"If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?"

- Lt Col (Ret) Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007


This is a site for the gathering of evidence that proves the official explanation of the events of 9-11 is impossible. It is designed strictly for the layman in mind, with no technical jargon to confuse. For example, many sites have physicists and demolition experts who go on about "pancake theory", "rate of fall", etc to denounce the official explanation for the fall of the World Trade Center towers. Instead, on this site, we would simply state that many physicists and experts in related fields disagree with the official explanation, and reference you to their explanations of why. This is because the typical layman is NOT an expert in those areas, and thus the explanation simply confuses and it's point is lost.

What this site is NOT:

1. A "conspiracy" site/blog - while we can prove what the events of 9-11 weren't as claimed, there's no way (with existing evidence) to prove exactly what did happen. For example, whether or not the "government" knew ahead of time, actively participated in, or simply covered up the events that day. I make NO claims as to what actually happened or why; the closest I will come is some ramifications from 9-11. I simply showing the impossiblities with the offical government explanation of events, in a demand for the truth. The families of the victims deserve nothing less.

2. A site that blithely posts information from dubious sources- everything here is documented with a credible source. Look for the footnotes.

While reviewing this site, please keep these points in mind:

1. Disagreeing with the official version of events doesn't qualify as being a "conspiracy theorist". A conspiracy theorist is someone who is making various claims, such as it was an "inside job". I believe the appropriate term is "9-11 Skeptic", with NO derogatory connotation.

2. It's isn't just "crackpots" and "lunatics" who disbelieve the official version of events. Others include members of the committee itself (authors of the official version of events), military personnel, government officials, aviation professionals, eyewitnesses, and more- all reputable and creditable people.

3. There's a vast difference between proving that a so-called "conspiracy theorist" is wrong on a given point and proving that the official story is right on that point. There are a lot of debunkers who will try to discredit a skeptic's arguments as a smokescreen to avoid addressing the official story's demonstrated fallacy.

4. Debunking or discrediting the skeptic isn't the same as debunking the argument raised. Too many debunkers attack the skeptic in an attempt to discredit them, once again as a smokescreen to avoid addressing the point the skeptic has raised.