Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists


A sceptical look at claims made by ‘truther’ protestors at ground zero in September 2012 from the viewpoint of a chemist. For those of you who don’t know, a ‘truther’ is a person affiliated with the 9/11 Truth movement, who rejects the official explanation provided for the 9/11 attacks and instead claims that a US government conspiracy was to blame. The videos in this series cover everything from the alleged thermite found in the dust to the collapse of World Trade Centre 7. The videos debunk every claim made by the truthers by looking at the scientific literature and studying real video evidence of the attacks.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists – Full Video

Pictures – New York – 2012

Debunking Where Did The Towers Go?

Interview with Charlie Veitch – the Truther Who Changed His Mind

Project Poster

debunking 911 conspiracy theorists

Other In-Depth Debunking Projects

Fact Checking March Against Monsanto ProtestersDebunking House of NumbersDebunking 911 conspiracy theoristsDebunking ChemtrailsAgent OrangeMMS and the Fake Clinical Trials

31 Comments on Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

  1. Great Job, man! Keep up the good work.


    • Phahaha you idiot. You believe this drivel? Hahaaha


      • Anonymous // October 22, 2013 at 5:53 am //

        Good retort.


      • That’s the best you can come up? 13 years and you still have nothing. You twoofers have a lot of psychological issues, like obsession, selective reasoning, paranoia, determination to reveal the “truth” (that always carries either a savior component, or megalomania). Not to mention they cover the entire cognitive dissonance spectrum.


      • What? didn’t you see the fat 20 year old explain to you why you are an idiot?


    • The “official narrative” is also a conspiracy theory. Under law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future, which the official narrative claims is what the 19 hijackers did.

      The “official narrative” also requires its adherents to reject basic high school physics, because we have video of all three buildings collapsing, and in particular WTC 7 falls at free-fall speed, which is only possible under controlled demolition.

      Before 9/11/2001, no steel building in history had ever collapsed from fire, but we are to believe on that day all 3 buildings did just that. What a coincidence. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand a hit from a 707 which, although lighter than a 757, travels faster (check Wikipedia) for an equal punch.

      It requires a particular sort of mental disorder to believe the official conspiracy theory despite the scientific evidence against it.


      • “Before 9/11 no steel building in history ever collapsed from fire”…. And before AND after 9/11 no steel builing in history was struck by a fully loaded, fully fueled, traveling at over 470mph and weighing over 190 tons aircraft, OR having the top of a taller building gouge out a full 1/3 of the front to center and then burning intensely causing further weakening and ultimately the NON-freefall collapse of all three which the videos prove.

        Liked by 1 person

      • R. Watson // March 31, 2015 at 2:16 am //

        You forgot to mention that these 3 buildings were all owned by the same man, Larry Silverstein.


      • TheJamesRocket // April 8, 2015 at 11:23 pm //

        ‘And before AND after 9/11 no steel builing in history was struck by a fully loaded, fully fueled, traveling at over 470mph and weighing over 190 tons aircraft.’ Ever heard of El Al Flight 1862? Didn’t think so. BTW, the boeing 767s that hit the twin towers weighed 137 tons, not 190 tons.

        ‘OR having the top of a taller building gouge out a full 1/3 of the front to center and then burning intensely causing further weakening and ultimately the NON-freefall collapse of all three which the videos prove.’ Nice try, but none of the core columns in WTC 7 were severed by falling debris. The twin towers suffered much more damage in comparison, although still not enough to explain their collapse: WTC 1 had 6 core columns severed, WTC 2 had 10 core columns severed. Each tower had 47 core columns total.


      • Harry Twinotter // September 11, 2015 at 8:45 am //

        You have obviously not watched the videos. If the buildings were falling “at free fall speed”, then how do you explain debris falling past the point of collapse?

        “only possible under controlled demolition.” Says who? Citations please.

        ” but we are to believe on that day all 3 buildings did just that” Argument from personal incredulity.

        “It requires a particular sort of mental disorder to believe the official conspiracy theory despite the scientific evidence against it.”

        Ummm I have never seen this “scientific evidence” you refer to. So you are also claiming to be a mental disorder expert – citations please. Or are you just making a cheap-shot, ad hominem, non-sequitur?

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Cameron Syme // April 24, 2013 at 4:56 pm // Reply

    Miles! You’re the best!


  3. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
    I was beginning to think I was the only “non-truther” out there that did not rely on ad hominem attack techniques, dismissiveness and abusive language ( which makes it almost as embarassing to be in the non-truther peer group as it might be to be in the truther camp). Those who discuss this subject (on both side) tend to come off with a “smarter than thou” attitude and tend to exceedingly illiberal thinking. Your youtube series on 9/11 is a breath of fresh air. Clear thinking with a sense of humor – but no trace of snobery or vulgarity.
    And again, Thanks

    Liked by 1 person




      • i think a simple “lolz” will suffice here. lolz


      • Just because a person holds attitude X, that doesn’t automatically mean they hold attitude Y. Or to put it another way, just because a person has looked at the evidence and seen that the twoof movement has nothing going for them, and their reasoning is faulty, that doesn’t mean that person automatically believes everything the government says. Far from it in some cases. However, 9/11 was not a demolition job. Time to move on, it’s been 13 years and you still have nothing.


      • The butt hurt is strong with this one


  4. Anonymous // June 3, 2013 at 7:37 am // Reply

    In the putrid pool of retards.


  5. Great work! I’ve been looking into these conspiracy theories for years and it’s rare to see anyone using real science and common sense on this issue. Keep it up and don’t let the crazies grind you down, they’ll try their best to. It’s like debating about someones religion, they see it as a personal attack.
    I’ll now get ready for the “comments idiot” to leave me a reply attacking me! …. I’m used to their angry, crazy replies.
    Stick with it! :)


  6. I like the way some people have to resort to insulting you, as if you have some kind of agenda.

    I’ve only watched the first video so far – but I think you could have done with an assistant to film while you show the footage you’re talking about to the truthers. They seem to just think you saw something wrong or are being vague about your sources, it would be great to actually point it out to them.

    I love your work- keep it up!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Myles thanks for your videos on 911 , I argue at my job with my co workers all the time. the only conspiricy I can believe is if they had proof that the us gov paid the families of the hijackers money to fly into buildings, thats easy to do, planting thermite or explosives replacing planes with missels faking the phone calls to people is the hardest one , if i call you from plane and you know its my voice calling how does gov know im calling you about hijacking? they dont know my voice. some video was saying they debunked you , its called molten alluminum, well i saw video and its thermite which explodes, it doednt debunk you


  8. How did building 7 collaps without getting hit by a plane? 3rd building that went down on 9-11…


    • Well duh… Structural damage from falling debris from the other two buildings that fell as well as a very bad fire that damaged the structure internally. Do you people not read *anything* these days?

      Try this site:

      It backs up everything here. Read it all, and inwardly digest the facts.


      • Anyone who has ever played with building blocks knows that asymmetrical structural damages would result in a toppling toward the weakened side. The videos of Bldg. 7 shows it going straight down so fast because there was no resistance below, as in controlled demolition where the underpinnings are taken out, unlike in a pancake collapse which would take much longer because each floor would resist momentarily. No plane hit Building Seven and its fires were minor. Larry Silverstein who got $4 billion and saved a billion because he did not have to remove the asbestos which had been ordered, says it was ” pulled” and the debris piles below all three towers remained far hotter than jet fuel and/or office furniture ever gets. This was observed both on site and from state of the art satellite technology. Wasn’t Silverstein lucky that he and his two adult kids who worked there decided not to go in that day and that he had insurance for a terrorist attack?
        Giuliani abandoned Bldg. Seven along with the people working at the largest CIA operation outside of Langley, the FBI, the SEC & Exchange and many other high powered agencies, banks and insurance companies. When asked why he abandoned it, Rudy said he was “told the Towers would fall.” Since this did not happen when larger fires were in the Towers before, in 1970 and 1999 it seems strange. Still, who told him and why didn’t he pass the message on to alert many who had been about to evacuate them earlier but were told to return to their offices? Wasn’t it convenient he knew about the Secret War Games site set up so coincidentally nearby so he had a handy place to go?
        Why did Barry Jennings hear and experience numerous explosions while trapped in the Building? Why had the fire alarm coincidentally been shut off at 6:47 am? Why was there no mention of its collapse in the 9/11 Report? So many unanswered questions.


      • Maynard, if you had watched Myles’ videos you would have made comments to counter Myles’ evidence. He provided scientific evidence and reasonable explanations for ALL the questions you brought up.


    • The video answers this question. Why do people even bother asking questions if they haven’t consumed the information to begin with? You’re assuming that the video doesn’t touch the topic of building 7, which shows your confirmation or cognitive bias. Everyone has cognitive biases, but it’s best to try minimizing them as much as possible. If you’re not going to watch the video in the first place, then why leave comments against it? It makes no sense. You people are literally asking questions that have already been answered.


    • Harry Twinotter // September 11, 2015 at 8:54 am // Reply

      “How did building 7 collaps without getting hit by a plane?”

      It was damaged from falling debris from the other buildings. Plus it had an uncontrolled fire (they did actually try to save the building, remember).

      They decided the building could not be saved so they pulled the firemen out. I guess you will argue that the hypothetical “demolition” system survived the fire, and was activated soon after.


2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Feature length Myles Power YouTube video | Myles Power (powerm1985)
  2. The Apex Truther | Myles Power (powerm1985)

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s