Further comments on 9/11 and internet attacking

Further comments on 9/11 and Internet attacking

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2014


After I posted my piece about molten metal at the World Trade Center, I received an unusually large number of emails offering explanations.

My article was simply meant to point out an anomaly: melting dripping steel at the WTC, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, in some cases long after the attacks, did not mesh with the official scenario about how the buildings came down.

Soon after September 11th, 2001, I advised people to look at the explosion(s) itself, the impact, the profile of the damage, as one good starting point for investigation.

This was because I had done that in 1995, after the Oklahoma Bombing. It turned out that a truck bomb, exploded from the curb in front of the Murrah Building, could not have caused the pattern of damage that resulted.

Of course, after 9/11, numerous hypotheses about how the buildings had been taken down, were presented. This effort continues. It was thermite. It was cutter charges placed on columns inside the buildings. It was charges placed inside columns when the Trade Towers were originally built. It was mini-nukes. It was an energy weapon.

Because I am not, first and foremost, a 9/11 researcher, I reject none of these scenarios. I also know that with any hypothesis, trying to establish it with evidence can bump into facts not covered by the hypothesis.

If hypothesis X is true, then how do you account for observations Q,R.S. And T. You can’t.”

It’s possible that more than one method of destruction was employed on 9/11. It’s possible that was done precisely to confuse independent researchers who would come along and try to develop one and only one explanation for how the Towers came down.

It’s also possible a multiple method of destruction was employed so that independent researchers would attack each other and accuse each other of lying, deceit, cover-ups, and so on.

If you read some of the back-and-forth among independent researchers, you’ll occasionally find these online attacks. They serve to drive people to distraction. They poison the atmosphere. They push people away.

It’s also possible that one and only one method was, in fact, used to take down the Towers—and I’m not talking about planes. But trying to establish what that one method was certainly isn’t helped by online attacks between these independents.

If you read independent research and then go to the comments sections, you’re really in the Wild West. People taking potshots at each other, name-calling, trolls changing the subject, etc.

In any major society-changing event, like 9/11 or the JFK murder, there will be false trails that dead-end. These trails are laid down by people paid to distract and divert. Yes, that makes things confusing.

Let’s see. Is this a paid troll, or is it just a person whose highest aim in life is anonymously screaming at others?”

The Matrix Revealed

But no one said it would be easy. Keeping one’s eye on the ball (the actual investigation) is of paramount importance.

Investigation requires that certain bottom-line approaches are used. If you provisionally believe, for example, that the WTC was taken down by cutter charges placed in the buildings, and someone comes along and says, “But if that’s true, how do you explain the incredible amount of pulverized material found at the site,” you need to look at that. You need to determine a) if there was a tremendous amount of pulverized material, and b) if so, how it came to pass.

I’m just offering that as an example, not as the whole story. The whole story is quite complex.

You say, “What do we find at the WTC site after the 9/11 attacks? We find the following 21 things which seem to be important. What hypothesis can I frame about causation that will explain and account for those 21 things? Ah, here is one. Yes. Let me lay it out in detail…”

Then someone comes along and says, “Yes, but there are more than 21 important things. There are five more. Does your hypothesis account for them as well?”

And you need to consider that.

An independent investigator works from passion, but he also works from keeping a cool head.

In researching my first book (1988), AIDS INC. (included in The Matrix Revealed), I eventually decided there was no reason to conclude HIV caused what was being called AIDS. I had a number of reasons for that decision. But then I had to come up with an alternative explanation—and that explanation had to account for all the phenomena associated with AIDS.

I did that.

But of course, people came along and said, “Wait a minute, how about the hemophiliacs who are getting AIDS in their injections, how about Africans and green monkeys, how about the journal papers that say HIV is attacking T-cells…and so forth and so on.

These points were not always offered to me in the spirit of kindness and fellowship.

But I wrote them down and dealt with them, one by one.

And then, when I had covered the waterfront, my publisher went to press with the book.

And then, I was happy to ignore criticism (from independent researchers) if it was offered in bad faith… and as for mainstream critics who were parroting the official scenario, I attacked them mercilessly.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

28 comments on “Further comments on 9/11 and internet attacking

  1. prophessor ping pong says:

    dear jon,
    in any discussion/debate, respect is fundamental. then following the rules of order.
    those who lie intentionally are perpetrating violence on the audience. those who fight over
    trifles and lose their mind/temper need professional help…like a shaman of some sort to take them on the journey back to their source and the exorcism of their demonic spirits.
    how can we endure the sham government and the joker characters, each one more in
    sync with the continuous new world order half time sex entertrainment than they are with god/spirit.
    me/we needs to shakes spears like we mean it. words are weapons, use them wisely.

  2. Orion says:

    There’s many folks who paid close attention at the events on that day and after, All you presented has been validated not by teams of *pros* after the fact, but by hands on pros at the time of events and afterwards. The slight of hand that took place to restrict further liberties in the name of false security was followed by a loud cheer from the *Please save us crowd* Sad to say the only way to save yourself is if you are alert to the danger of the situation(s).
    No one unless you have tons of greenbacks and hire a security force can guarantee you safety, even if you have a security force there’s still percentages of failure.. I guess the salesman worked his magick and got most to sign the ISWII contract…..

  3. bleak says:

    Thanks for covering all the angles. I look at new degrees (no pun… ha ha) of evidence like you present on 9/11 only as more ammunition to try to convince the deniers that it was an inside job and the “official” scenario is a lie. But like James Corbett says, I think it’s important for those who do see it for what it is; an inside job, to focus not on how the buildings came down but on WHO was responsible, who benefited, who was “missing” that day, and who should be prosecuted. There is a book by Kevin Ryan called Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects that explains a lot of that.

    • Steve Prewitt says:

      I respectfully disagree. In any criminal case the investigation starts with “what exactly happened”,ie: a person is dead; was it an accident, suicide, murder? Only THEN comes the whodunnit. Without the first finding the second finding is impossible. Ergo, it is of paramount importance to determine what EXACTLY happened to the WTC on 9-11. The book that has done just that is “Where Did The Towers Go?” by Professor Judy Wood. To date this is the most clinical (read scientific) study of the 9-11 destruction of the WTC that I’ve found. If there is a less agenda driven, more comprehensive study I’m not aware of it.

      • Jeremy Lynes says:

        I appreciate the importance of finding the exact cause of collapse, as you demand. But after reading Wood’s book, I found no real explanation of how collapse occurred. Only a vague reference to some kind of energy weapon ala John Hutchinson’s work. I think the case is still wide open.
        BTW, I think the best documentary on 9/11 came out just recently, titled “Sept 11, The New Pearl Harbor”

        • Mike Corbeil says:

          Jeremy Lynes,

          The documentary you speak of is really entitled, “September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor”. It’s by Massimo Mazzucco, is 5 hours, total, the official website and page is at luogocomune.net, and the page for it provides a table of contents for each of the 3 parts of the video that’s been officially available for free at YouTube (also embedded in the official webpage).


          AE911Truth.org provided a review for what the staff can say about the film.


          Dr David Ray Griffin also published a short review.



          Checking GlobalResearch.ca, there’s an interview with the filmmaker.

          ““September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor” – Truth Movement vs Debunkers
          Interview with filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco

          By Massimo Mazzucco
          Global Research, October 09, 2013


          The end of the interview transcript is followed by, quote: “(Interview made on Sept. 10, 2013 by GV / ReOpen911.info)”.

          Comment on the film:

          The part about the Pentagon may contain some misinformation. F.e., wherein it refers to “missing plane” or plane parts, if only the “theory” of proponents of no plane having hit the Pentagon and that, instead, a missile would’ve, then this is debunked and 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net provide proof that an airliner like AA 77 was provably did hit the Pentagon.

          The part about flight UA 93 that crashed, after having actually been shot down, only provides the “theory” that no plane hit in Shanksville because many people still claim that there were no aeroplane parts in the hole, then this is also wrong and the two websites mentioned in the paragraph just above provide proof.

          The two websites include proof and excellent explanations. I’ll eventually download and listen to the whole documentary, and whenever in doubt about any parts of it, then 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net are two websites to immediately check.

          The documentary should be good, but a lot of disinfo and misinfo was created and spread by people claiming to be part of the 9/11 Truth movement. Some didn’t do it intentionally, but some certainly seem to have intended it.

          • Mike Corbeil says:


            Wherein I added some personal comments about the film and spoke of UA 93 is flawed.

            Quote: “The part about flight UA 93 that crashed, after having actually been shot down, only provides the “theory” that no plane hit in Shanksville because many people still claim that there were no aeroplane parts in the hole, then this is also wrong and the two websites mentioned in the paragraph just above provide proof.”

            That should say the following.

            Quote: “IF the part about flight UA 93 that crashed, ….”

            That beginning “IF” is required. I haven’t listened to the film more than a little about the possibility and lack thereof for the alleged hijacker pilot having been able to fly AA 77 to hit the Pentagon. This part of the film or what I listened to of it is very fine. It absolutely isn’t credible that he would’ve been able to fly the plane to do this, for as was reported by his or one of his US flight trainers, he couldn’t even fly a small Cessna alone. Some very expert pilots have also said that it isn’t possible for the alleged hijacker pilot to have piloted AA 77 to hit the Pentagon, and some experts said that it’d be extremely difficult for even them. The film contains this information.

            I don’t know if it contains anything about remote control, f.e., though.

  4. Diversion, a tried and true tactic.

    Lets stay/get focused, and not let distractions and infighting obscure the facts.

    Start at the top and stay focused on the top.

  5. elijah1757 says:

    Reblogged this on Uncontrolled Opposition and commented:
    From mechanical stand point, the dust and debris being ejected like a tutu skirt around the towers as the fell does not jive with our experiences. From our earliest days of stacking building blocks to building tall snowmen in our yards, we’ve never seen a collapse demonstrate the volatility and energy that was displayed in the collapse of Tower 1 and Tower 2. If jet aircraft fuel weakened major support beams spanning several floors and the weight of the intact building above was more than the weakened section could withstand, the upper section should remained intact and fall or collapse gradually until it rested on the unweakened structure below. Even if a weakened section had many floors above it, it would still be very difficult for the building to collapse in a near vertical pancaking fashion unless a majority of the supporting beams were taken out simultaneously.

    This is the anomaly of the collapse of tower 1 and 2. That main support columns appeared to be taken out simultaneously in order for the above undamaged section to maintain its upright position and keeping its descent with near a perfect trajectory within the footprint of the building.

  6. Daniel Noel says:

    Very good points, thank you. Indeed 9/11 research has often deviated into quarrels over who did what when with whose logistics using whose technology at whose request under whose budget etc. These disputes, although valid, distract 9/11 activism from the overarching problem of the numerous watchdogs (starting with anti-war leaders) who should but do not bark over the self-evident criminal controlled demolition of the twin towers and from the overarching question as to how the watchdogs’ failure to bark was orchestrated.

    In fact, I’ll dare to formulate the conspiracy theory that since just all the principal leaders who should denounce 9/11 do not do so (principal Muslim, Arab, liberal, socialist, union, human rights, anti-war, green, etc. leaders), many 9/11 Truth leaders are discreetly working for the benefit of the Master 9/11 conspirators and are committed to directing 9/11 activism into internecine disputes as opposed to the sociological abomination of the 9/11 censorship.


  7. Deb says:

    Two words: Judy Wood–Debbie in Napa

  8. edwinalowes says:


    [To] believe that a Bunch of Arab Moslem Kids who were not able to Fly a Cessna Airplane took it upon themselves to FLY a Jumbo 747 and outwitted the US Militaryand Civilian authorities.

    The “Jewish Lightning Insurance Scam” of the 1960’s is still alive and well has been put to good use by Larry Silverstein in putting 15 million down and comming out with 7 billion dollars for buidings that no one wanted to buy because it would have cost a billion dollars to remove the asbestos from.

    Then on top of that the people in America actually believe that they actually decide who is elected President or for that that actual VOTE is really counted and makes a difference in deciding who represents them in the White House and congress.





    AE911truth.org, Rethink911.org, fromthetrenchesworldreport.com






    whatreallyhappened.com rense.com

    undergrounddocumentaries.com, http://www.brasschecktv.com


  9. […] Read full article at source: Further comments on 9/11 and internet attacking « Jon Rappoport’s Blog. […]

  10. Patrick Michael Mooney says:

    At this stage of the game, I believe it is a tremendous waste of time and energy to discuss how the buildings were taken down that day. It is OBVIOUS that the GOVERNMENT LIED. This is the essential point. The LIE provided cover for mass genocide and environmental destruction, not to mention the deaths of many thousands of US soldiers.

    Instead of forming circle jerks with each other, discussing this theory or that, we should be recognizing that our contract with the Federal Government is null and void. The failure to respect the Constitution automatically suicides any supposed Federal authority EVERYWHERE.

    We are in new territory now. To legitimize this government, at any level, is to legitimize your own slavery. I expect Americans are finally seeing this, after the resident “president” did nothing to reverse the unconscionable trend of violence on the international scene, and accelerated a war on the citizenry through gestapo spying and rampant police violence.

    Is there a peaceful way out? Absolutely! Visit losthorizons.com and stop paying for this madness. I’ve been pounding this story for 11 years, and most alternative media continue to stay away from it. Why? Why? Why?

  11. tracy sunn-stott says:

    Sagacious, thoughtful, practical, measured, coolheaded, and much needed and heeded.
    Word of wisdom, indeed. Thanks!

    Peace, power, & perspicacity,

  12. elbuggo says:

    Jon, your problem is that you don’t understand, or cannot see that the “live” news reports 911 was a 102 min animated and pre recorded cartoonish Hollywood horror movie. They faked it all, on all networks. You have to get out of the virtual reality they created for us that day, or you will be spinning your wheels forever.

    DIVIDE AND RULE: this idea was well articulated in a book more than 100 years ago, and as far as I can tell, some version of this strategy is still used in all these media operations to control the opposition:

    “To obtain control over public opinion, it is first necessary to confuse it by the expression from various sides of so many conflicting opinions . . . this is the first secret. The second secret consists in so increasing and intensifying the shortcomings of the people in their habits, passions and mode of living that no one will be able to collect himself in the chaos, and, consequently, people will lose all their mutual understanding. This measure will serve us also in breeding disagreement in all parties, in disintegrating all those collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us and in discouraging all personal initiative which can in any way interfere with our undertaking.”

  13. Bob says:

    Please see “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, et al.; The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31

  14. paschnn1 says:

    Amazing how the “shills” and gullible accept these “war on…” scams.


  15. ask? says:

    I believe a man named Tim Osman knew who pulled off 9/11.

  16. Peter Grafström says:

    Words of wisdom by Jon Rappoport
    Related to the chaos on blogg-discussions between independent researchers is the fact that so few real experts join such discussions. Established scientists in competitive branches of science or professional specialists are used to being reviewed by peers. In the so called exact sciences they know the best winning argument is the one being logically sound, staying on its own feet without any ad hominem amplification.
    The reason for staying out of the debate apart from fear of reprisals is obviously that the truth is so shocking they dont crave to be the messenger.
    The protection of the public from extremely unpleasant thruths, is not foreign to anyone among people having good careers. Patronizing the public comes naturally. ‘They cant handle the truth’ and so it goes.
    Further accepting the particular thesis that nukes were used to bring down the wtc towers the pertinent type of expertise would be the nuclear bomb expertise, for whom most of the subject matter is classified. Traitor or patriot – how to tell?
    They need some respectable group of americans to urge them to come forward and help clarify the distinction between those two extremes.

  17. Chris B says:

    I could not help but notice, in many of the videos available, we were told of how the aircraft jet fuel burned for hours? (minutes) and weakened the building structure. Odd that there is video of a woman standing in the big hole created by the plane…and the fire is where?

    • mikecorbeil says:

      That’s an image that still remains quite clear in my memory, but I believe to have also seen some images, photos I guess, in which some other people were also seen standing at the big hole of one of the two Twin Towers. I think some of these people were on one floor while others were on the next floor, above.

      911research.wtc7.net, which is easily searched using Google with the option of, “site:wtc7.net”, which, in turn, will work for articles at both 911research.wtc7.net and wtc7.net (sister websites from the same team of people); well, the first of these two websites has plenty of related pages. The following ones are some of these.


      That page is mainly photos, but there’s a link at the end and it’s for the following article:

      “The Fires
      The Twin Towers’ Fires and Their Possible Effects”,
      last modified on 2013-03-20

      The first paragraph of that article has a few links and one is, “fires became less severe over time”. It’s for the following article.

      “The Fires’ Severity
      How Intense and Extensive Were the Twin Towers’ Fires?”,
      last modified on 2013-03-20

      I recommend checking these in full but will cite a little for this third page.


      The Fires’ Progression Over Time

      Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower’s collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the Tower’s top. In the wake of the South Tower’s fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

      This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

      Eyewitness Reports

      Dozens of people were observed to jump from floors of the North Tower above the impact zone. They may have jumped to escape painful deaths from inhalation of toxic smoke, or to escape unbearable heat. Note, however, that temperatures unbearable to a human, such as 100° C, are insignificant to the survivability of structural materials.

      At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone, and many more would have were it not for confusion in the evacuation process. None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone. An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the “two pockets of fire” they found, just before the Tower was destroyed.

      End quote

      I got these links by using the following for search terms with Google:

      fires wtc site:wtc7.net

      Looking over the list of returned links, there’re other pages that refer to the fires.

  18. David M. says:

    To my thinking Judy Wood’s work is the most scientific. Architects and Engineers for Truth seems to be a preplanned ‘controlled opposition’ effort.

    • Peter Grafström says:

      David, scientific explanations based on previously unknown technologies might attract enthusiasts but the preferred way is to explain by way of known phenomena. Woods fails to do that and thereby diverts attention from realistic explanations. Whether deliberate or not Woods functions like controlled opposition.

  19. Felipe says:

    Do you ever wondered why only a limited number of footage of planes hitting the WTC were made (even with thousands of people there)? Well, have you ever wondered why CNN added an audio clip – “OMG, look at the plane hitting the tower. OMG” – to one of the main recordings? Have you ever wondered why all live television footage has a blackout (in which the screen goes black) of vital seconds to see the alleged planes colliding?

    Everything was a psychological operation. Just like COVID – you know, a virus that has never been isolated. I strongly recommend this documentary: “9/11: The Great American Psy-Opera”, by Ace Baker. You can watch this here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WCoKYQFruqs

Leave a Reply

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