Candace Owens Blames Netanyahu for 9/11 Attacks

Candace Owens Accuses Netanyahu of Causing 3,000 Deaths in 9/11

Can a successful commentator claim that a foreign prime minister ordered the murder of 3,000 compatriots and still hold her media seat the next day? This is what is attributed to Candace Owens, the US figure who allegedly pointed to Israel—and specifically Netanyahu—as responsible for the plane hijackings and the fall of the Twin Towers. The accusation comes without a dossier. No document, report, or witness. And that is precisely the problem.

What Exactly Is Attributed to Candace Owens

The circulating material is a social media message with a screenshot and a phrase: Netanyahu killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. There is nothing more. However, the mechanics of the issue are more revealing than the headline: the accusation does not come from a basement; it comes from an established personal brand with a massive audience and sponsors. It arrives at a time when much of the US conservative ecosystem has broken with the unconditionally pro-Israel line it defended for two decades.

The rejection was immediate, even within that same orbit. Part of the audience that until yesterday shared slogans with the commentator has now labeled the statement as delusional. The underlying question is not whether the claim is extravagant—it is—but why it finds fertile ground among voters who five years ago would not have tolerated even the premise.

Building 7: Where the Official Version Falls Short

If there is one argument repeated more insistently than any other, it is the third skyscraper. No plane hit World Trade Center 7, nor did it suffer from the falling of the Twin Towers. It burned and collapsed in seconds, essentially onto its own footprint. NIST, the US agency that investigated the collapse, published in 2008 the results of three years of work: uncontrolled fires on several floors, comparable to those recorded in other high-rises, heated beams and supports until causing a load-bearing column failure and, with it, an "extraordinary event." Since then, a second peer-reviewed study challenging that reconstruction has been cited. To this day, there is no public response closing the exchange, and that silence is, by far, the strongest argument for those doubting the official narrative.

Plastic Knives, Intact Passports, and Artist Studios

In the chapter of details, three repeat. First, the weapons: before 2001, passengers could board with knives under four inches long, and spokesperson Ari Fleischer is quoted speaking of generic threats involving methods "like plastic knives." From this arose the legend of the undetectable weapon, mixing a real warning with a later exaggeration.

Second, the documents. Hijackers' passports appeared among the debris, and it is argued that such paper cannot survive a hell of fire, glass, and concrete. The technical explanation given—anti-propagant treatments and water resistance—coexists with the perplexity of those who recall that steel beams did not hold up.

Third is almost an archival curiosity: during the four years prior to the attack, a group of artists selected by the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council worked and slept on floors of the World Trade Center. They were granted access to the building. The data is true and little known, used to sustain that there was time and manpower to prepare something. The premise remains unproven; the data, however, is factual.

From Technical Litigation to Political Suspicion

The second part of the matter is political, explaining why a debate about beams and temperatures ends up in a headline about heads of government. The fracture with the pro-Israel line has dragged names that until recently were untouchable in that ecosystem. In this shift appear the figures of Charlie Kirk—deceased—and his widow, Erika Kirk, upon whom all kinds of interpretations have been projected. And regarding Owens herself, the predictable has already been written: that her visibility makes her a target and that an accident would silence her. It is the usual mechanism, now with a US accent. When the argument runs out, suspicion sets in.

---

What remains is a monumental accusation, three or four open technical questions, and a huge audience waiting for the next installment. The only thing lacking in the entire equation is, precisely, the proof.