The horrible events of 9-11 are a tragedy that will go down in history; however, it's possible that the worst tragedy related to that day may yet be revealed- the fact that our government has consistently lied to its citizens and used the events of that day as a catalyst for its own agenda. On 9-11, I was still on active duty; as many others, after finding out what had occurred, I became fiercely dedicated to catching those responsible and fully supportive of all actions of the administration. When the first grumblings of criticism began, I simply dismissed it as "civilians not understanding the needs of national security".  When the first tendrils of a conspiracy theory began to circulate, I dismissed them contemptously because we all "knew" what had happened, so those "conspiracy nuts were just at it again". However, in 2006, a friend approached me and asked me to review some information about 9-11, as it had seriously caused him to question the official version of events. I didn't really expect to see anything of merit, probably just a bunch of unsubstantiated ramblings, so I agreed just to make him happy. I did not expect to be as blown away as I was. I ended up researching the subject seriously, and just kept finding more and more that undermined the official version of events. I was also surprised to find the sheer quality of people opposing the government's explanation of events- including the chair and vice chair of the official commission itself!

I consider myself an avid patriot. I love my country, and while I may not be in the military any more, I find my oath to defend this country to still be in effect- and that includes the part about defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, because I don't believe there's enough evidence to determine what happened that day- was it a result of incompetence, was it allowed to happen, or was it planned. We simply don't know. What we DO know is that the official version of events is impossible, and the truth has yet to be told about the events before and of that day. So, I guess that would make me a "9-11 Truther", instead of a conspiracy theorist who flies off half-cocked with unproved ideas. There is a difference, which few recognize.

In looking at this site, I don't expect you to agree with me, so all I ask is that you keep an open mind. If you do, I guarantee that you will find there is enough here to:

1. Validate the claim that 9-11 could not have happened the way it's claimed it did; at a minimum, there is enough to substantiate further investigation. That is my (and others) goal- to reopen an independent investigation.

2. Recognize that it's not just "crackpots" or "lunatics" who disagree with the official version of events. 


In viewing this site, if nothing else, consider this:

1. The official 9-11 commission members (who wrote the official version of events):   

a. The chair[1] of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was ‘far from the truth’.   

b. Suspected they were being deceived and considered pressing criminal charges

2. There are numerous military experts[2] who question the official version of 9-11 events (including a former aircraft accident investigator!).

3. Numerous professional pilots[3] (including a former naval top gun) state the manuevers described in the official report aren't possible.

4. Eyewitness accounts contradict the official version. For example, several military and civilian personnel at the Pentagon smelled thermite (a chemical in explosives) and not jet fuel[4].

5. In order for 9-11 to happen the way the official version claims it did, it would require:   

a. Unprecedented failures in standard operating procedures.   

b. A collapse of aviation precedents in not just one, but all four flights.   

c. A complete breakdown in the laws of physics, such as airplanes performing manuevers without stalling.   

d. Acceptance of some amazing "coincidences".   

e. That ignored intelligence warnings and discontinued investigations of relevant suspects was just "unfortunate" and not purposeful, despite the sheer number of instances involved.   

f. Hundreds of experts to be "wrong" in their areas of expertise and qualified eyewitnesses to be "mistaken"... 


Also, keep these points in mind:

1. 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.

2. 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.

Depending on how you look at, it would make you crazy if you actually BELIEVED the official version of events...