Conspiracy Theories: 9/11

Last Sunday (the one before yesterday) was the 15th year since the September 11th attacks in 2001, often abbreviated to 9/11. Almost 3000 casualties, 4 planes, two towers (you could say they were twins), the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. The Twin Towers, part of the World Trade Centre, were hit by a plane each and no longer exist as part of the New York skyline. One plane crashed into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the United States DOD (department of defence). The fourth and final plane went off target and just crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

Instead of coming up with a theory, like I did for the JFK assassination, this time, I’ve found two that are closely linked to be examined

(all from

Theory 1- Government Bombs 

You ever heard the phrase “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” when someone says something impossible? No? Just me then? Kay, fine.

The origins of the phrase come from the 9/11 attacks, people speculated that the jet fuel from the airplanes that crashed into the twin towers was incapable of causing the steel structure to collapse. This has given rise to the theory that the planes were coverups and that the buildings were in fact demolished professionally using controlled explosives and that the US government covered it up. Heavy right? The U.S. government lies, woah, never happened before, *cough* Watergate *cough*.

Anyway, the theory is simple: The United States government planted explosives up and down the buildings of the Twin Towers and detonated them when the decoy planes crashed into the buildings. The theory is one of those that makes sense in theory but has little evidence to back it up. The main hole in the logic of this is the question “why would the US blow themselves up?”.

Excellent. It’s time for you to learn about False Flag Operations. False Flag Ops are covert operations that are carried out to seem like they are being done by one group, where in reality they were done by another. In the case of 9/11, the theory is that the CIA and the US Government made it look like Al Qaeda did it. Alright, now that’s over let’s get analyzing.

The main idea here was that there were bombs placed in the towers and there seems to be enough hard evidence to back this up. If you take a look at the footage of the buildings collapsing, they go straight down. Much like a controlled detonation on a condemned building.

Take a look at 3:50. Do you see how the building just goes straight down? The first one leans to the side and then falls, but the second just falls in on itself.

Referring back to the question of “why would the US blow themselves up?”, the answer to some is OIL. Good old black gold could’ve been the reason for the United States to kill off nearly 3000. Seems illogical right? What if it was like the Pearl Harbour theory? Where FDR let it happen so the US would want to go to war with the Axis (Thank you, Mr. President, if you had not intervened, “dieser artikel wäre in Deutsch sein” (this article would be in German)). So that means Bush and his administration knew that 4 planes were going to be hijacked and flown into buildings. Instead of trying to prevent it, they decided to use this as the rationale for a war in the middle east where the oil was. As we all know, the September 11th attacks caused the start of the “War on Terror”.

The middle east is full of oil, but I haven’t been able to track down any examples of US soldiers commandeering any oil drilling rigs whilst fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq. The motive for blowing themselves up could’ve been strong enough for them to orchestrate a false flag operation, but why would they risk lives? 2,996 people died (hijackers included), but more could have died. What do I mean by that? The government would’ve needed some people to die, but not too many (do you see my point?). According to Eric Benson, American Airlines flight 11 had 81/158 seats full, flight 77 had 58/176, United Airlines flight 175 had 56/158 and UA flight 93 had 37/182. Almost all these planes were operation at under half capacity giving proof to the idea that the government wanted to limit casualties.

In my opinion, the reason why these flights were targeted was so the hijackers would have less resistance, this is a point AGAINST the claim that it was a false flag op. At the moment the airplane capacity argument could go either way, but the plans for the attack were several years in the making, and the hijackers couldn’t have known how many people were on the plane, they just knew which flights to go for. Using that logic, the airplane capacity argument is just a coincidence.

Returning to the demolition, there is no record of anyone setting up bombs on the floors of the twin towers, but it really does look like it was a controlled explosion. Also, the idea that jet fuel can’t melt steel beams is somewhat incorrect, as the fuel wouldn’t be “melting” the beams, but the fuel would burn and cause an explosion. Then the question comes to “how much force does it take to rip apart a structure made of steel and concrete?”. And I have no idea how to answer that, as I’d have to build a reconstruction of the tower (or at least a portion) and then blow up several tanks of jet fuel (which is quite expensive).

VERDICT: It’s plausible. The fact is, that the people who know what really went down on those planes died, so there’s not much we can do to prove nor disprove this theory. As for the demolition, it really looks like it, and I can’t shake the feeling that it was a controlled explosion, but the motive just seems silly. A country killing 3000 lives to start a war over a non-renewable resource that ruins the environment when it’s used doesn’t seem logical or smart at all. BUT, George W. Bush was in power, so being logical and smart doesn’t really have anything to do with anything. Point is, with that kind of reasoning: this would’ve been more akin to something done over in Soviet Russia during the reign of Stalin.

Theory 2: The Pentagon

Like I said in the start, the third plane hit the Pentagon. Or did it? Several factors render the idea that the hole in the Pentagon was made by a plane false.

The video explores how the dimensions of the plane wouldn’t fit through the hole in the side of the Pentagon. Also discussed is the idea of how burned the hole is, and it doesn’t seem to be that charred considering the amount of fuel in the tank. Curious eh?

Like before, if there was no plane, it would’ve had to be a deliberately placed explosive. This theory and the last intertwine and that could mean there really is something suspicious about the events that went down that day. Even factoring in for the size of the plane, the hole wouldn’t have been as big anyway. According to Popular Mechanics, one wing snapped off and the hole left by the plane wouldn’t have been an exact silhouette.

But there’s also the matter of the CCTV cameras. Allegedly, a frame was cut out of the coverage from one of the cameras that were not destroyed (footage below). You can see in the video that the plane appears in one frame and the next frame is an explosion (there is no frame of the plane hitting the building). We see the tip of the plane which looks like it could have been a missile, and then we see the explosion so we don’t see the body of the plane or the missile. Essentially, there is no evidence to sway either argument  to a complete conclusion, both theories hold enough water to get them considered by the populace, though.

Have a look for yourself:

VERDICT: There is definitely something wrong with the proportion of the hole, but it can be explained. As for the CCTV, could’ve been a technical glitch, but it seems strange for a plane to be so close to the ground for so long before it crashed.

Overall, there is evidence to prove and disprove every single theory that is thrown out there (except for the idea that it was orchestrated by the church of the flying spaghetti monster, even that’s too silly for theorists). That’s what makes it a conspiracy though, understandably you can go with the Government’s take on it (like the good law abiding citizen you are) because you simply “don’t have time to discuss such silly theories”, but that’s on you. If you’re not going to ask questions for yourself, then who will? Sure, you can rely on your crazy uncle Bill, but he’s been jacked up in the brain since ‘Nam and hates authority. It’s up to you to try and find unbiased evidence for theories. There is no right or wrong, no black or white when it comes to theories, as motives can change and things can go wrong in the execution of the plan. A word of advice: don’t question too much or else, like your uncle Bill, you’ll start seeing government conspiracies everywhere (MCDONALD’s IS TRYING TO FATTEN YOUR CHILDREN SO WHEN THE ILLUMINATI TAKES OVER, THEY CAN’T OUTRUN THEM!!!)

Major-Tom out.


Works Cited:

Benson, Eric. “Planes, The.” New York Magazine, 27 Aug. 2011. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.

“Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – The Pentagon.” Popular Mechanics. Popular Mechanics, 8 Apr. 2010. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.

Featured Image: Public Domain.


One Comment Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s