flight 93?

    14. The only wreckage to be found apart from flight 93’s impact area was an engine that rolled down a hill and papers from the plane that fluttered away in the wind.

    15. Why do repeat the fiction that too small a hole was in the Pentagon from flight 77 when the hole was actually the width of the jet’s wingspan?

    16. Osama bin Laden was already on the FBI’s most wanted list before 9/11. Why would they put the same person on the list twice? Have you ever seen a FBI ten most wanted list that showed the same person twice? Examples please.

    17. Who said “a new enemy was needed to try to frighten us into giving up our rights?” Citation please.

    18. Why has the 9/11 truth movement failed to answer these and hundreds of other questions for a decade?

    These and many dozens of other questions have been addressed already. You can join us at the 9/11 conspiracy forum on http://abovetopsecret.com where and I and others have shown there are in fact no anomalies and the many claims you have listed were wrong to begin with.

  25. Thinker says:

    sniffer dogs were removed from the WTC days before hand according to security officers
    not forgetting the Vietnam war
    Cambodia, and the american dollars that went to buy weapons for terrorists in Northern Ireland, and you expect me to believe your side of things jthomas, from what I read on your reply, it makes me thing you are government employed, I could be wrong.

  26. Thinker says:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/ this is another one.

  27. jthomas says:

    I am just asking questions, thinker. I am asking the questions the 9/11 truth movement and you do not want to answer. There are many more questions but those are just a few.

    It is interesting because truthers always claim they “are just asking questions” and want a new investigation because there are “too many unanswered questions”. There will never be another investigation until and unless you can show why there needs to be one, and if you and truthers cannot answer those and all the other questions everyone will continue to think you don’t even know the subject matter. And many will think you are hiding something.

    You won’t get anywhere linking to conspiracy websites that don’t answer those questions. Try to answer my questions yourself, thinker.

  28. Thinker says:

    you have the answers in the links i posted and you chose to ignore the experts

  29. jthomas says:

    There are no answers at your links as anyone can see.

    What are you running away for, thinker? What are you hiding from everyone?

  30. Thinker says:

    no need to hide just provided info that you want to ignore just like many others who do not want to read what the experts have said

  31. Thinker says:

    here is another report by experts, the truth is out there you only need to know where to look.

  32. jthomas says:

    The experts have irrefutably blown away your puerile conspiracy theories, thinker.

    You have nowhere to hide.

  33. Thinker says:

    you are just another yank that thinks he knows every thing,
    the latest theory is that molten aluminium when it came into contact with water caused the explosions, what theories to cover up reality.that was by a professor
    and i am sure if you look up demolition experts and how they drop buildings it should give you a clue how a building can be dropped in its own footprint.

  34. jthomas says:

    Sorry, Thinker, there is NOT ONE of your “theories” that hasn’t been throughly refuted YEARS ago.

    The proof is in the pudding:

    – Neither you nor anyone can answer my questions about your claims.

    – Not one of the links to conspiracy websites you provide has ever answered those questions.

    – You continue to deliberately mislead readers and express absolute disdain for the truth.

    It’s over, Thinker. Your 9/11 truth movement died a well-deserved death 5 years ago.

  35. Thinker says:

    all you want is your type of truth for others to hear, you have done an excellent job of exposing more info, as many people will read this and i am sure research it, had you have said nothing, then people would have forgotten about it, you have never put any references for proof on this site to say otherwise.
    i certainly will not eat your pudding it may be poisoned with lies.
    here is another link, though not about WTC, but about the neglect of human life, and how far people would go to cover things up.http://www.collateralmurder.com/

  36. HammerheadDawg says:

    Stewart, nice to see you are on the same page as Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding 9/11. You must be so proud.

  37. Thinker says:

    this video goes behind the scenes and exposes the root of the wars today and also WTC

  38. ewingsc says:

    bjedwards has been using the same old crappy suppression techniques for years – trying to bully and ridicule people into shutting up about alternate theories to the official version of events …

    The following quote from Victor Thorn sums him up pretty well :

    “A paid back-room moles to infiltrate every possible 9/11 chat room, message board, and forum to create as much din, disruption, “noise,” and chaos as possible which constantly litters and pollutes the soup; effectively preventing most people from focusing on Israel’s central role in 9/11.

    A seeming obsession with minutiae where researchers spend an inordinate amount of time endlessly fixating on the tiniest of details without stepping back and exposing the bigger picture and its subsequent ramifications.

    Or else they’ll engage in rhetorical debates for debate’s sake; all of which is sterile, self-contained, and circular in nature.”

    One thing he can’t / won’t talk about – is the fast and symmetrical collapse of WTC 7

    And this documentary makes a liar out of him.

    9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out



    I have found him to be a despicable person – when I have dealt with him in the past.

  39. Pingback: DRIP and Tricks of the Political Trade | Real Street

  40. Pingback: DRIP and Tricks of the Political Trade | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

Leave a Reply to Ian Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>