Part 1 – Official Investigations

Has the official conspiracy theory (Al Qaeda conspiring to attack America) been properly investigated?

The 9/11 Commission Report

1. Statements by the 9/11 Commissioners

911 Commission Report book cover “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right … the Commission was set up to fail.” FAA/NORAD lied to the Commission – Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton

“[The 9/11 Commission was] set up to fail.” Commission chairman Thomas Kean

“It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.” Commissioner Max Cleland

“… the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations … [and] failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot … [The CIA] obstructed our investigation … the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered … government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.” Commission co-chairs Thomas Keen and Lee Hamilton

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version … We didn’t have access”, “… it might take a permanent 9/11 commission to end the remaining mysteries of September 11.” Commissioner Bob Kerrey

“We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting [from Pentagon officials].” Commissioner Timothy Roemer

“At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“, “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer

The 9/11 Commission Didn’t Believe the Government … So Why Should We? March, 2015 – Article referencing The New York Times, CNN, CBC News, George Washington University, Washington Post, Newsweek

2. Most of the claimed evidence came from torture interrogations, which is not legally admissible, and included fabricated testimony.

Extensive NBC News analysis of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report and interviews with Commission staffers and current and former U.S. intelligence officials:

“The analysis shows that much of what was reported about the planning and execution of the terror attacks on New York and Washington was derived from the [CIA] interrogations … that many critics have labeled torture .… [A]s a matter of law, evidence derived from torture is not reliable … therefore their conclusions are suspect .… At least four … have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured’.… This torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he wasn’t even allowed to read.”

‘9/11 Commission Controversy’, NBC News, Jan. 30, 2008

3. Omission of critical evidence

National Security experts open lettter to congress regarding testimony omitted from 911 commission report

Open letter to Congress by 25 former national security employees regarding testimony omitted from the report:

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge…. Serious problems and shortcomings within government agencies likewise were reported to the Commission but were not included in the report.”

‘National Security Experts Speak Out: 9/11 Commission Falls Short’,  Sept. 13, 2004

Sibel Edmonds Open letter to Chairman Thomas Kean August, 2, 2004Open letter by former FBI employee Sibel Edmonds to Chairman Thomas Kean regarding the Commission omitting from the record her 3.5 hour testimony:“I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations.”

‘An Open Letter to the 9/11 Panel’, former FBI employee Sibel Edmonds, Aug. 2, 2004


4. Destruction of evidence

selling out the investigation, fire Engineering Magazine, editor Bill Manning, January 2002“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again … Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.” ‘Selling Out the Investigation, Fire Engineering Magazine, editor Bill Manning, Jan 2002

5. Fabrication of evidence

Fabrication of evidence website“[Another] reason to consider the [bin Laden ‘confession video’] a fake is that bin Laden experts have declared it to [be] such. When Dr. Bruce Lawrence, a Duke University history professor widely considered the country’s leading academic bin Laden expert was asked what he thought about this video, he said, bluntly: ‘It’s bogus.’ Some friends of his in the US Department of Homeland Security assigned to work ‘on the 24/7 bin Laden clock,’ he added, ‘also know it’s bogus.’ … [T]he FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

‘Osama bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks? Where is the Evidence?’, Prof. David Ray Griffin, 2009

On September 16, 2001, Osama bin Laden told Al Jazeera television: “I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seem to have been planned by people for personal reasons.”
‘Bin Laden says he wasn’t behind attacks’, CNN, Sept. 17, 2001

On September 28, 2001, during an interview, bin Laden stated: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States …. I had no knowledge of these attacks.… [W]e are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.”
‘September 2001 Interview with Osama bin Laden. Categorically Denies his Involvement in 9/11’, 2014

6. Several of the alleged hijackers are still alive, with no ties to terrorism.

photos of alleged hijackers“… At least six of the nineteen men officially identified as the suicide hijackers reportedly showed up alive after 9/11.… In spite of these revelations by mainstream news sources, however, The 9/11 Commission Report simply repeats, in the first few pages (1-5), the FBI’s original list of 19 names, then later gives their photographs (238-239).… How can we believe that the Commission’s report was based on ‘exacting investigative work,’ as we were told by Kean and Hamilton in the Preface, if the staff did not even learn, from sources such as the Associated Press, the Telegraph, and the BBC, that six of the men originally identified as the hijackers were still alive?”

The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions’, Prof. David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2005

‘Hijack ‘suspects’ alive and well’, BBC News, Sept. 2001

7. The alleged high-speed, 330-degree downward spiral of American Flight 77 into the Pentagon by the amateur hijacker pilot is said to be “totally impossible” and “too ridiculous to consider” by airline pilots.

“Several former airliner pilots have stated that Hanjour could not possibly have maneuvered a large airliner through the trajectory allegedly taken by Flight 77 and then hit the Pentagon.… Russ Wittenberg, who flew large commercial airliners for 35 years after serving in Vietnam as a fighter pilot, says it would have been ‘totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna’ to have flown that downward spiral and then ‘crash into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.’ … Ralph Omholt, a former 757 pilot, said: ‘The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this trajectory is simply too ridiculous to consider.’

9/11 Consensus Panel – The 46 Consensus Points, 23 member, evidence-based research body into the events of September 11, 2001

8. None of the eight pilots on the four flights transmitted the universal hijack code as they are trained to do.

“[L]eading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified [by the hijack code]. A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code ‘if possible.’ But entering the code takes only two or three seconds, whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than 30 seconds to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93. The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.”

9/11 Consensus Panel – The 46 Consensus Points, 23 member, evidence-based research body into the events of September 11, 2001

9. The passenger cell phone calls from the hijacked flights were not technologically possible at high altitude.

“[The] official account of the 9/11 attacks depended heavily on media stories of cell phone calls from the 9/11 planes.… The 9/11 Commission and the FBI, moreover, did nothing to cast doubt on the belief that these people had, while in 9/11 planes, used cell phones to talk to people on the ground….

“Various technological reports between 2001 and 2004 indicate that, given the cell phones available in 2001, cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners – meaning ones above 20,000 feet – were very unlikely…. Therefore the above-reported cell phone calls almost certainly could not have been received from any of the 9/11 planes….

“[The] official account of phone calls from the 9/11 planes, which fleshed out the dramatic public story, is objectively so improbable as to be unbelievable – a fact that casts doubt on the credibility of the official account of 9/11 as a whole.”

9/11 Consensus Panel – The 46 Consensus Points, 23 member, evidence-based research body into the events of September 11, 2001

10. The official claim that the hijackers were devout Muslims is contradicted by multiple news reports of their behavior.

“The official account depends on the idea that the 9/11 planes were hijacked by devout Muslims – devout enough to die for the cause. And yet the mainstream media contained many stories contradicting the claim that the alleged hijackers were devout Muslims … ‘Terrorists partied with hooker’.… at least five of the ‘self-styled warriors for Allah,’ including [the alleged lead hijacker] Mohamed Atta, had ‘engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures [including lap dances].… True Muslims don’t drink, don’t gamble, don’t go to clubs.… Three guys cavorting with lap dancers…. Two others knocking back glasses of Stolichnaya and rum and Coke … the weekend before committing suicide and mass murder.… [This] is not a picture of devout Muslims, experts say. Let alone that of religious zealots in their final days on Earth.… ‘It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam.… Something here does not add up.’ ”

9/11 Consensus Panel – The 46 Consensus Points, 23 member, evidence-based research body into the events of September 11, 2001

11. The official claim that Flight 93 crashed in a field in Pennsylvania is contradicted by news reports of no plane parts visible at the crash site and plane parts found up to several miles away.

“Residents, the mayor, and journalists near Shanksville reported that no airliner was visible at the designated crash site; that contents were found as far as eight miles from the designated crash site; and that parts – including a thousand-pound engine piece — were found over a mile away.”

9/11 Consensus Panel – The 46 Consensus Points, 23 member, evidence-based research body into the events of September 11, 2001

12. Dozens of facts omitted or distorted


“The purpose of the 9/11 Commission, it should be abundantly clear by now, was not to provide ‘the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.’ The purpose was to argue, implicitly, that the US government was not itself complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As we have seen, however, the Commission could make this argument only by distorting, or completely omitting, dozens of facts.”

‘The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions’, Prof. David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2005




The plain, sad reality—I report this following four full days studying the work—is that The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labor behind it, is a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation.”

‘Whitewash as public service – How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation’  Benjamin DeMott  Harper’s Magazine, Oct. 2004



National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 9/11 Building Collapse Reports



Scientific analysis of the NIST reports by non-profit organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (3000+ members)





‘Beyond Misinformation — What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7’
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 2015

“NIST declared ‘The WTC Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fire played a role.’ … Diesel fuel fires and structural damage were no longer hypothesized to have contributed to the [WTC 7] collapse. Instead, normal office fires were said to be the sole cause, making it ‘the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires’.”


World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) Collapse Footage (0:32)*

The third high-rise to collapse on 9/11 and was not hit by a plane

1. NIST did not analyze the total collapse of WTC 1 and 2, it only assessed up to “collapse initiation.”

“We found that NIST, because it decided to stop its analysis at the point of collapse initiation [of WTC 1 and 2], performed ‘little analysis’ of the buildings’ structural behavior during the process of their destruction, thus deliberately ignoring any evidence that could be derived from it. As a result, NIST’s final report provides virtually no explanation for the evidence examined …. The very limited explanations NIST does provide come mainly from its FAQs web page, and are speculative rather than based upon scientific analysis.”

2. NIST denied the most important evidence regarding WTC 7’s destruction: sudden and symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration.

[W]e found that NIST attempted to deny the most important evidence regarding WTC 7’s destruction: its sudden and symmetrical free fall. NIST later acknowledged that WTC 7 entered free fall, but it obscured the significance of free fall and provided no explanation for how it was accomplished. We then saw that NIST provided no explanation for WTC 7’s structural dismemberment and compact debris pile, and that it denied the existence of audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions.

Finally, we saw that NIST provided a hypothesis of fire-induced failure that is incompatible with the high degree of confidence and precision with which the destruction of WTC 7 was anticipated.”

3. NIST provided erroneous explanations for the molten metal pouring out of WTC 2 and in the debris of all three buildings, no explanation of the extremely high temperatures and no comment on the nano-thermite explosive in the WTC dust.

“We found that NIST provided woefully inadequate and erroneous explanations for the molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 and in the debris of all three buildings. Furthermore, NIST provided no explanation for the sulfidation of steel in WTC 7 and no explanation for evidence of extremely high temperatures in the WTC dust, except to deny that a coherent and credible hypothesis to explain it existed.

“Finally, NIST has not commented on the discovery of unreacted nano-thermite [explosive] in the WTC dust.

“… [W]e found that NIST’s analysis of ‘hypothetical blast scenarios’ and the possible use of thermite were textbook examples of straw man tactics. We then found that NIST provided remarkably little evidence to support its claim that fireproofing dislodgement significantly affected the structures.

“Next, we saw that, although NIST conceded that ‘no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to…have resulted in weakening of the steel structure,’ it ignored the results of its testing and instead continued to use temperatures of 600°C and higher in its models.”

4. NIST’s WTC 7 computer model does not match the observed collapse,  stops unexpectedly, and required multiple fictitious parameters to achieve collapse.

“As for NIST’s computer modeling, we found that it failed to replicate the observed structural behavior of the buildings, and it required significant manipulation in order to achieve collapse initiation.…

  • It ignored the fact that [for WTC 7] the fire in the northeast section of Floor 12 had burned out over an hour before it supposedly caused the beams under Floor 13 to expand …
  • It omitted shear studs on girder A2001 that would have prevented the girder from being pushed off its seat …
  • It inexplicably heated the floor beams but not the floor slab above them, thus causing the floor beams, but not the slab, to expand. This caused the shear studs connecting the floor beams and the slab to fail, which allowed the floor beams to move independently of the slab …
  • It ignored the fact that the floor beams could expand no more than 5 ¾ inches – less than the 6¼ inches required to push the girder off its seat …
  • It omitted web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange of the girder from folding (even if the beams had somehow expanded 6¼ inches).

Had NIST modeled WTC 7 accurately, the mechanism that it claimed initiated the collapse would not have been feasible.”

NIST Computer Model Animation of WTC 7 (1:38) ‘Experts Speak Out’, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

5. Implausibility of official explanation of WTC 1 & 2 collapse

“’This presentation is not so much about how the WTC towers failed, but about how they could not fail.’ The popularly claimed ‘progressive collapse’ mode of failure is shown to not be a viable hypothesis of collapse … ‘[Other] papers purporting to explain the [progressive] collapse suffered from three fatal errors … [and] the whole methodology was not justified.… This removes the [progressive collapse] mode … as a viable hypothesis of collapse.”

‘Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis’, Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski  (PhD, Structural Mechanics), Tony Szamboti (ME), Richard Johns, International Journal of Protective Structures, Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2013



6. Implausibility of official explanation of WTC 7 collapse

“This article points out the benefits of employing a performance based analysis approach for ascertaining the likelihood that traveling fires in an office building could induce a localized failure that might trigger its collapse. The case study chosen is Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex. Based on the parametric study under-taken, our findings were that the fire-protected steel floor beam, identified [by NIST] as the initiator of the cascade of events that followed, could not have done so, virtually under any circumstance.”

‘Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7’, Robert Korol, Frank Greening, Paul Heerema, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada, Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 1, Issue 3, pp 96-105, 2015


7. Study of WTC 7 collapse by University of Alaska Fairbanks states a ‘zero’ probability that NIST is correct based on preliminary findings.

Dr Leroy Hulsey, professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and the chair of UAF’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, testifies at the Justice in Focus 9/11 Symposium before a panel of attorneys from the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry on the preliminary findings of the UAF WTC 7 investigation study.

When asked by the panel of attorneys, “On a scale of 1 to 100, how probable do you think it is that this building could have collapsed simply because of the fire [as stated by NIST]?” Dr. Hulsey states categorically, “Zero.”

Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys (16:17)

“When I first heard of [9/11 truth] and how the NIST ‘scientists’ involved in 911 seemed to act in very un-scientific ways, it was not at all surprising to me. By 2001 [when I retired from NIST], everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures. There was no chance that NIST people ‘investigating’ the 911 situation could have been acting in the true spirit of scientific independence, nor could they have operated at all without careful consideration of political impact. Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office, [including the NSA] and assessed for political implications before release .… In essence, we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’ … NIST had become fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm.” Former NIST Senior Scientist, Oct, 2007

8. Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy says, “It is impossible to accept the conclusions of these bodies [911 Commission and NIST reports], which are against the truth….”

“To date many of the relevant [9/11] facts have not been publicly examined or constructed by a prosecutor or an independent jury in one of the 50 US states … Under the Bush administration … NIST [and] the 9/11 Commission … gave incomplete and subjective accounts of the 9/11 events … The NIST investigation, because of clear contradictions and the implicitly admitted mistakes, does not persuasively demonstrate at all that the three towers [WTC 1, 2 and 7] fell down because of the impacts of the planes and the fires … It is impossible to accept the conclusions of these bodies, which are against the truth … [The] evidence demonstrates that there is a need for a new, independent and international investigation into the events of 9/11.”

Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, former Senior Judge and Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy, panelist judge at the ‘International Hearings on the Events of September 11 2001’, Toronto 2011

‘The 9/11 Toronto Report – International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001’, pp.361-385, 2012



Multiple facts indicate that the official investigations cannot be considered credible.

What are the credible facts then?

Next – Part 2 – Evidence-Based Facts