9/11: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7 was Not An Inside Job

Clipboardwtc7 WTC 7 Was An Asymmetric Shape . . . So Why Did it Collapse Symmetrically?Preface:  If you believe that politics, war and terrorism do not greatly affect your lifestyle, your investment portfolio and the economy, you are sadly mistaken.  See this, this, this, this and this.

If, on the other hand, you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then please point out any inaccuracies, shortcoming or erroneous conclusions contained within the post.   Please don’t just label it as being a “limited hang-out” propaganda sell-out hit piece … instead, if you believe it is wrong, please link to actual evidence which disproves what I am saying, or which adds pieces of information which you think are missing.  Maybe I’ll agree with you, maybe I won’t.  But I will consider every comment.  (Indeed, maybe this entire essay is a trojan horse – an attempt to “play dumb” – to give people a chance to criticize it and blast out some hard-hitting truth? )

People who state that 9/11 was an inside job are claiming that it is a false flag operation which killed people, was used to justify wars in Iraq and elsewhere and a power grab in the U.S.

But  World Trade Center building 7 – the third building to collapse on September 11th – has nothing to do with any inside job:

  • No one died as a result of the collapse
  • No airplane hit the building, and so it was not directly involved in the terrorist attack
  • No wars were launched to avenge WTC7
  • No power grabs or loss of civil liberties ensued because of the collapse of this building
  • Unlike the rest of 9/11, the government has been very quiet about its destruction

As such, the collapse of the building – also known as the “Solomon Brothers Building”  – was not an inside job.

Of course, the building might have been demolished to save lives.  For example, Paul K. Trousdale – a structural engineer with decades of experience – says:

I had always thought the 3rd building was destroyed to prevent unpredictable collapse.

(some point to the World Trade Center owner’s statement about the decision to “pull” the building as confirming Trousdale’s theory).

So why am I wasting your valuable time in discussing this?

Because the government – as part of its political cover-up of negligence before and on 9/11 – pretended that the building collapsed due to “natural causes”.  This should not be entirely surprising … we know that government personnel sometimes misspeak about things like the economy or Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and they may also have made some minor errors peripherally related to 9/11:

Again, this post has nothing to do with “9/11 inside job”: no one died when building 7 collapsed.

What Do the Experts Say?

What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?

Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is “impossible”, “defies common logic” and “violates the law of physics”:

The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

  • Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:

    From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

  • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:

Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition

  • Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:

    World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident

  • Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:

    I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings [please ignore any reference in this essay to the Twin Towers.  This essay focuses solely on Building 7]. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded

  • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:

    Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day [i.e. on September 11th]? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust

  • Graham John Inman points out:

    WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?

In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation

Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .

How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.

***

Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn’t get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity … started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse ….

We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?

Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers … this essay focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise

The symmetrical “collapse” due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics

It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned

  • James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living

  • David Anthony Dorau, practicing structural engineer with 18 years’ experience in the inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a policy analyst for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on technological matters

The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:

  • The top European expert on controlled building demolition, Danny Jowenko (part 1, part 2, part 3)
  • Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam – says:

The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did

Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or any other topics other than WTC7):


Fish In a Barrel

Poking holes in the government’s spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was no molten metal at ground zero:


The facts are a wee bit different:

  • And see witness statements at the beginning of this video
  • Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was evaporated. As the New York Times reports, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7:

    A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.

    (pay-per-view).   Evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them

Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:

Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 ….

The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:

“Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,” said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.”

This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:

murphy Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection
In addition, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.

The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman’s claim is.

Again, this has nothing to do with “inside job” … no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on a rallying cry of “remember the Solomon Brothers building”, and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent future WTC7 tragedies.

It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie … even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Danielvr

    Why are people still even discussing this when the owner made it abundantly clear many years ago that he had the building pulled?? See http://rememberbuilding7.org/silverstein-statement/

  • xaxado

    What am I missing here? If building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, not fires, then explosives were planted prior to 9/11, since it would take days at the least, more likely weeks or months, to properly set up this kind of demolition. Larry Silverstein’s company built WTC7. Tenants included the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, etc. Obviously there was preplanning involving collusion at the very highest level. So why this misleading title?
    My thought was always that the low level perps that wired the buildings were sent to a meeting at building 7 and vaporized there, plugging most of the potential leaks. That would be the inside job, perhaps, or at least one small part of it.
    GW, you should be paying more attention to building 6. It’s actually the key to the whole event.

    • Larry Silverstein’s company did not built WTC7. He leased WTC complex from the Port Authority on July 24, 2001. In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building’s collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

      After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies’ value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, “the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate ‘occurrences’ for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies.” This was reported in the Bloomberg News less than one month after the attack.

      The ensuing legal battle between the leaseholders and insurers of the World Trade Center was not about how the 9/11/01 attack on the WTC could be considered two attacks, when the WTC was only destroyed once. Rather it seemed to revolve around whether the beneficiaries thought it was one or two “occurrences.” The proceedings before U.S. District Judge John S. Martin involved a number of battles over the insurers’ discovery rights regarding conversations about this issue between insurance beneficiaries and their lawyers.

      In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders’ double claim.

      911: The Lie that refuses to go away
      http://rehmat1.com/2009/12/13/911-the-lie-that-refuses-to-go-away/

      • xaxado

        Rehmat: apology accepted in advance.

        From Wikipedia:

        “7 World Trade Center is a building in New York City located across from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. It is the second building to bear that name and address in that location. The original structure was completed in 1987 and fell after the Twin Towers collapsed in the September 11 attacks. The current 7 World Trade Center opened in 2006 on part of the site of the old 7 World Trade Center. Both buildings were developed by Larry Silverstein, who holds a ground lease for the site from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.”

        This is important because Larry Silverstein had a special opportunity to introduce features conducive to future demolition at the time of construction. See for example the theory of Dmitiri Khalezov about provision made for nuclear demolition of all three buildings that disintegrated on 9/11.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuNg88YAVak&feature=g-vrec

        WTC7 had a complex construction due to other occupancies below ground, so designing a system to bring the building down symmetrically was a remarkable achievement for the engineers involved. Khalezov says that the demolition system for all 3 buildings was designed prior to construction (by Controlled Demolition Incorporated), approved by the City of New York, and installed (without nuclear explosives) during sub-foundation work on the buildings. His idea that the explosives were delivered to the towers by underground tunnels radiating from building 7 is problematic because 7 was built last, well after the towers. Still, he may have some things right, and it is a worthwhile exercise even to try to disprove him.

  • Danielvr…Because it’s very important and shows that WTC buildings were pre-wired with explosives long before 9/11. Here’s short video you should watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=youtu.be

    I’m not exactly clear what the Washington Blog is implying with this article and title…WTC buildings pre-wired with explosives and brought down 9/11, seems like an “Inside Job” to me.

    • Danielvr

      Mark: my point was that if Mr. Silverstein himself said, as he did, that he ordered (or agreed to) a controlled demolition of his building, and there’s no contradicting information, well, that is all the evidence that a reasonable person would need to arrive at the conclusion that Building #7 was indeed taken down that way. And so, the official report must have been (at the very least) incomplete and likely misleading on that point. But.. all that has been known for years – I don’t understand why this discussion has to be brought up over and over as though it were new.

      btw, I do tend to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I disagree that the above implies that Building #7 had been pre-wired. Like my fellow countryman the late Mr. Jowenko said: in extraordinary circumstances like this, with a structure as simple as that of Building #7, the demolition job could have been executed in a matter of hours if only a large enough crew of experienced workers (20-40 people) was available. And so, if 9/11 was a prepared, staged event, the collapse of Building #7 need not have been part of those plans, and if people want to find evidence of a conspiracy, I doubt that they’ll find it there. That is the reason why it bothers me that people keep dragging it up – it distracts from the real issues. The only angle from which further investigation of this particular event might be warranted, it seems to me, is that the collapse of this building may have helped to cover up evidence. Other than that, I don’t think it was very relevant to the gruesome crime that was committed that day.

      • Preparing for a demolition like the one we saw done on WTC7 does NOT take just a matter of hours to put together. That kind of job takes several weeks to put in place. I’m sad about the untimely death of Danny Jowenko, your countryman, he seemed like a good, honest man. However, I never saw or read anywhere of him saying that that type demolition (WTC7) could be done in a matter of hours. Maybe you can provide some backup on that claim of yours.

      • Walter Wit Man

        Some people claim the WTC was built with explosives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEIhARQoJzE

        See the Let’s Roll Forums on the building of the complex, the ‘hollow towers,’ and the reconfiguration of the buildings.

        Here is one thread on built-in explosives that I found at Let’s Roll doing a quick search but there is much more information there about the decades-long planning for this operation: http://letsrollforums.com/original-design-twin-towers-t27324.html?t=27324&highlight=explosives+built

  • Ian

    What was INSIDE that building? Many financial documents relating to ongoing investigations of financial wrongdoing like Enron. Suddenly poof! Three letter agency ofice were conveniently in that building. If it were used as a command center for the inside job operations that day it might be good to get rid of the evidence

  • Lloyd Christmas

    Most likely WTC7 was not destroyed by the same group of people that destroyed the twin towers. They were different style demolitions and the timing of WTC7 and circumstances leads me to believe it was a contingency plan in the event of the twin tower operation went live or was carried out.

    Most likely the False Flag (Twin Tower) operation was carried out by Israeli agents. The demolition of WTC7 was carried out by US agents.

    Was it an inside job? Absolutely. I appreciate GW trying to reach those that are instantly turned off when they hear certain trigger words, but let’s be honest here.

  • hidflect

    It’s been said above. I’ll say it again. It takes WEEKS to wire a building for destruction. So either it fell naturally (no-one buys this) or it was wired to blow. It’s here that the skeptics insist on our presenting evidence.. “OK, who did it then, and why?” It’s not incumbent on us to explain what was discussed in a closed room months before the incident. Just point out the facts.

    • Walter Wit Man

      See my comment above. Some people claim it was built with explosives.

      Furthermore, if intelligence agencies used these buildings all the more reason to have them built into the buildings and ready to go.

      Also, from what I understand, we aren’t allowed to know all the details of the insurance cases so who knows what was revealed there.

      What if the “real” explanation for “pulling” building 7 (which may really a cover story), was that they did it for national security reasons, to destroy sensitive documents to protect them from falling into the wrong hands, or because of nuclear secrets, etc.

  • Golden Rhino

    This article may shed some light on whether or not 911 (in total) was an inside job. The people behind it had plenty to gain by destroying those buildings. 911, Gold, Money and Power
    Thanks for bringing this subject forward. There’s a lot we still don’t know for certain about that tragic day.

  • I think the Washington Blog should check their facts more closely about no deaths from explosions in WTC7. Listen to what Barry Jennings is saying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LLHTh_UjBc

  • I find this to be a bizarrely twisted up article!

    There is no reasonable doubt that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. It is physically impossible for ordinary fires to cause a steel frame building to collapse. All the official theories to attempt to explain that are patently obvious absurdities!

    A controlled demolition of Building 7 could not be arranged on the day of 9/11/2001, during the time that the other two buildings were being hit by something, to make that undergo suddenly collapsing. It obviously takes considerable time and preparation to arrange for the controlled demolition of a steel frame building, straight down into its own foot print! That must have been prepared long before 9/11!

    My personal opinion is that Building 7 was involved in the command and control of the rest of the events on that day, which was primarily why it was destroyed, plus other fringe benefits. I think that a list of some of the tenants of that building is suggestive of who were the primary insiders in the overall inside job on 9/11/2001. As I understand it, these were some of the major tenants of Building 7:

    http://www.improbablecollapse.com/screens2/history.html

    WTC 7 TENANTS AS OF AUGUST 2001

    Courtesy of the FEMA report on WTC 7,

    On Floors
    25 Department of Defense (DOD)
    25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
    23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
    9-10 US Secret Service

    Some people, in some of the agencies, most probably were some of the insiders. Some of the other fringe benefits from that destruction were because the Securities and Exchange Commission was also one of the tenants.

    • I feel like the butt of an April Fools Day joke after reading your more recent article explaining your use of SATIRE in this context. The reason that I felt your article was “bizarrely twisted up” was that I did NOT understand that when I first read it. … I should have guessed before!

  • Abby

    We no longer trust a President, Congress, Airforce, media, Banks, Schools, Newspapers, Wars, Diplomatic Corp, and when you lose the trust of the American people and the justice department, you create kindling that may combust at any time.

  • Jim P

    Clearly Building Seven felt tremendous grief at the collapse of the other two buildings, and broken-hearted, simply collapsed. People DO die from broken hearts, after all.
    (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-22/news/ct-x-broken-heart-syndrome-20120222_1_stress-cardiomyopathy-heart-attack-heart-syndrome)

    That authorities come up with their stories has most to do with their compassion, and wishing to protect #7 from any possible ridicule for its over-romantic, dare we say “weak,” nature.

    As a famous author once wrote “Case Closed.”

  • David G. Mills

    There were people that reportedly died in WTC7 which had explosions beginning early in the day.
    See the Barry Jennings video where he was in WTC7 when explosions began going off before the towers even fell and where he says he thought he was stepping over dead bodies in the lobby of the building (it was dark) when he was trying to get out. He was told by a firefighter not to look down at what he was stepping over. Why be told that if you wouldn’t be seeing something gruesome?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctKBepmemG8

    Then there was destruction of evidence. Who knows what evidence could have been linked to the other two buildings, but a controlled demolition on that day would certainly imply that any evidence that was destroyed would not be favorable for the official theory.

    Even if the building could have been wired and taken down in a day, there was no need. Other buildings were taken down weeks or months later. It would have been safer to take it down under less exigent circumstances. So taking it down that day implicates destruction of critical evidence.

  • mmckinl

    Nothing is factually incorrect about the post … what was done is to cleverly mix the observations from the debris of the North and South towers with that of Building #7.

    The fact is that according to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth all three buildings were imploded using demolition techniques and not from the damage and fires from the plane collisions …

    AE911 Truth has a new video that cuts through the mountain of facts, claims and innuendo that surround 9/11/2001 …

    http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138

    No conspiracy theories, no innuendo, just the cold hard facts as highly experienced and educated architects and engineers ask the unanswered questions about the Twin Towers and Building #7.

  • Brian Good

    mmckinl, you can’t have it both ways. If the buildings were imploded by controlled demolition and the government is covering that up, you have a conspiracy.

    Your video has a long section in which psychologists expound on the difficulty citizens have in confronting the possibility that the government was involved in 9/11.

    You need to make up your mind whether you’re a conspiracy theorist or not. If you’re not, you should stick to the facts: 273 of the widows’ 300 questions have not been answered, and the NIST reports are demonstrably incomplete, dishonest, and unbelievable. If you insist on going beyond the facts, then at least have the honesty to admit that you are a conspiracy theorist.

  • Rich H

    WTC 7 was “not” an inside job yet you conclude the government is not telling the truth about it? Why would that be and why does that make any sense. I mean, it’s got to one or the other. Others have posted that the building could have been wired just prior to demolition. It’s easy to find videos of demolitions that went wrong even with months of planning – perhaps our U.S. Demo Experts are just exceptional, you know, just like the rest of the U.S.

    I was preparing a post on major crises over the past century brought about by our government to which the population was lied and misled about, everything from war causing incidents to assasinations. But I think the easier post would be, What Haven’t We Been Lied to About? That would be an extraordinarily short post.

  • Wolfen Batroach

    Your logic is fallacious. I suppose one could call it “arguing the consequent”. That no one was killed in the demolition of WTC7 does not _therefore_ prove a damn thing. My understanding is that most truthers see 7 as a “dud”. It was supposed to be destroyed that morning along with the others. The Insiders corrected the malfunction and blew it that afternoon. To separate 7 from the rest of that day’s events, to be convinced it was a controlled demolition, but maintain it was not an inside job is just plain silly.

    • Pooua

      Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be?

      • JusticeFor911

        Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for “terrorist attacks”. In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000. I’d say nearly half of $1,000,000,000.00 was the primary cause to include this building with the towers. Keep in mind that President Bush’s brother Marvin was a principal in the company Securacom that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. Are dots connecting yet?

        • Pooua

          If you buy a new car, you take out full coverage insurance on it. Insuring billion-dollar buildings is standard procedure, especially when one had already suffered a terrorist attack. You insinuation is nothing but gossip and suggestion.

          No, Securacom did not provide security for WTC; that’s the job of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Securacom had a contract to perform a limited service for PNYNJ, and Marvin Bush was only a bit player (he was on the board of directors) in the company. Your paranoid ramblings are lies.

          • IBSHILLIN

            Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90’s they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way.

            All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified).

            This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down.

          • Pooua

            I find it amazing that you consider yourself such an unquestionable expert that you not only feel qualified to insist that explosives brought down the WTC buildings, even in contradiction to scores of scientists, engineers and investigators of NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT who say otherwise, and you do so without offering any evidence at all to support your bizarre claim.

            No building the size of any of the WTC buildings has ever been brought down by controlled demolition, but of those that come closest, the planning took years, and the rigging took months of hard work by teams of experts working around the clock. This is not something that can be hidden.

            Your suggestion is entirely preposterous and without merit.

          • ihaveabrain

            explain this? You are smarter than these experts?http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065 NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT are worthless entities! What about the experts in that documentary? Nanothermite brought them down smart guy!

          • Pooua

            You posted a 1.5-hour video. I am not here to watch a 1.5-hour video; I’m here to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC 7. If you have something to say, say it here.

            NIST has been the premier standards body used by the US government for a century, covering virtually every aspect of engineering and public safety in this country. It employes thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians. For you to claim that it is a worthless entity is idiocy on your part.

          • linked1

            http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/september-11-new-pearl-harbor/

            How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the ‘official story’, in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report. You claim to want to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC-7 but you can’t be bothered to watch painstakingly researched documentaries that include thousands of witnesses, victims, scientists, and structural professionals.

            You ought to educate yourself before calling other’s claims ‘worthless idiocy’. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong.

          • Pooua

            I’ve been reading arguments about 9/11 for two years. I’ve been arguing about other issues for the last 25 years, at least since I took a class in classical logic. What you need to understand is, you aren’t arguing anything when you send me off to listen to someone else. The other guy might be arguing something, but you aren’t doing anything. And, the fact that I’ve spent two years reading everything I could find on the subject makes me strongly suspect that this five-hour video would be just a waste of my time.

            If you want to discuss this matter, then discuss it. Don’t send me off to spend hours of my time listening to someone else. You explain it. If you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it, and you are wasting everyone’s time.

          • mulegino1 .

            The levels of energy required to turn most of the Twin Towers and WTC7 into nanoparticles (thus the pyrocastic flow which only occurs in volcanic eruptions and nuclear destinations) would be thousands of orders of magnitude greater than airliner impacts and hydrocarbon based office fires, which are claimed to have initiated a “gravity collapse”.

            How could a “gravity collapse” perfectly mimic the detonation of a small tactical nuclear device or devices-electromagnetic pulse, molten lava and a mushroom cloud?

          • Pooua

            I want you to look at this image from the WTC on 9/11. It shows the debris after the Towers collapsed. Does this look like nanoparticles to you? Most of the debris was bigger than a man’s fist.

            http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/World-Trade-Center-Cross-620×410.jpg

            There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That’s obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area.

            The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC.

          • mulegino1 .

            If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless.

            There was indeed a pyroclasticas flow as anyone with youtube can determine for themselves.

          • Pooua

            If you are unaware that ordinary house and building fires burn hot enough to cause steel to weaken and collapse, you have no business arguing this topic.

            Apparently, you don’t know what a pyroclastic flow is. You cannot have unburned paper in a pyroclastic flow. You cannot have unburned people in a pyroclastic flow. The fact that people were walking, running, and getting buried in the clouds of dust and living through them proves that these were not pyroclastic flows.

          • mulegino1 .

            Have you ever heard of a wood burning stove?

            The dust was already cooling by the time it began to spread throughout lower Manhattan. The blast radius could have been no more than ten feet in diameter if a fusion device was used which did not need a fission trigger. It was a heat so intense that the buildings’ cores were literally disintegrated.

            There were vehicles in the vicinity not hit by debris or burnt by the office fires, but whose metal parts were fried. How does a gravity collapse explain that? The damage to the vehicles in question is identical to that done to vehicles from the electromagnetic pulse which follows the detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon.

            In addition, office fires and gravity collapses do not generate mushroom clouds.

          • Pooua

            “Have you ever heard of a wood burning stove?”

            Heard of them? My family used them!

            “The dust was already cooling by the time it began to spread throughout lower Manhattan.”

            Because, that’s how pyroclastic flows work–NOT! There is no such thing as a cold pyroclastic flow. It’s a contradiction in terms. However, let’s say that WTC was one; a cold “pyroclastic” flow. How do you know it was a pyroclastic flow? What’s your evidence?

            “The blast radius could have been no more than ten feet in diameter if a fusion device was used which did not need a fission trigger.”

            Or, only 2 inches in diameter if it used nano-black hole technology. But, why go that far, when you could just fire up the teleporter and beam out all the internal structures? Oh, wait–what movie are you writing about?

            Other than that, your comment is idiocy. There is no such thing as a fusion device with a ten-foot blast radius.

            “It was a heat so intense that the buildings’ cores were literally disintegrated.”

            Except that we can see WTC 1 and 2’s cores still standing after the outer walls collapsed. Also, there were no temperatures high enough to melt steel anywhere at WTC on 9/11. Your comments are insane.

            “There were vehicles in the vicinity not hit by debris or burnt by the office fires, but whose metal parts were fried. How does a gravity collapse explain that?”

            How does “cooling pyroclastic flows” explain that? How do you explain how people were able to walk or run through these clouds of dust without getting burned, but while these vehicles caught fire?

            I’ll tell you how I explain it; the vehicles had gasoline in them that caught fire. These are just plain, old, ordinary gasoline fires.

            “The damage to the vehicles in question is identical to that done to vehicles from the electromagnetic pulse which follows the detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon.”

            You have no clue what you are talking about! Whoever told you that, whatever voice in your head gave you that information, is insane!

            “In addition, office fires and gravity collapses do not generate mushroom clouds.”

            Big impacts can, though, and 500,000 tons of falling debris is a pretty big impact.

            You really need to learn to use Occam’s Razor. If you see a burning or burned-out car, your first thought should be that it had something flammable in it (like gasoline) that caught fire, not that a thermonuclear weapon detonated that nobody saw on camera.

          • mulegino1 .

            Wrong about the cars. The damage was identical to that of an electromagnetic pulse insofar as the metal objects and mirrors were damaged while the upholstery in many vehicles was untouched. Which also explains why the paper was not burned. Paper is a poor conductor.

            One vehicle on the street not hit by any debris had its door ripped off and burst into flames at the exact moment the explosion occurred in the sub basement (about the same time as the plane impact). That there was such an explosion is now beyond doubt, given the conditions in the lobby after the impact and before the collapse. There is no evidence of a fire caused by a jet fuel fireball going down the elevator shaft, but there is massive damage consistent with an explosion from below. And a plane impact on an upper floor would certainly not be capable of destroying a five ton printing press in the sub basement.

            Also, the dust was heavier than air yet the cloud flowed horizontally which would not have been the case with an ordinary gravity collapse. This would require levels of energy orders of magnitude greater than a structure undergoing gravity collapse or burning hydrocarbons.

            Some fires remained burning for days and were not oxygen based; in the basements, even weeks later, firefighters described flowing molten metals and the place like “a foundry”. None of this is consistent with office fires and gravity collapses. The clincher is that this material did not even begin to cool down despite being hosed down.

          • Pooua

            “Wrong about the cars. The damage was identical to that of an electromagnetic pulse”

            You don’t know anything about what an electromagnetic pulse would do.

            “insofar as the metal objects and mirrors were damaged”

            Damaged how exactly? Not only that, but exactly how would an electromagnetic pulse damage metal? It wouldn’t! Your statements are nonsense! Metal conducts current; the damage would be at the insulation, not the conductor.

            “while the upholstery in many vehicles was untouched.”

            So, what was burning?

            “Which also explains why the paper was not burned. Paper is a poor conductor.”

            The paper wasn’t burning because it wasn’t hot. It wasn’t hot because the dust was not part of a pyroclastic flow. The dust wasn’t part of a pyroclastic flow because there was. No. Nuclear. Weapon!

            “One vehicle on the street not hit by any debris had its door ripped off and burst into flames at the exact moment the explosion occurred in the sub basement (about the same time as the plane impact).”

            Oh, you saw this happen did you? It never happened! Even if it had happened, you wouldn’t know about it. How are you going to know that the doors ripped off the car and it burst into flames at the same time that an explosion that only the people in the basement heard?

            The basement “explosion” actually was the sound from the jet impact overhead. The vibrations from the impact traveled down the steel supports, all the way to the bedrock foundation. When the vibrations hit the bedrock, they made a lot of noise. Sound travels faster in steel than in air, so the explosion was heard from the end of the steel beam before the sound from the impact reached the ground.

            “That there was such an explosion is now beyond doubt, given the conditions in the lobby after the impact and before the collapse.”

            Oh, and you are such an expert that you ruled out what a thousand gallons of jet fuel-and-air would do when it explodes! No, you are a kook!

            “There is no evidence of a fire caused by a jet fuel fireball going down the elevator shaft,”

            That would be the elevator shaft that was in the core that you claim instantly vaporized, but now you are claiming you examined for evidence.

            “there is massive damage consistent with an explosion from below.”

            Idiocy!

            “And a plane impact on an upper floor would certainly not be capable of
            destroying a five ton printing press in the sub basement.”

            Assuming that printing press wasn’t already in pieces prior to 9/11, and assuming that the one person who reported seeing it was accurate, you still have no evidence of explosives.

            “Also, the dust was heavier than air yet the cloud flowed horizontally which
            would not have been the case with an ordinary gravity collapse.”

            You are making up lies. You don’t know what you are talking about, as dust trailing the ground is exactly what it would do when the dust is too heavy for the air to support. Nothing about an ordinary gravitational collapse changes that fact.

            “This would require levels of energy orders of magnitude greater than a
            structure undergoing gravity collapse or burning hydrocarbons.”

            Idiocy! You just make up stuff out of your psychotic imagination! Let’s see you try to substantiate your claims! Show how you determined that it would take orders of magnitude more energy to produce a turbidity flow than gravitational collapse or burning hydrocarbons could produce. Post your calculations. Meanwhile, the rest of us can watch this video of turbidity flow:

            http://youtu.be/zHId82eT6uM

            http://youtu.be/dHDPjr8ZND4

            http://youtu.be/ZhDQnnONWl4

            “Some fires remained burning for days and were not oxygen based; in the basements, even weeks later, firefighters described flowing molten metals and the place like “a foundry”. None of this is consistent with office fires and gravity collapses. The clincher is that this material did not even begin to cool down despite being hosed down.”

            These observations are entirely consistent with hot organic material becoming buried underneath tons of insulating dust and debris. It doesn’t burn underground, but it remains hot. This is exactly the way that Hawaiians roast pork underground; they line a pit with hot rocks, then bury the pig with the rocks under a ton of dirt. It takes a long time for the heat to get out. When exposed to air, the organic material can burst back into flame, if it is hot enough. It takes a long time for 10,000 tons of burning debris to cool.

            The normal temperature of an ordinary house or office fire peaks around 1800 °F. That’s hot enough to melt aluminum, copper, tin and lead, all of which were present in ton-quantities at WTC. So, no surprise that someone would see molten metal; that’s entirely normal in a building fire with aluminum present. Not only were the jet aircraft made out of aluminum (about 70 tons of aluminum each), but the buildings were clad in tons of aluminum.

            Your trouble is, you keep listening to crazy people describing what they imagine happened at WTC.

          • mulegino1 .

            You must be joking. We are not talking about the heat of a Hawaiian barbecue, we are talking about heat intense enough to cause molecular dissociation in structural steel. This is shown by the free iron particles which are a signature element of the dust, as well as the object found at Ground Zero called “the meteorite”,which contains lava.

            My point about EMP was that automobiles blocks away, clearly untouched by any debris and nowhere near any fires had their metal components literally fried while in many cases their non metal components were undamaged. This could not possibly be caused by a gravity collapse or office fires. But such damage is identical to that which occurred to vehicles on the receiving end of an EMP caused by the detonation of a tactical nuke.

            Another factor is the hollow core of WTC 6. It was not crushed by debris and did not burn. It simply vanished. No gravity collapse could have caused this.

            Ah, yes, the kerosene fireball that travelled down the elevator shafts, reaching the basements where it destroyed the 5 ton printing press.

            The official tale of jet fuel, gravity collapses, Arabian Nights level aviation miracles, disappearing titanium engines, and the man in the cave and his magic 19 miracle working djinn foiling NAADC is
            perhaps the most imbecilic government narrative ever.

          • Pooua

            “We are not talking about the heat of a Hawaiian barbecue, we are talking about heat intense enough to cause molecular dissociation. This is shown by the free iron particles which are a signature element of the dust, as well as the object found at Ground Zero called “the meteorite”,which contains lava.”

            And unburned paper. The Ground Zero “meteorite” has unburned, pliable paper with legible print embedded all over its volume. Tell me how that is possible at these extraordinary temperatures you claim. Hint: IT ISN’T! The “meteorite” wasn’t formed by high temperatures; it could not have experienced temperatures higher than the ignition point of paper, and probably never got above 300 °F. It was formed under pressure, in water.

            http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/24912513.jpg

            http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg

            http://youtu.be/2wW1Wqx-ojk

            “My point about EMP was that automobiles blocks away, clearly untouched by any debris and nowhere near any fires had their metal components literally fried while in many cases their non metal components were undamaged.”

            They simply overheated when their panicked drivers abandoned them and caught fire. It isn’t the first time that a running automobile has caught fire. That’s even more likely to happen when they are covered in a cloud of dust. Your claim that only the metal was affected, and not any of the organic material, is unsubstantiated nonsense.

            “This could not possibly be caused by a gravity collapse or office fires.”

            Who said it was? Haven’t you ever seen a car fire before? It happens.

            “But such damage is identical to that which occurred to vehicles on the receiving end of an EMP caused by the detonation of a tactical nuke.”

            And you know this how? How could you possibly have any way of knowing the veracity of your claim? Have you ever seen an automobile that was exposed to the EMP of a tactical nuke detonation? Have ever even seen the vehicles that were at WTC, much less examined them in minute detail? I don’t think you have! I think you are swallowing a bunch of nonsense that Judy Woods fed you, and you gullibly believed.

            “Another factor is the hollow core of WTC 6. It was not crushed by debris and did not burn. It simply vanished. No gravity collapse could have caused this.”

            How many nukes do you think were detonated at WTC, anyway? So far, you have nukes supposedly bringing down WTC 1 and 2 (with 10 foot blast radii, causing 1300+ feet of building core to disappear in each of those buildings, apparently requiring 130 nuclear devices per tower) and maybe WTC 7 and now WTC 6. Why just those buildings? To what end? And your whole argument is based on what you claim you know about secret (or impossible) nuclear devices. A sane person looks for the most non-sensational reason possible; an insane or juvenile person looks for the most elaborate, exotic explanation possible.

            “Ah, yes, the kerosene fireball that travelled down the elevator shafts, reaching the basements where it destroyed the 5 ton printing press.The official tale of jet fuel, gravity collapses, Arabian Nights level
            aviation miracles, disappearing titanium engines, and the man in the
            cave and his magic 19 miracle working djinn foiling NAADC is
            perhaps the most imbecilic government narrative ever.”

            Your claim that super-secret nuclear devices with ten-foot blast radii were secretly stashed in various WTC buildings with absolutely no physical evidence to support your claims is utterly moronic, insipid and insane.

            “Oh, look! A car caught fire! It must have been nuclear weapons!”

            What idiocy!

          • mulegino1 .

            You seem to imply that pyroclastic flows don’t cool down as they flow away from their source. The people of Pompeii were not burned to death; for the most part they suffocated by being buried under volcanic ash.

          • Pooua

            Actually, the people of Pompeii died instantly when they were cooked.

            “Until now it’s been widely assumed that most of the victims were asphyxiated by volcanic ash and gas. But a recent study says most died instantly of extreme heat, with many casualties shocked into a sort of instant rigor mortis.”

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/101102/pompeii-mount-vesuvius-science-died-instantly-heat-bodies/

            “The first wave hit the nearby Herculaneum with temperatures as high as 500 degrees Celsius. The searing heat was enough to boil the brains and instantly vaporise the flesh of its victims so that only blackened skeletons remained.

            “But how the people of Pompeii died has remained a mystery for many centuries. Volcanologists have now discovered they were killed by a later wave of pyroclastic flow.

            “Pompeii’s wave was significantly cooler than the one that swept through Herculaneum, so although the victims bodies remained intact, the heat ‘cooked’ their flesh instantly.”

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/21938018

          • mulegino1 .

            Accepted scholarship mainly holds that most of the victims at Pompeii died of asphyxiation while a few-roughly 700 or so died due to the thermal surges which accompanied the major eruption.

          • Pooua

            Regardless, once the cloud cools, it isn’t pyroclastic. Incidentally, “accepted scholarship” is no better than the evidence it brings. “Accepted scholarship” gets overturned all the time.

          • mulegino1 .

            Yeah, especially with regards to 9/11.

          • Pooua

            First, you have to have evidence to overturn the accepted scholarship. You 9/11 “Truthers” aren’t anywhere near doing that. All you have are lies and innuendo. You don’t have any names of who did what.

          • mulegino1 .

            The “accepted scholarship” is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

            The official narrative is so ludicrous from any standpoint that the “debunkers” resort to wildly implausible scenarios in order to convince the above cited demographic that the government and the major national media were reporting factual information when in fact they were reading from a script. And it was a very poorly written script. The Bin Laden bogeyman was already being invoked before the buildings exploded.

            What you’ve got here is a pseudo-religious narrative designed to so enrage the dumbed down sheeple that they will lash out in their fury against virtually anyone designated by the powers that be as the enemy- a Sorelian myth.

            Like any false narrative, the official story breaks down at the level of discrete facts and can only survive as a holistic mythologized, meta-historical events.

          • Pooua

            The “wildly-implausible” scenarios are those that invoke impossible nuclear weapons or holographic jets or magical thermite or silent explosives or space-based energy weapons. You are a kook! You are all a bunch of lying kooks! You had 14 years, but everything you’ve produced is just a bunch of lies and nonsense!

            You can’t provide even a rough chronology of events leading up to the events of 9/11. You can’t provide even a rough chronology of the events that you believe took place on 9/11. You can’t name even a single person who you believe carried out the events of 9/11. You can’t name even a single source of the materials used on 9/11. You can’t name even a single person who gave the orders for 9/11. You are completely bereft of any plausible cause-and-effect, any relevant fact, anything more than the wildly rantings of an insane comic book author.

          • mulegino1 .

            Of course I can name names of those who had means, motive and opportunity:

            Among the mechanics of the operation including, but not limited to:

            Daniel Lewin, Urban Moving Systems, Israeli Mossad, ICTS, AMDOCS.

            Means, motive, and opportunity.

            The intellectual authors:

            High level neocons in the Bush Administration including but not limited to: Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dov Zackheim and Jerome Hauer, along with sundry signatories of the Project for a New American Century which called for just such an event as 911 to “catalyze” the American public’s appetite for a series of wars in the Middle East.

            Department of Justice: Michael Chertoff.

            Department of Defense: Richard Myers

            Means, motive and opportunity.

            New York City:

            Larry Silverstein (gigantic profit motive)

            Rudolf Giuliani

            Bernard Kerik

            Frank’s Lowey

            All of these individuals had either the means, motive or opportunity to plan the attacks, carry them out, or cover up the facts and redirect the investigation to the Arab pasties.

            Now, Bin Laden and the 19 Arab hijackers may have had a motive but they did not have the means or opportunity.

            Besides, what evidence do you have that Bin Laden was responsible?

          • Pooua

            No, do not give me “means, motive, opportunity,” you gutless, anti-Semitic scumbag! I demand that you tell me who did what and when in carrying out the 9/11 attacks! Your empty, racist allegations are just more filth from that lying hole in your face!

          • mulegino1 .

            Your “gutless anti-Semitic” remark has outed you as a hasbarist troll. More proof that Israel was involved.

          • Pooua

            Whatever you say, you Fascist pig!

          • WilliamBinney

            Now what a bunch of horseshit is coming out of your eathole. Of course names have been names, materials have been named, motives mentioned, etc etc … But as I said before you suffer from selective hearing disability.

          • mulegino1 .

            The official narrative is false from virtually every standpoint.

            From the standpoint of aviation and aeronautics.

            From the standpoint of air defense protocol.

            From the standpoint of construction engineering, architectural design and the history of steel and concrete high rise buildings.

          • Pooua

            Everything you claim is false from virtually every standpoint. You are a liar, and everything you claim about 9/11 is a lie!

          • mulegino1 .

            So, lay out your proof that it was done by Bin Laden’s miracle working amateur pilots.

            Oh, I can do it for you:

            A passport on a sidewalk. Intelligence agencies steal and plant passports all the time.

            A phony confession video from the fat faced, broad nosed “Osama Bin Laden” who looks more like Lamont Sanford than the real Bin Laden with the airline nose and who was gaunt, thin and suffering from kidney failure at the time.

            Testimony coerced through torture.

          • Pooua

            OBL and AQ conducted attacks against Western targets all the time. It isn’t like that is a big secret.

            December 29, 1992 Yemen Hotel Bombings – the first attack by Al-Qaeda

            7 August 1998 – simultaneous U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya

            12 October 2000 – USS Cole bombing

            The January 1995 Bojinka plot was their ambitious attempt to assassinate the pope and bomb 11 airliners while they were enroute over the ocean, potentially killing 4000 people. They almost got away with it, but for an accident that exposed them.

            9/11 was nothing new for al Qaeda.

          • mulegino1 .

            Yeah, they bombed a hotel. However, the aviation miracles ascribed to them on 911 are completely impossible. Please describe how they accomplished these prodigies so effortlessly.

          • Pooua

            Idiot! It’s easy to crash a plane! It’s a lot easier to crash a plane than to smuggle a bunch of nuclear devices into WTC!

          • mulegino1 .

            The maneuvers that the official story ascribes to the amateur Arab pilots could not be duplicated in a professional simulator by experienced airline pilots with time in type (including at least one pilot who had flown one of the same aircrafts alleged to have hit the Towers).

            The airspeed rated by the NTSB at over 510 mph for UA 175 was well over 100 mph above the maximum operating capacity of a Boeing 767. Not only would an unmodified 767 have broken apart at such high speed at a mere 1000 feet above sea level, it’s engines could not have provided sufficient thrust to maintain such a speed at that low altitude.

            And the alleged flight path and impact of UA 77 is an absolute and unequivocal impossibility.

          • Pooua

            “The maneuvers that the official story ascribes to the amateur Arab
            pilots could not be duplicated in a professional simulator by
            experienced airline pilots with time in type (including at least one
            pilot who had flown one of the same aircrafts alleged to have hit the
            Towers).”

            So, either the simulator was imperfect (and all simulators are imperfect) or the pilots didn’t try hard enough or the hijackers got lucky. Regardless, the failure of the pilots in the simulators does not mean the events ascribed to the hijackers is impossible.

            “The airspeed rated by the NTSB at over 510 mph for UA 175 was well over
            100 mph above the maximum operating capacity of a Boeing 767.”

            This is nonsense. Aircraft in a dive can easily exceed any “maximum speed” rating. The rating only says what the speed limit is for those who want to keep their aircraft operating for the maximum life of the craft. It in no way indicates that the aircraft cannot be flown faster.

            “Not only would an unmodified 767 have broken apart at such high speed at
            a mere 1000 feet above sea level”

            The aircraft wouldn’t have broken apart immediately. Nobody could say how long they could have remained flying that way, meaning that you do not have a basis for claiming this is impossible.

            “it’s engines could not have provided
            sufficient thrust to maintain such a speed at that low altitude.”

            They don’t have to. The jets were in a dive. Put enough dive on them and they could break the sound barrier.

          • mulegino1 .

            Again, you attempt to explain away these glaring anomalies by wild speculation.

            I’ll concentrate on the Pentagon. The point of impact was the ground floor. In order for Hank Hanjour to have maneuvered the nose of the airliner into the ground floor, the 757’s engines would have to have been flying underground.

          • Pooua

            Again, you attempt to exaggerate what you know to push your conclusion. The fact that we have video and eye-witnesses of the jets crashing into the Towers is proof that it happened. All you can offer to contradict that are wild stories concocted by insane people.

            “The point of impact was the ground floor. In order for Hank Hanjour to
            have maneuvered the nose of the airliner into the ground floor, the
            757’s engines would have to have been flying underground.”

            Nope:

            http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/impact.html

            https://youtu.be/YVDdjLQkUV8

          • mulegino1 .

            A 757 cannot fly that low at those high speeds because of ground effect; it would have plunged into the ground on the alleged spiraling descent. The air traffic controllers who spotted the object on radar were sure it was a fighter jet, given the speed and the maneuvers.

            Hitting the light poles would have sheared off the wings and the plane would have crashed.

            The video does not show a 757, it shows a smoke trail and a fireball. The only known aircraft that can fly that low and fast is a cruise missile.

          • Pooua

            Obviously, you don’t know what ground effect is. Ground effect increases lift, forcing the aircraft away from the surface. It enables aircraft to fly at slower speeds or with heavier loads than they could in its absence. It doesn’t make high-speed aircraft crash into the ground.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29

            “The air traffic controllers who spotted the object on radar were sure it was a fighter jet, given the speed and the maneuvers.”

            That’s a lie:

            http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0910/How-9-11-looked-from-the-air-traffic-control-center-that-saw-it-coming

            “Hitting the light poles would have sheared off the wings and the plane would have crashed.”

            Obviously not, as that didn’t happen. Common sense should tell you that a 100-ton jet moving at 500 mph isn’t going to be stopped by a 6-inch metal tube.

            “The video does not show a 757, it shows a smoke trail and a fireball.”

            It was moving too fast for ordinary cameras to pick it up very well.

            “The only known aircraft that can fly that low and fast is a cruise
            missile.”

            Lots of jets can fly at mach velocity just a few feet above sea level. This particular jet didn’t have very far to go at that altitude. You keep assuming that what is true of normal, sustainable operations must limit what could happen in a suicide run. You have to want to believe the garbage you keep posting, because no one with any knowledge or sense would.

          • mulegino1 .

            Of course it increases lift. That’s the whole point. You cannot fly a 757 at that speed that close to the ground-period.

          • Pooua

            How do you imagine they take off from the airport? *That’s* ground effect at work!

            What is your basis for claiming that a 757 cannot fly at 500 mph while in ground effect?

          • mulegino1 .

            What evidence do you have that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon?

            How could a man who was denied use of a single engine Cessna due to his inability to control it perform a series of incredibly agile maneuvers, descending from 35,000 feet and levelling off at 20 feet, strike light poles and hover mere feet above the Pentagon lawn and then have the soft carbon nose of the fuselage penetrate the inner rings of the Pentagon while the virtually indestructible titanium engines made no visible imprint?

            It’s simply impossible.

          • Pooua

            “What evidence do you have that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon?”

            1) Flight 77 and her passengers is otherwise unaccounted for
            2) The flight path was reconstructed, accounting for Flight 77
            3) Eye witnesses watched it crash into the Pentagon
            4) We found Flight 77’s flight data recorder in the Pentagon wreckage

            http://911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77

            “How could a man who was denied use of a single engine Cessna due to his
            inability to control it perform a series of incredibly agile maneuvers,”

            A wild jerk on the flight control that very nearly crashed the jet into the ground is not an “incredibly agile maneuver.” That’s simply exaggeration on your part, to appeal to incredulity. Your claim and your disbelief in no way demonstrates that it was impossible, especially when the reason you even care about this attack is you want to blame it on Israel. You absolutely refuse to listen to reason, but spout idiocy in your quest to impugn Israel.

          • mulegino1 .

            1. A flight being unaccounted for is irrelevant; there was no trace of anything like a 757 at the Pentagon.

            2. The flight path being reconstructed via software does not address its physical impossibility in the real world.

            3. Eyewitnesses also reported bombs going off inside the building before the airliner allegedly struck the building as well as a small, drone like aircraft which crashed into the firehouse at the heliport, which stopped the clock there at 5 minutes before the alleged impact of 77.

            4. The FDR indicates the cockpit door was closed before takeoff and never reopened.

            5. The damage to the Pentagon was not consistent with being struck by a large airliner.

          • Pooua

            1. It’s highly relevant where UA77 went. A 757 doesn’t just disappear over US airspace!

            2. The flight path wasn’t just reconstructed from software. UA 77’s flight path was reconstructed from radar measurements of its flight path.

            3. Sounds like lies to me, but who knows, as you didn’t provide citations.

            4. What FDR? You said there was no trace of anything like a 757 at the Pentagon! But, if you actually admit that UA 77’s FDR was at the Pentagon, then you should also admit that the FDR shows that the cockpit door did not open for several days’ of flight. Maybe the pilot never left the cockpit for several days prior to 9/11, but I think it’s more likely that the switch was broken or disconnected. Of course, something that simple and obvious is beyond your capacity to comprehend.

            5. Nonsense! The extent of the damage matches very closely what a 757 would make when crashing into it.

          • mulegino1 .

            So, the FDR was broken?

            There was no trace of a Boeing 757 at the Pentagon, and the damage is completely inconsistent with one, since the only objects that could possibly have damaged the building were the indestructible titanium engines, and therefore the initial impact damage would have been much wider. The rest of the aircraft would have flattened upon impact. At the speeds claimed even the impact with a bird put serious dents into the soft light fuselage.

          • Pooua

            No, the FDR wasn’t broken; it recorded the data fed to it just fine. A door switch is not part of the FDR. How do you explain why the FDR doesn’t show anyone using the cockpit door for any of the flights for several days prior to 9/11?

            Your lies about the Pentagon were debunked a decade ago:

            “ERROR: ‘The Pentagon Attack Left No Aircraft Debris'”
            http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

            “Hunt the Boeing!”
            http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

            757 wreckage at the Pentagon
            http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

            You have this insane claim that a 100-ton jet traveling at 500 mph couldn’t damage the Pentagon. Where you get this crazy idea, I don’t know, but even if the jet were made out of feathers and marshmallows, 100 tons at 500 mph is going to leave a mark! Now, it would be one thing if you were the only idiot who believed your nonsense, but several other fools do, too. This is a sickness you nutters have!

            “At the speeds claimed even the impact with a bird put serious dents into the soft light fuselage.”

            Nobody is claiming that the jets came out of the collision intact. And, here’s the funny thing; you apparently think that birds are harder than aluminum. Those are some tough birds!

          • kimyo

            go to airliners.net and search for ‘bird strike’, it’s eye-opening how much damage can result.

            here’s one to get you started: PH-KZH / ZH-008 (cn 11583) Definitely a bird strike! 3 impacts can be seen. 2 on the nose cone which has been damaged and 1 on the FO windscreen.

            ps: mulegino1 never claimed that a jet traveling at 500mpg wouldn’t damage the pentagon. he/she was pointing out the massive flaw in that theory, ie: where’s the debris?

          • Pooua

            “it’s eye-opening how much damage can result.”

            I never claimed otherwise, and your comment is irrelevant, as is the entire argument about bird strikes.

            “Definitely a bird strike! 3 impacts can be seen. 2 on the nose cone which has been damaged and 1 on the FO windscreen.”

            How’s the bird? Any photos of what it looks like?

            “mulegino1 never claimed that a jet traveling at 500mpg wouldn’t damage
            the pentagon.”

            He claims that only the titanium turbine shafts would have done any damage, as the rest–he claims–would simply have flattened on impact.

            “he/she was pointing out the massive flaw in that theory, ie: where’s the debris?”

            If you had clicked on the links I provided, you would have seen photos of the debris. Here they are, again:

            “ERROR: ‘The Pentagon Attack Left No Aircraft Debris'”
            http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

            “Hunt the Boeing!”
            http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

            757 wreckage at the Pentagon
            http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

          • kimyo

            i suggest than anyone truly interested in this debate view each and every one of the photos pooua links above. you will NOT see anything which remotely resembles the debris from a crashed aircraft. i just looked, it’s hilarious, not to mention pathetic. LOOK at his photos, there is no plane there.

          • Pooua

            You’re the nutcase who claimed that the jet should have flattened against the side of the Pentagon, and now you have the gall to claim that this wreckage doesn’t look anything like a jet. So, tell me; what did you think this wreckage would look like, after it had “flattened on impact”?

          • kimyo

            again, i suggest that anyone interested view each and every one of the photos pooua links to. there is no plane there.

            if you want nuance, then: us ‘skeptics’ are not saying there is ‘no debris’. we’re saying that there is no debris CONSISTENT with the crash of a boeing airliner. no engines, for example.

            this is what it looks like as/after an airliner crashes. debris, everywhere.

            now, back to pooua’s photos. notice how tidy things are. we see perhaps 3 pieces of ‘wreckage’, all roughly 10′ or smaller. we see a bunch of g-men, running. we see blurry, low rez photos with things on fire.

            pooua: which photo best makes your case?

          • Pooua

            Was that jet flying at 500 mph? No, it wasn’t even close! Did it crash head-on into a 16-inch thick brick wall? No, it belly-flopped onto a sandy desert floor.

            A much better comparison would be this video, showing a jet impacting a concrete wall at 480 mph:

            https://youtu.be/mTa9JzRlxRQ

            Not much left, now is there?

          • mulegino1 .

            The wreckage shown in the photographs is not consistent with a 757; as I said before, not one, but two flying objects hit the Pentagon. The first was a drone which hit the heliport firehouse, and the second was the one recorded on the security camera footage, whose white smoke trail resembles that of a cruise missile.

            This video blows the official story out of the water:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMkIcdBzEk

            So called “debunkers” are government shills who present their arguments in a very tendentious manner, i.e., they work on the assumption that the official story is a self-evident truth and fit all of the evidence around the narrative, as opposed to those who question the official narrative and construct their own scenarios based upon the evidence.

          • Pooua

            “as I said before, not one, but two flying objects hit the Pentagon.”

            Yeah, you tell a lot of lies.

            Inasmuch as nobody cares what you nitwits have to say, you might as well stop wasting your time posting these hour-long propaganda videos.

            If you want to see what happened at the Pentagon, watch this:

            https://youtu.be/YVDdjLQkUV8

            “So called “debunkers” are government shills”

            Lie. You don’t know anything about anyone who is posting on this forum. You can’t tell us who I am, who I work for, what I know or where I live. When you claim that debunkers are government shills, you are lying, because you have no way of knowing anything about the people debunking your insane nonsense.

          • WilliamBinney

            Our mental rigor mortis Pooua never heard of April Gallop et al. Of course, whistleblowers are irrelevant. Listen, you are not ready. You are not ready for nothing after those two years.

          • WilliamBinney

            Look now what Pooua resorts to: circumstantial claims by third parties. You see, that’s the whole fallacy in their thinking. And mind that Pooua claims to have done studies in logic. But his epic failing in valoring points of reasoning has only to do in failing to differenciate between direct evidence based on fundamental laws of physics and secondary points of consideration. If we see no plane debris and the signature of the impact damage is not at par with signatures of damage of plane impacts because of missing similarities we rightfully don’t care about the consequences of these fundamental observations and nor should Pooua. The only thing is that Pooua simply cannot handle the consequences of such observations so holds on to secondary points of considerations to discard the fundamental observations. A fatal fallacy!

          • mulegino1 .

            Airliners land at speeds roughly 450% less than cruising speed.

          • Pooua

            Nothing says they can’t fly faster while close to the ground.

          • mulegino1 .

            They cannot be flown close to ground at the speeds claimed for UA 77.

          • Pooua

            So you say, but the empirical evidence contradicts you. You do realize that Flight 77 was close to the ground for less than a second, right? Your imagined scenario is–*ahem*–groundless!

          • kimyo

            groundless!

            you did make me laugh, but my money is still on mulegino1dot for the win.

            occam’s razor: it’s much simpler to conclude that the planes that hit the wtc were remotely piloted. the technology exists, and was probably in use as well on mh-370 (why would a pilot fly a boeing 777 above 45,000 ft? easy conclusion: the pilot was not actually on the plane.)

          • Pooua

            So, you think it is easier to believe that someone disappeared several passenger jets and their passengers and crew, rigged several large aircraft for remote control operation, and flew those large aircraft into various targets across the East Coast, then faked their flight data recorders, all without raising the attention of anyone in government or the news media and without anyone involved in the operation saying anything about it, than it would be to believe that a group of hijackers hijacked the jets and flew them into their targets? Clearly, you are insane!

          • kimyo

            Patented Boeing Autopilot Technology Questioned in Missing Malaysia Flight MH370

            Orange County – Back in 2003 Boeing applied for and was granted a patent for technology that allows for remote control operation of an in-air plane’s flight path. The application suggests that the remote control autopilot system be engaged “when the security of the onboard controls is jeopardized.”

            Now, in the aftermath of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, some are wondering if the technology set forth in the patent could have changed the plane’s fate. Especially before the plane was presumed lost at sea by the Malaysian government on March 27, commentators pondered whether the plane could have been hijacked via remote control access by someone on the ground. The purpose of the Boeing patent is much the opposite – to retake control of an aircraft hijacked in the air by initiating an autopilot program from the ground. However, contrary to the beliefs of some who speculated that it would have been impossible for someone to overtake the plan from the ground, the technology does in fact exist (and has for years).

            regardless, back to the matter at hand, if you watch building 7 come down and you don’t immediately think ‘controlled demolition’, then it’s your sanity which should be questioned.

          • Pooua

            We aren’t discussing events that took place after 2001 or in Malaysia; this is about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 in the United States.

            What would you know about controlled demolitions? In particular, what would you know about what makes them come down the way you think they do?

          • kimyo

            my credentials don’t matter. neither do yours. we are anonymous posters on the internet.

            if you want expert analysis, simply scroll up to the top of the page. numerous structural engineers share the opinion that the likeliest cause of building 7’s collapse is controlled demolition.

            many of them also point out that a steel framed building has never collapsed as a result of fire.

          • Pooua

            “my credentials don’t matter. neither do yours.”

            In which case, discussing anything with you is a waste of time. Anything you say is just a random comment.

            “numerous structural engineers share the opinion that the likeliest cause of building 7’s collapse is controlled demolition.”

            I reject the notion that I must abdicate my reasoning ability in favor of someone else’s opinion. I deal in facts and physical laws. If you cannot make an argument on that basis, you have no rational basis. You are just a blathering loud mouth.

            “many of them also point out that a steel framed building has never collapsed as a result of fire.”

            This idiocy gets posted a lot, and when I cite a long list of steel-framed buildings that *have* collapsed due to fire, you nutcases inevitably back-peddle, moving your goal-posts. So, here goes; steel-framed buildings that have collapsed as a result of fire:

            Post & McCord Building, April 22, 1900, Greenpoint, Brooklyn, NY fire

            http://www.newyorkshitty.com/greenpoint-goodness/3734
            https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst

            “Delft University of Technology in Holland on fire and collapsing”
            May 13th, 2008
            http://youtu.be/8XMTALBYRNA?t=42s
            http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

            “The Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain”
            http://youtu.be/j4MjsVnasLA?t=1m14s

            “McCormick Place”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place#History

            “Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire”
            http://www.haifire.com/resources/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

            Site and Sound Theater

            “Although structural members are incombustible, their strength is tremendously reduced at temperatures commonly reached in fires when the other materials in a building burn. Many disastrous fires have occurred in empty buildings where the only fuel for the fires were the buildings themselves.”

            “Structural Steel Design: LRFD Method,” by Jack C. McCormac. 1989. P 3 and P 405.

          • mulegino1 .

            What is your definition of “close to the ground”?

          • Pooua

            I mean, inside ground effect. That’s a specific range that varies from aircraft-to-aircraft. For a Boeing 757, that’s an altitude within about 100 feet of the ground.

          • mulegino1 .

            The government paid a consulting firm to make a simulation backing its official version, that’s all.

          • Pooua

            And it shows what an idiot you are!

          • WilliamBinney

            And your response shows how ignorant, or should I say willful in denial, you are about politics, stakes, profit, and corruption this cocktail inevitably ensues. You like your ignorance and adherance to false authority as it provides to stay in your comfort zone and unchange your world view. As I mentioned before, your mind is in rigor mortis. Stuck and frozen.

          • Dizzer13

            Weren’t you just telling posters earlier to prove it themselves and not waste your time with links having other people explain it?
            Then you go and post a link. Idiot

          • WilliamBinney

            Forget this Pooua individual. That person’s world perspective is in rigor mortis 😉

          • Dizzer13

            You have no idea what you’re talking about lol

          • WilliamBinney

            You have clearly no idea how easy it is to commit crimes in plain site. You are oblivious to group behavior, comform thinking, comfort zone thinking and social pressure. Can only be the result of overspecialization and compartmentalized thinking.

          • Guest

            What OBL did before 911 is completely irrelevant sin everyone who has look into the matter keyboard knows that Israel was invol

          • Pooua

            What OBL did before 9/11 shows that he had the means and the motives to do the 9/11 attacks. The attacks were his modus operandi.

          • WilliamBinney

            Look how media propaganda works effectively on idiots like you. LOL. I love it!

          • aaron wright

            Remember that America made AL-QAEDA….even Hillary Clinton admitted that…she also claimed we “walked away” from what we created…And that was our mistake…spending billions of dollars on a cia program to help get Russia out of Afghanistan…And it was a success, but we walked away…..from a billion dollar success story….sounds to me like we are retarded saying OBL did 9/11 but the American government had nothing to do with it. When we even flew members of the bin Laden family out of the country when it was illegal for Americans to fly…

          • WilliamBinney

            This is a typical void statement. ‘All you claim about 911 is a lie … blahblahblah … la la la …’. Running on empty right.

          • mulegino1 .

            It is false from the standpoint of firefighting engineering.

            It is false from the standpoint of investigative procedure and criminal justice.

            The fact that the official story was the ONLY permissible theory before the investigation was begun and all other theories were prima facie excluded, it is a mere tautology. The evidence had to fit the official story, instead of the official theory fitting the evidence.

          • Pooua

            The only fact that matters is that you Liars have had 14 years to produce a plausible alternative, but have failed every step of the way. All you have are lies and innuendo.

          • mulegino1 .

            There is a plausible alternative:

            Manual control systems on the airliners were overridden using Global Hawk technology and their paths resumed in flight by drones outfitted to resemble commercial airliners.

            The airliners were landed at secure airfields.

            Bombs were planted in the WTC by tenants in the WTC who cancelled their leases before the attacks or by various Mossad front companies posing as movers, hence the role of Urban Moving Systems.

            The time of the aircraft’s strike was to synchronize with an explosion at the point of impact and in the lower basement levels. This is shown by the brief flash of light coming from inside WTC less than a second before the impact.

            “Flight 93” drone was intended to impact WTC 7, but was shot down over Pennsylvania by an unmarked military interceptor.

            Bombs exploded inside the Pentagon; a small drone painted to resemble a small commuter jet crashed into fire house of the Pentagon teleport (prior to the official “impossible” impact of “UA 77”). Then a small cruise missile struck the ONI section of the Pentagon killing most of the investigators looking into “Able Danger” and the missing two trillion dollars announced by Rumsfeld the day before.

            Obviously there is a lot more to it than this, but this coherent with the phsical, documentary , video, seismic and eyewitness evidence better than the silly boycotted and jet fuel fable.

          • Pooua

            That’s not a chronology, nor a plausible alternative. As always, all you Liars ever produce are a bunch of disconnected, unsubstantiated claims that you expect us to believe amounts to a scenario. It’s a sign of your mental illness that you cannot even tell that what you describe is just a jumble of random, unproven ideas instead of a contiguous flow of events. You make a bunch of claims without any substantiation that what you claim was even possible, much less that it actually took place.

          • mulegino1 .

            Actually, your own idiotic Hollywood version of 911 is idiotic. The maneuvers imputed to to the “Islamic” pilots simply impossible. You lose from every angle.

          • Pooua

            As if you would know! Are you even allowed to drive?

          • WilliamBinney

            The airplane flight paths were impossible. Planes would have fallen apart before ever hitting their targets. The flight data is false as ‘911 Intercepted’ points out. You may wish we spend time telling you in our own words by our own merit but you will never accept our words nor our merit of knowing how to choose and understanding our references since to your presumptions all claims are ‘unsubstantiated’ anyway. So all teachers, books and essays are null and void since these are all someone else’s words and claims. You have been mezmerized by fake authority. Go live your happy blissful ignorant life.

          • Pooua

            “The airplane flight paths were impossible.”

            Idiot assertion based on someone’s theory, invalidated by the simple fact that we saw it done. The flight paths are accomplished fact, and all your theories are worthless.

            “Planes would have fallen apart before ever hitting their targets.”

            But, they didn’t. Stop pretending you know anything about aircraft.

          • mulegino1 .

            Of course it’s not a Hollywood movie. A Hollywood movie would have blamed Iran, Hezbollah or Hamas. The Zionists were not quite that stupid then, though they may be now.

          • Pooua

            Not as stupid as you, though.

          • linked1

            Poona your are a wannabbe intellectual tool.

          • kimyo

            upvoted in spite of multiple, egregious transgressions against the english language.

          • Pooua

            Just admit that you have nothing to offer.

          • WilliamBinney

            Who is supposed to manual all these controls? Well isn’t he just explaining that to you. You obviously suffer from selective hearing, or should I say selective hearing disability. And as he mentions names and events you call them unsubstantiated. It is very clear you failed your ‘logical studies’ since you never have heard of NOT and only think is IS statements. Epic fail.

          • Pooua

            Nobody has ever named the names of anyone who supposedly manned the controls of your claimed faked attack. The only names you Liars ever produce are those of high-level officials who could have done nothing more than authorize or direct someone else to man the controls. You’ve never come up with any group or individual who actually did the dirty work, actually put their hands on the supposed explosives or drove the supposed trucks or pushed the buttons of the supposed death ray.

          • Dizzer13

            The whole story that’s been placed before you by your trusting government is unsubstantiated. You have no problem believing them. That’s because you can’t think outside of the box that the US government have put you in.

          • WilliamBinney

            You keep repeating yourself. Capitalizing L of ‘liars’ won’t do. We do not have to offer alternatives. To know what is not does not imply having to know what is. It is not our job to put your mind at is with ‘an alternative solution’.

          • Pooua

            It is your job to do more than make idiotic, speculative assertions and pretend that constitutes a reason for disregarding the government’s account of the event. Yet, you all have completely failed to do anything except expose your own inability to account for the events of that day.

          • Dizzer13

            Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It’s sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don’t want to fall back from the mob.

          • aaron wright

            You are gaining less credibility as we go. There was an entire parking lot of cars burned…what burned all the cars? The concrete floating in the air?

          • linked1

            Google videos of people walking on lava flows, or better still go do it yourself. Feckin idiot.

          • Pooua

            I’m not interested in how you spent your weekend. We are discussing 9/11.

          • Les

            What about the hundreds of vehicles located near the collapses, they were completely incinerated. Only way that happened is if the “dust cloud” was extremely hot. There were many people that described intense heat that obviously were on the outskirts of the pyroclastic flow, had they been at the location of the vehicles which obviously were incinerated they would not be here to tell their story of the heat! I’d imagine many people were incinerated along with the vehicles, they’re just not here to tell us about it!

          • Pooua

            The streets all around WTC were covered in paper and traversed by people. Obviously, that would not have been possible if a pyroclastic flow existed. Nor is a pyroclastic flow the only reason that vehicles would catch fire; why would you even say such a crazy thing?

          • Sheep Killa

            The feel free to show us another hi rise steel structure drop like 7 from normal office fires in under 15 seconds. A complete collapse with 2.25 seconds of free fall. Hahaha.

          • jay

            caused by fire right?

          • Jay

            Well a big big question is where the molten metal came from. Videos of the clean up are available that show the molten metal. Jet fuel Burns at 1000 Celsius. Steel melts at 1500 Celsius. There is no possible way to end up with molten metal with anything the jet or building had. Also there is the problem of an aluminum plane hitting a steel laced building. There’s a reason bullets aren’t made of aluminum. Fire an aluminum projectile at say, 750 mph and a steel beam and watch what happens.

          • ShaftHC

            To say that you’re not willing to watch a 1.5 hour movie that you could either use to ones advantage or proof that 9/11 was an inside job is like saying ” well I don’t believe in god because the bible takes to long to read” that is a terrible excuse to prove ones statement. Just because someone doesn’t believe the way you do doesn’t mean they are wrong. It also doesn’t mean they are right, but you cannot just find interest in what you think is right part of proving your right is disproving undeniably they are wrong. The only way to do that is to what information they are gathering and from what source not your sourse versus theirs.

          • Pooua

            When a preacher gets into a pulpit, he does not say, “You all should read the entire Bible, then, if you have any disagreements, come see me.” Imagine if a preacher told people to read the Bible, instead of preaching a sermon! No, the preacher preaches a sermon, to present what he believes is correct, to guide you and inform you.

            If you believe that some idea is correct, and you want to explain to another person why you believe the idea is correct, you go through your basis for your conclusion. You don’t say, “Go talk to this anonymous storyteller across town.” Believe me, I’ve watched enough idiots who have made videos! When someone is too lazy to make their own case for what they believe, it tells me they don’t understand what they are talking about.

          • nick quinlan
          • nick quinlan
          • Sheep Killa

            Feel free to tell us why Larry was on the phone with his insurance company while 7 was burning asking them if they would pay if demoed. Hmmmmmm

          • aaron wright

            You can hold it right there. NIST is a joke. They paid NIST more than the 9/11 commission investigation….And they only did an analysis of the initiation ofc collapse…they denied the presence of molten metals although at least ten separate videos from ground zero, beforet here were conspiracy theories, of real Americans identifying exactly that. “like you are in a foundry”, “lava”. One clean up crew member said he was standing20 ft from the truck, and it felt like he had a campfire behind him, and it was only holding steel debris from the pile…some pieces, igniting on fire when it was pulled out…the fires were officially put out of Dec 12th…..btw the 9/11 commission also spent half the money we did on Monica Lewinskys sucking Bill Clinton’s dick…after the commissioner’s had to ask for more money…You are defending a fairy tale.

          • Allen Victor Cox

            check out who gave Israelis permission to Camp ınside WTC take a good look at the released photos all these Electrical connectors then WTC power went down how convenient? Look up Gelatine? These guys were given Construction Passes who arranged that? Lucky L?

          • Pooua

            Gelatine – “A colourless, tasteless and odourless setting agent made from the boiled bones, skins and tendons of animals. When dissolved in boiling water and then cooled it turns into a jelly-like form that is used to thicken and stabilise desserts such as jelly, custard and fillings.”

            http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/glossary/gelatine

            “check out who gave Israelis permission to Camp ınside WTC” – Don’t get the cart before the horse; you first have to prove that Israelis camped inside WTC, and that they had permission to do so. I smell more anti-Semitic nonsense.

          • Sheep Killa

            Try again sheep. Kroll Associates and John O’Neill were running security. And we all know what happened to John. Hauer led him to the Slaughter. That’s what happens when you start to think Israel was behind the Cole bombing and Barbara Bodine cock blocks you.
            Get educated

          • Allen Victor Cox

            All Security was in hands of whom? Even your National Security Failed that day? Airport Security! Buildings Security? how come they let Israelı Intelligence and Explosive Experts live inside the Buildings even gave them Construction Passes!
            They alledge they were Art Students? Hello anyone awake over there? whole buildings were shut down due to Power Failure! Smell a Rat yet?

      • David A .Hereaux

        Because the “insiders” were busy trading.
        Among other things.

        http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

      • Keith Miller

        Probably the main reason 7 was destroyed is that there was a high security floor in it which was the only place that contained evidence for some very high level court cases on the level of Enron. I saw an interview with a guy that worked there. I wish I had saved his name but that can probably be found. I haven’t gotten around to it. Maybe I’ll come back and post it but in the mean time you guys can maybe find it.

      • Keith Miller

        The article at “9-11 Review Building 7” at least prtially backs up the statement I made in my previous post.

      • Allen Victor Cox

        Who Benefited? Follow the Money oh! 2.8 Trillion Vanished when whatever took out the investigators of the Pentagon? FBI truly fast at confiscating all Videos eh? Oh! were they not responsible for Oklahoma Bombings another suspect False Flag? ust see what WTC7 was conducting and what information was inside this building?

        • Pooua

          “2.8 Trillion Vanished” – That’s a lie, a stupid lie made by misquoting Rumsfeld’s comments that he made in public. You idiots are so stupid that you think a top member of the Bush Administration is going to spill the beans about their financing!

    • Allen Victor Cox

      Jennings who mysteriously dies stated he was lead out the building stepping over bodies? as for Hess he appears to have been bought!

  • Genius.

  • Robert

    Nearly this entire post demonstrates the fallacy of argument from authority. You are simply picking and choosing which experts you want to believe. AE911truth has amassed a total of just over 1700 architects and engineers who don’t accept the official explanation. App 1300 of them are from the US. Yet there are over 2.3 million architects and engineers in the US. That means that the percentage of AE’s who have signed the petition (where you are getting your sources from) amounts to 0.06% of the industry. That’s not very convincing. This coupled with the fact that there have been over 50 peer reviewed articles affirming the basic conclusion of the official story to a very questionable 1 article suggesting something more, and it is clear that science is not valid support for your beliefs.

    • jimmy corn

      Wow really? No you demonstrate the fallacy of your own comment! lol argument from authority did you not just make an argument that because only 1700 out of “2.3 million” (using your # even though you dont give sources of where you got such a #) have signed up with AE911Truth its not “convincing”? So your arguing that 1700 have no authority out of 2.3 million. lol your insane.

      But I will still debunk that argument.

      If there are 2.3 million how many of them can you prove have looked at the evidence in depth?

      How many have looked at any of the evidence? (NO WATCHING MSM IS NOT LOOKING AT EVIDENCE)

      How many have looked at the evidence and come to any conclusion? i.e. controlled demolition, two planes took down 3 high rises while melting steel with kerosene, managing to simultaneously break thousands of joints to make the buildings collapse and falling near free fall speed (meaning no resistance from the floors below)

      How many have come to the conclusion (controlled demolition) and fear ridicule and loosing their jobs for speaking out? Many signers on AE911Truth have lost their jobs, been ridiculed, harassed, threatened etc.

      How many have blindly believed the official conspiracy theory without looking at the evidence?

      You DONT KNOW, THEIR IS NO WAY TO KNOW THOSE ANSWERS, UNLESS YOU HAVE TALKED TO EVERY SINGLE ONE!

      So your argument is nothing more then an attack to belittle AE911Truth and the experts testimony!

      But we DO know these too FACTS.

      Howe many architects and engineers some of the TOP in the WORLD in their respected field have looked at the evidence and have signed a petition calling for a new independent investigation to get to the truth of what happened because the governments conspiracy theory just doesn’t hold any water?

      1,900 ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

      How many A ‘s & E’s have looked at the evidence and looked at AE911Truth’s evidence and signed or started a group to debunk or counter AE911Truth’s movement?

      ZERO, NADDA, NONE, ZILCH, BIG GOOSE EGG, 0

      How many have gone public refuting the claims made by AE911Truth?

      ZERO, 0, NONE

      So as we can see 1,900 is A HUGE NUMBER! A number that for any rational, logical, independent thinker can not be ignored and should be taken seriously (NOT blindly following or agreeing EITHER because thats what the government has used for decades now but to re-look and think about the evidence and see if you agree with their opinion) And a telling sign of the validity of their opinion is the ZERO percent that have/are come/ing out and publicly opposing/ed them! To downplay this FACT IS a good indication of ones ignorance!

      How many have come out and adamantly supported the government’s conspiracy theory? (other than popular mechanics editors, WHO ARE NOT EXPERTS IN ANYTHING BUT EDITING A MAGAZINE, and government employees which is like saying you believe a murderers accomplices or a murder suspect’s accomplices) Answer: MAYBE HALF A DOZEN of questionable “experts”

      SECONDLY OVER 50 PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES? REALLY? Ya I bet and Santa Claus is real. ROFL when MAKING outlandish claims REQUIRES extraordinary evidence! i.e. why u no show papers bro

      “Most people are unaware of the extraordinary fact that the NIST
      report on the Twin Towers does not cover their actual collapse, even
      though that is the task NIST was charged to perform. The report goes
      into great detail about the plane impacts and fires but stops short at
      the point where it claims the towers were “poised for collapse”. For the
      collapse itself NIST relies on a paper by Bazant and Xhou. This was
      adopted as the foundation of the NIST report. The paper was submitted
      for publication only two days after 9/11, which is astonishingly fast
      for a scientific paper and hence extremely suspicious. Similarly we note
      that the very large Patriot act was presented to the US congress very
      soon after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan also commenced with such
      alacrity that one suspects the plans had already been drawn up and
      materials put in place.

      The paper by Bazant and Xhou, Why did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis,
      purports to be a scientific explanation of the collapse of the towers.
      It has been updated since its original publication but the essence of
      their explanation remains the same, as follows:

      The airplane impact damages some columns and knocks off some insulation.

      The jet fuel helps to ignite office materials and the resulting
      fires heat the steel columns to about 800 deg C in the region where the
      insulation was damaged.

      The loss of strength due to the high temperature allows the columns in that region to buckle.

      The top of the building falls as a rigid body, acquiring a large amount of kinetic energy.

      The impact of the falling block is more than sufficient to destroy
      the supports of the top of the lower, unheated, undamaged section of the
      building.

      The mass of the falling block is augmented by the addition of the
      impacted material and the whole mass falls on the next floor, destroying
      it also, “and the series of impacts and failures proceeds all the way
      down”.

      Only in stage 3 of this list has NIST introduced anything of its own.
      NIST claims that sagging of the floor trusses pulled the outer columns
      inward and thus started the buckling of the columns. They attempted to
      validate this theory by subjecting floor trusses to furnace tests run by
      Underwriters Laboratories. Unfortunately for NIST these tests showed
      that the trusses would not have sagged sufficiently
      to have had this effect. This theory can also be disproved by
      examination of the videos, which show that the antenna on the roof
      dropped before the edges of the roof. As the antenna was directly
      supported by the core columns, this proved that the core columns failed
      before the wall columns. It also proves that the hat truss, which
      connected the core to the wall columns, was severed at the outset,
      impossible as an effect of fire……….”
      http://scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/introduction/

      • John S

        Nicely done. How many of the 2.3 million have come out and signed a petition stating they believe the gov’t line, and have produced a video based on science to debunk it?

      • Pooua

        The fallacy of argument from authority is not that authorities should not be cited, but that one is using questionable authorities. It is indeed questionable that 1700 A&Es are authorities when they stand in opposition to 2.3 million others. Authorities on a subject ought to be able to discuss the merits of their case and reach a reasonable conclusion. Though that sometimes does not happen, we cannot base an argument on the exception. It is a fallacy to claim that 9/11 is an inside job on the basis of a small minority opinion, especially when those opinions have been contradicted by other authorities.

        • jimmy corn

          uhhh please give me the source of your ridiculous claim ” It is indeed questionable that 1700 A&Es are authorities when they stand in opposition to 2.3 million others.” I would like to see where over 2 million A’s and E’s have stated publicly that they believe the government’s conspiracy theory.

          “It is a fallacy to claim that 9/11 is an inside job on the basis of a
          small minority opinion, especially when those opinions have been
          contradicted by other authorities.” But your completely wrong in that these experts are NOT claiming an inside job! They are pointing out and HAVE SCIENTIFICALLY and WITH 9TH GRADE PHYSICS lol proven that what the government has said happen is impossible and has no basis in reality! Physics is physics it doesn’t stop just because the government claims something so ridiculous like the ‘pancake theory’ or ‘kerosene and office fires caused steel to melt and steel frame high rise buildings to collapse’ which flies in the face of the laws of physics. And no experts have contradicted the theories and scientific proof that these AE911truth experts have come out with! Actually the AE911truth experts have contradicted the blatant and fraudulent bullshit propaganda NIST report that the ‘authorities’ came out with. But the ‘authorities’ have not countered or disproven the experts at AE911Truth or any others.

          You quote Matt Taibbi in the middle paragraph which is NO expert and David Ray Griffin rips Taibbi in a debate they had. which can be found here:
          http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2008/10/911-truth-vs-loud-mouth-ignoramus.html

          Also all those questions in your last paragraph are irrelevant until we get a real independent investigation into 9/11 where those questions can be answered! But until that comes, what CAN and HAS been answered and proven is that the government’s ‘official ‘ conspiracy theory is a complete joke and almost everything they said is a lie! So since the government is lying and has refused to give us the truth we need a real independent investigation to get those answers you so desire! AE911Truth organization has not said it was an inside job neither any of the experts.

          But for fun: IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A PERFECT OPERATION BECAUSE ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS CONVINCE 80% OF THE AMERICAN (because most people in other countries still have critical thinking skills and see through the governments bullshit and lies, like Germany where 90% of the pop. knows it was an inside job – they should know from history) POPULATION BECAUSE THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF THE 20% WHO SEE THROUGH THE LIES.

          Some of your questions can be answered and have been……”Oh, right; it was “nanothermite,” which hardly existed in 2001″ that is completely FALSE!
          http://www.google.com/patents/US5532449 THIS PATENT WAS APPROVED IN 1994.
          This gives many answers to your questions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wxSScDm5ew

          Here is the “extraordinary evidence” you are looking for (but really I dont think you are looking for the evidence) anyways:
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201
          http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
          http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf
          http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013EastmanColeVol37Apr.pdf
          http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf
          http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

          and there are 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies that prove the government story to be impossible!

          • Pooua

            “I would like to see where over 2 million A’s and E’s have stated publicly that they believe the government’s conspiracy theory.”

            You make a tenuous, but valid point. A better point is that more than 2 million A&Es are silent on the issue. Only a relatively few kooks, hacks and hucksters are pressing this matter.

            “They are pointing out and HAVE SCIENTIFICALLY and WITH 9TH GRADE PHYSICS”

            That is a lie. I’ve seen their lying demonstrations, their phony evidence and claims. The NIST’s explanations conform to physics; A&E is outright fraud.

            “ridiculous like the ‘pancake theory’ or ‘kerosene and office fires caused steel to melt”

            “The government does not claim that melted steel led to the collapse of any of the buildings. What little steel melted was under unusual and limited conditions that did not apparently affect the general integrity of the structures.

            When steel reaches approximately half its melting point, it has lost more than half of its strength. Ordinary office fires burn hot enough to weaken and collapse steel structures. That’s why fire codes REQUIRE fire retarding measures on commercial steel buildings. All the WTC buildings used fire retarding protection on their steel structures. WTC 1 & 2 used spray-on fire retardant foam, the kind of stuff that can be cut off with a knife. When the 100-ton, 400 mph jet came crashing through the office structure, while spraying tons of flaming jet fuel, that fire retardant foam did not stand a chance.

            Each office floor of WTC 1 & 2 covered an acre. The sprayed, flaming jet fuel set fire to an acre of office furniture on each floor, quickly creating hot spots far in excess of the failure point of steel. When even just a single floor began to sag under the load of 50 thousand tons of floors above them, the collapse was unstoppable. The force of the momentum generated by the vertical movement of the top section was far greater than any free-standing man-made object could stop. This is basic physics!

            “and steel frame high rise buildings to collapse’ which flies in the face of the laws of physics.”

            Do you have any physics background? How about chemistry? I’ve successfully completed university physics and chemistry, so I have some basis for evaluating these kinds of claims. Based on my extensive science background, I can assure you, tall buildings *can* fall down! They don’t even have to be on fire!

            “Also all those questions in your last paragraph are irrelevant until we get a real independent investigation into 9/11 where those questions can be answered!”

            No law says you can’t conduct an independent investigation.

            “”nanothermite,” which hardly existed in 2001″ that is completely FALSE!

            http://www.google.com/patents/… THIS PATENT WAS APPROVED IN 1994.”

            Patents are not real products. Patents are just ideas or claims, and might not even necessarily work if someone were to attempt to implement them. This is a big mistake the conspiracy kooks make fairly often; citing patents as if they were actual products.

            In your particular patent, that is not nanothermite. It is just plain, old, regular thermite, the same stuff that’s been used to weld railroad ties for more than 100 years.

  • Janet

    Do you seriously think the government CARES about the American people’s best interests? You believe the government LIED about buildings blown to dust on 9/11 to serve our best interests? This was absolutley a controlled demolition and the GOVERNMENT LIED TO SERVE THEIR BEST INTERESTS!! HERE IS YOUR WAKE UP CALL: THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, ME, OR ANYONE ELSE!!! Do you not realize the lawsuits they would be facing if they admitted they blew up building 7?? Do you not realize the entire official story would be in question if they admitted to blowing up building 7?? It takes weeks to set a building up to bring it down in a demolition. And yes, if they had building 7 prepared for demolition on 9/11 that fact alone is strong evidence ALL events on 9/11 were a planned “false flag” operation. I am amazed you really think blowing up the building saved more lives as opposed to letting the fires run thier course like they let the other buildings do! You seriously think the ONLY REASON the goverment demolished building 7 was to save lives?? HA, YA RIGHT!! No one died in building 7 because of LUCK, not because the government took some sort of saftey measure!!! If you truly believe they DID NOT TELL ANYONE they were going to blow up the building before they did so, all for public saftey, and they blew up the building knowing it was not going to kill anyone, THEN LIED ABOUT IT, you have NO COMMON SENSE!! I live in Las Vegas and before a building is blown up they advertise it everywhere, pretty much EVERYONE will know about it, and the area is ROPED OFF, NO ONE IS ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE BUILDING!! They do this for public saftey, if they didnt and someone was hurt or died, they would be sued. Barry Jennings ALMOST DID NOT MAKE IT OUT OF BUILDING 7 just before it blew up!!!! You can find his interview on Youtube by typing in his name. His report of what REALLY happened CONTRADICTS THE GOVERNMENT’S OFFICIAL STORY!! After he did an interview for the movie “Loose Change” he challenged the government’s official story and 2 days before NIST released thier report HE DIED FROM UNKNOWN CAUSES!!! ONE of the MANY reasons why I am CONVINCED 9/11 was an inside job!! MANY WITNESSES WHO CHALLENGED THE OFFICIAL STORY HAVE MYSTERIOUSLY DIED!!! THIS IS A SOLID FACT!!! You need to watch “Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out”; “Loose Change”; “9/11 Road to Tyranny”; “Martial Law”; “In Plane Sight”; “The Greates Lie Ever Sold”; “The Untold Stories of 9/11 Families in their Own Words”. All of these films are available for free on Youtube. I suggest starting out with “Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out” nothing is speculation it is all science. I hope my comment has cleared things up for you and I hope you have gained some common sense. Your level of common sense right now makes me feel sorry for you. Its ok, just open your eyes, youll be alright.

    • TrutherHater

      This is like reading an 11 year old girl txting her friend about how she loves beyonce BECAUSE OMG SHES TOTALLY AWESOME! Pathetic, completely lacking any intelligence, understanding of physics or just plain common sense. Please go straight back to school and start all over again.

      • physics yep

        dickhead. the law of physics is what proves this to be a controlled demolition. in which case it was rigged well before sept 11 2001.

        if you can find any evidence that can withstand the slightest scrutiny, that shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the official explanation is correct, you should let the govt know… theyre desperate to prove a building can indeed collapse at free fall accelleration into its own footprint with all supports intact.

        rethink911.org

  • Janet

    I must add, who ever said building 7 was brought down to prevent unpredictable collapse has no common sense, THE DEMOLITION WAS AN UNPREDICTABLE COLLAPSE!!

    Also, your points to supposedly confirm building 7 was NOT a false flag attack are WEAK:

    no one was killed,(no one died because of LUCK not because it wasnt a false flag operation!)

    the government kept quiet about bulding 7, unlike the rest of 9/11(they left it out of the official report so no one could prove it was explosives, the government had no other excuse to use for the buildings collapse, like an airplane slamming in to it, so they had to keep it quiet, to this day almost 12 years later people are barley learning about building 7. If it was proven to be explosives then that would prove the government had prior knowlege of 9/11 and the intent to destroy thier own building, which proves 9/11 was a false flag operation!)

    building 7 not involved with attack because a plane did not hit it (Just because a plane did not hit something does not mean it was not DIRECTLY involved in the attack! Think about it!! The planes hit WTC 1 and 2 which SUPPOSEDLY caused them to collapse, when the buildings came down the debris caused damage and fires to nearby buildings as well as building 7. It is ABSOLUTLEY DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE ATTACK!!!)

    no loss of civil liberties because of building 7 (ALL of the events on 9/11, INCLUDING BUILDING 7 gave the government the “new Pearl Harbor” they needed to pass the patriot act and homeland security, which does take away our rights and freedoms. More evidence 9/11 was an inside job, these new acts that rape us of our freedoms were written BEFORE 9/11, look up PNAC it says it all there)

    no war launched to avenge building 7 (We SUPPOSEDLY went to war with the terrorists, not to avenge buildings that were blown up!!! THE REAL REASON is 9/11, including the collapse of building 7, gave the government the public opinion it needed to invade the middle east and secure the oil. PEAK OIL is the main reason the false flag operation took place, not to avenge WTC 1 ot 2 or 7)

    Are you in high school?

    I really hope you are not a day over 15 with the level of your common sense. Do not mistake my honesty for anything else, its for your best interests you hear the truth, God Bless

    • TrutherHater

      This is like reading a 10 year old girl txting her friend about how she loves beyonce BECAUSE OMG SHES TOTALLY AWESOME! Pathetic, completely lacking any intelligence, understanding of physics or just plain common sense. Please go straight back to school and start all over again.

  • Dick the Ironworker

    I will deal with 3 issues that seem to confuse folks. First…#7. There were generators set up to provide emergency electricity for the entire WTC complex in #7. There was a diesel fuel tank containing some 30,000 of fuel that eventually caught fire, burning slowly and subsequently weakening a huge girder that provided space for trucks to enter the underground access for the entire WTC. When that sagged, it was all over. No one died because that took some six hours and everyone had evacuated.

    Second…In #’s 1 and 2, the horizontal floor trusses that connected the outer wall columns to the interior columns were attached on each end with 2 relatively small 3/4 inch high strength bolts. No welding…nothing else…2 bolts. I know this because I spent 9 months as a member of Ironworkers Local 40 working on all aspects of the entire complex. When the fires raged for over an hour, these trusses(also called bar joists) sagged, there was a verticle force placed on these little bolts that no one had consider in the design. Had the plates that the bolts were attached to been welded, there would have been a delay of the pancake effect of the floors. They still would have fallen, just a while longer. For you engineers, go back and refresh your “vector analysis” studies. For you folks that think 1 and 2 should have fallen over, buy a book on vector analysis and you will find that the downward force so exceded the horizontal force, that a near vertical fall would result.

    #3. Since PONYA did not have to obey the fire codes if NYC, they did not have a reservoir of water that is normally placed on the top floors of NY’s buildings…given that it would have to contain enough water for 100 acres of fires(each floor was an acre). What they compromised on was to double the thickness of all the sheetrock in the entire building. Hence the enormous cloud when the sheetrock and the floor concrete was compressed in the collapse.
    I was there, all over all the buildings an I believe my knowledge trumps your theories. I welcome your responses.

    • IronDickBeater

      According to the engineers that design these buildings that you merely “worked” on, “We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?” Why do you think you know more about structural engineering than the guys who spent nearly a decade learning this trade and years designing the structure when all you did was basically hold an impact wrench or maybe a welder?

      • TrutherHater

        You are just completely wrong and here is a mathematical proof of how that loading causes such a collapse. Stop stating lies such as ‘and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility’, firstly that’s not even english and secondly, which law?

        And then you say the pancake theory is fallacy where would such energy be coming from! Er… ok, so you are obviously not educated or a scientist, so let me take it slowly, have you heard of a thing called GRAVITY? Yes, good, well gravity acts on all mass (including buildings). Taking newtons law F (force or energy to you) = M (mass, the floors) * A (acceleration, gravity in this case). So each floor that collapses adds to the downward movement of the collapse and therefore the F (force) increases on the floors below. So yea the ‘law of physics’ as you so crudely put it is completely in accordance with the collapse. Go back and do a course on mechanics then read this MIT paper and you can start living your life again and leave this pathetic false journey for truth behind you.

        http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

        • Since you like physics and “proofs” (what you linked is not a mathematical proof, it is a physical hypothesis), you will like this thorough, scientific, intelligent refutation of the link you shared. I’ll quote part of it, but the document itself is the refutation.

          If [the top twelve floors] had fallen as a rigid block, there would be impact, and the impact would have caused abrupt interference with the fall of its upper part, including the roof. No such interruption has occurred, and therefore no such impact has taken place. Evidently, the violent destruction that occurred — possibly through planted explosives or other means of demolition — effectively destroyed the structural integrity of the lower part of the upper block as well as [the damaged structure], permitting the upper block to fall at speed while meeting minimal resistance and experiencing neither major impact nor abrupt deceleration.Conclusions: We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. [. . .] The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.

          http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

          When you hit a nail with a hammer, the hammer’s momentum slows. When it hits a table other large surface, it often completely stops and-or has its path deflected. What we’re talking about here is the same principle. (As you referenced Newton’s Second Law, it would be dishonest of you to not acknowledge his Third Law, which is the principle I am referring to.)

          • TrutherHater

            Oh dear, where to start. 15 year olds trying to do science.. Ok well I will ignore your ignorance and dismissal of the MIT paper I posted: a hypothesis that uses numbers and sound physics to correlate with real world events.

            Instead lets focus on this piece of pseudo science you have just posted that relies on counting pixels on youtube and completely ignoring the inner collapse, the tilting etc and then triumphantly concluding:

            “If RB-12+ (upper tower) had fallen as a rigid block, there would be impact, and the impact would have caused abrupt interference with the fall of its upper part, including the roof. No such interruption has occurred, and therefore no such impact has taken place”

            At no point is that statement justified mathematically or with any science whatsoever. It is just stated and it is not true. There are so many things wrong with this analysis that it actually makes me quite sad that it is out there and gullible people like yourself are gulping it down and quoting it as science. Just really sad.

            If you believe that then am clearly not going to be able to convince you that the resistance (6% as shown mathematically by the MIT paper) was enough but I will tell you that you can not state it ‘is completely at odds with Newton’s 3rd law’. That is nonsensical. Equal and opposite forces is not violated!

            You just have a difference in opinion as to how much resistance ‘heated buckled’ steel should provide, truthers pluck this ‘FACT’ out of their arse with no evidence and no experience. Should the resistance from below have been 10% more, 3% pick a number randomly, I will stick with the MIT number and engineers.

            It is incredibly sad and arrogant for truthers with no experience in engineering to assume you know better than men such as Leslie Roberts who actually designed and built the WTC towers. And as the most qualified engineer looking at the collapse with a full understanding of the loadings, the damaged steel, etc. he feels guilt that he didnt make it stronger.

            http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringandHomelandSecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx

            Don’t you think if he thought as you so hilariously put it ‘the collapse was completely at odds with Newton’s 3rd law’ he might say so, he might at least have mentioned he thought it was odd in any of his presentations or comments? Instead he focuses on the problems of the strength of heated steel (vs concrete). hmm expert vs truther.. hmm

            http://coe.berkeley.edu/forefront/fall02/towers.html

            The resistance of the floors below might surprise you as a non engineer but thats ok!! Reality is surprising. What you need to do is compare that surprise to the surprise of the other hypothesis ‘explosives being involved’:

            1. many many floors were rigged (which you’d have to incase Mohammed came in too high) AND

            2. that during the plane crash none of those wires or explosives were damaged WTF AND

            3. they were triggered at different times in WTC1 and WTC2 to correlate with different weights and fire intensities (all planned of course)… AND

            4. the explosives were silent AND

            5. the explosives were there (why risk it, what if plane clips building, then they bust your conspiracy) but also why not leave them up, far more devastating to have them up for several months.. AND

            6. the islamic terrorists were in on the plot with the CIA (despite saying they hate america) because they struck the buildings where the explosives were AND

            7. nobody leaked this, had a pang of conscience, its never been done before on a building even half the size of WTC, it was done twice, no one noticed them rigging the building, who rigged it..

            etc. etc. etc. FOR EVER!

            You need to compare hypothesis equally.

            So far we have your conspiracy hypothesis that has no motive, is totally absurd and is 100% impossible to pull off against ‘well I am no engineer but I am pretty sure there should have been more resistance from buckled heated steel’.

            Laughable.

          • Sorry, but you’re wrong. Completely.

          • TrutherHater

            Listen I am not going to bother going through the numerous mistakes in the link you provided. It is simply too boring to analyse line after line of poor reasoning, misquotation, misunderstanding of physics etc. It really is a very unscientific rant and its whole premise is

            “As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a powerful jolt. While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic.

            This was a necessary jolt. Without it the required work could not have been done.”

            Utter pseudo science waffle! I mean where to start, the lack of scientific terminology, lack of numbers, lack of comprehension of the squared nature of energy vs velocity, the total ignoring of the effect that interconnectedness of trusses has on rigidity, ignoring the damaged floors/support columns, ignoring of the massive sagging and bowing of the outer columns a few seconds before the collapse,, etc. etc.

            But most importantly the author completely ignores the fundamentals: Newtons laws of motion! As the sagging turns to a collapse (initially slowly, in one corner of the damaged building) the MASS and the VELOCITY of the moving building is INCREASING! Mass increases because more floors are moving downwards.

            This is REALLY important because it is what accounts for the smooth acceleration (almost constant ~7ms2), As the sagging trusses start to move downwards the energy of the moving building ACTING on the supporting floors below squares (look up kinetic energy and momentum),

            So each second that gravity accelerates the upper floors through 9.8 ms2. the mass increases as does the speed. So more than a squared increased in energy on the columns below which are now also weakened because they derive strength from the frame around them being in one piece (again totally ignored by the uneducated author).

            There will be a MASSIVE imbalance in energy once any downwards movement occurs. The energy acting on the floor below increases by 1/2 * M * V ^ 2. V is increasing, M is increasing TOO.

            THIS IS WHY YOUR ARTICLE IS TOTALLY WRONG AND WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY WHO DIDNT STUDY MECHANICS AND IS CLEARLY BLUFFING! You fell for it because you WANT there to be a conspiracy and will accept anything that looks vaguely scientific and supports your position.

            I am sorry for you and other twooofers, because you are not educated in physics sufficiently to differentiate absolute this kind of crap reasoning from legitimate science. You buy it.

            I cannot help you with that (educate yourself perhaps?) and no doubt you will consider my detailed explanation of how the energies are consistent with observation, but consider this: the very man who built WTC 1 and 2, Leslie Robertson also agrees with the official understanding of the collapse and feels deep remorse that he didnt build more strength into the structure to allow more people to escape.

            Would it not follow that if there was the slightest bit of truth in your crap, the man with most understanding of the structure of these buildings (and a much deeper understanding of physics than yourself) should also be questioning the official theory.

            The fact is that the science of the collapse is very well understood, it matches observation very closely, and the model complies with all understanding of the forces involved, The huge majority of scientists (those who arent taking mind altering drugs or got a 2.2 from a second rate college) are comfortable with.

          • Victoria Muramoto

            To Trutherhater:

            Here how’s it done, short and sweet. You are a dumbass!! From all of us on this thread who see right through you. Suppose you are the one who should use your own advice and educate yourself perhaps? Wimp. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

          • TrutherHater

            All of us? You mean from the drugged up nutjob truthers?

            Thankfully there are a handful of sane people on here at least trying to help you realise you have been duped by attention seeking loud mouths like Alex Jones et al.

            To your point, well I am already educated thanks…. and Journalof911studies is not education it is a fantastic creative work of fiction, everything on there is a lie, a contortion, a misunderstanding, an example of bad logic, a straw man argument, bad reasoning, bad science, bad thinking, bad, pointless and nasty bullshit wasting human lives with its nihilistic worthless shityness!

            I have read almost every page on there and it truly has made me question the ability of humans to fabricate whole realities. It actually has a lot of parallelism with religion. Anyway..I think actually the people editing it now KNOW its not true but its almost like a game, a self lie they know cant really be proven not to be true so they keep it going like an addiction.

            Its sad but just like the “loose change” boys, Jason, Dylan and Korey eventually any of you with half a working brain will realise it wasn’t an inside job. Its funny because when you look at them, they sort of represent a cross section of truthers from the insane arguer like Jason (who is smart enough to know its bullshit but enjoys arguing and having the attention of others who would normally dismiss him as white goth trash) to the meek follower Dylan (who likes belonging to a group, something, ANYTHING..)

            One day like them you too will look back, much as old hippies do now about the 70s, and think “wow I really belonged to something then”. Even tho it was ALL ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT, it was real to you.. Well thats fine, but the annals of history will barely mention you.

          • MrMarco855 .

            Can I interject a loosely related question to you(TrutherHater) and would you accept and explain for me? There is a video showing the collapse of one of the twin towers, and as the debris and cloud of dust dissipate there is clearly seen vertical structural support standing in place. Within a few seconds after the structural steel can be seen in vertical upright position it disintegrates into fine dust and none of that length of steel remains. The steel doesn’t fall away or bend to one side so as to disappear from view, rather dustification occurs to solid steel and blows away in the breeze. These steel columns are 2 1/2 inches thick.
            What is the ‘scientific’ explanation for this phenomenon?……..( video title= ‘new 2011 9/11 watch steel towers vaporize’)

        • maxine oishi

          You really need to calm down…all of the posts seem to me to be very well done and to the point. You were so full of malice I had a hard time reading what you were saying You seem very intelligent but, don’t be so nasty…

  • John S

    Is this a joke? This was not an inside because they did a CD? Silverstein himself admitted to such, until informed that this takes months to set up. I agree with you that WTC7 WAS imploded. It’s the smoking gun.

    • Lionel E Leconte

      They, all 3 buildings, imploded. They were all wired for demolition. Peace

  • Altman1337

    You failed to mention how both Fox News and the BBC reported that the building had collapsed BEFORE it collapsed. BBC reported it twice even! Not many people know about this building having collapsed because after this botched reporting effort, the networks felt it best not to report on it at all.

    • Pooua

      You fail to consider that Fox News and the BBC knew many hours in advance that WTC 7 was expected to fall. The firefighters were pulled from WTC 7 three hours before it collapsed, and it was left to burn on its own, because the collapse danger was considered too great to risk any more lives trying to fight the fire. So, it is likely that Fox News and the BBC did what any news organization does when it expects a big news event; they prepared boilerplate articles that could have the details filled in after the event took place. They do this with the obituaries of famous people, too. Just like what happened in the case of WTC 7, news media sometimes release their boilerplate too soon.

    • TrutherHater

      Are you really dumb enough to propose THE WORLDS MEDIA WERE IN ON THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY OF ALL TIME! I mean I love a good Tom Clancy novel but even that is just too stupid to seriously consider, tell me you are trolling?

      • linked1

        No, but the media did catch on to discussion that was happening on ground on that day by a number of people that had previous knowledge that the building would be coming down. Silverstein himself in a recorded interview mentions that he gave orders to ‘pull’ WTC-7.

        • mulegino1 .

          Anyone who still believes the official government theory of box cutters, airliners and jet fuel turning the Towers and 7 into dissociated molecules is either stupid, has not looked at the evidence , or is a shill.

  • J fremlin

    Your theory is flawed. So are you admitting that 9/11 WAS a false flag attack, because without that your theory holds no water. Who put the explosives in building 7? And did the same people wire up the WTC complex. For your theory to be sound, then 9/11 WAS in fact an inside job.

    • David A .Hereaux

      Now you’ve got it.

    • Allen Victor Cox

      Read about Israeli Intelligence Explosive Experts given Construction Passes under the alleged sate of Being Art Student.s they lived inside these Buildings hello? Funny eh! The think Art Students Dancing Jews Set up Videos GETTİNG READY TO FİLM 9-11? Police even found Explosives ‘CHertoff’ whatever JERKOFF? HAD THEM RELEASED? WHO PAİNTED THEİR TRUCK DİSPLAYİNG A PLANE HİTTİNG WTCs? AND THE BOSS OF URBAN REMOVALS PISSES OFF BACK TO ISRAEL?

  • Bishop

    A scientific examination of what happened on 9/11. http://www.drjudywood.com

    • TrutherHater

      she’s a fraud and her maths do not add up. trust me I am a scientist

      • JusticeFor911

        A scientist with a terrible vocabulary. A scientist wouldn’t say “trust me I am a scientist”. They would add some substantial scientific evidence verifying the government’s claims. Why would we NOT trust the actual structural engineers with M.S. and PhD degrees when they say “the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation”?! But we can trust you because “you are scientist”. Lmfao!

        • TrutherHater

          At some stage trust is required in all discussions on an event beyond the mathematical understanding of laymen. This qualifies although honestly if you had an ounce of common sense the fact it is not a CD should be immediately apparent through intuition, without the need for a deep understanding of mechanics, explosives, government operations etc.

          But I am being honest and telling you that I am not going to bother explaining to you all these concepts from first principles axial loading, elastic and inelastic compression etc, the difficulty of rigging explosives in a 100 story building, etc.

          It is also somewhat tongue in cheek but 1 thing I can tell you for sure is a scientist would def. not say what you said ‘symmetrically (not true) into their own footprints (not true) and freefall speed (not true), by any other means than controlled demolition (the worlds leading expert on controlled demolition is 100% it could not be done, so also not true), are so remote (why? am I trusting you on that or have you numbers to back up the concept of ‘remote’) there is no other plausible explanation (really, what about explosives on the plane charged to go off when the plane hit the building, that is more plausible and a lot easier to carry out)’

          So in 1 sentence whoever said that (you or some twat with a 2.2 degree from hickville shity college of morrons) has proved themselves completely incompetent and def. not to be trusted.

          If you are a qualified engineer (which I doubt) then please review this MIT paper which gives a very simplified analysis of the loadings on the building at the moment of collapse, it shows clearly the forces were easily enough (even ignoring the tilting of the top section) to cause the events we saw on 911 http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

          If you have any objections to the maths I am happy to discuss them with you, otherwise trust me I am a scientist.

      • MrMarco855 .

        You want us to believe that you’re a scientist? I think your maths are not adding up spelling-bee breath…..

  • truth4wtc7

    Anyone who thinks no one died in Building 7 needs to google “Barry Jennings” and watch a few youtube videos of him BEFORE his untimely DEATH. (he was killed because of who he was, what he saw, and what he said about WTC-7) This article is an abomination… an INSULT to anyones inteligence… A sad JOKE!

  • Geo Margoff

    Stopped reading after the first bullet points preceding the statement.

    “As such, the collapse of the building – also known as the “Solomon Brothers Building” – was not an inside job.”

    There’s some horrible logic there. This article is garbage and pure propaganda.

    • TrutherHater

      Whatever the logic, it was not an inside job, or if it was it involved assisting islamic fundamentalists in carrying the attacks. It certainly did not involve the ludicrous notion of crashing planes AND planting bombs in the building. Completely illogical, do one or the other fine but why both?

  • Timgoes

    What does this say? It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World
    Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred.

    UK man wins court case against BBC for 911 cover up. see link

    http://topinfopost.com/2013/04/28/uk-man-wins-court-case-against-bbc-for-911-cover-up

    • TrutherHater

      What about the FDNY, they predicted it would come down 3 hours beforehand, were they in on it too? And why the hell tell journalists, the one group of people you DO NOT TELL THE BIGGEST STORY OF ALL TIME TO! Are you truthers really as dumb as you pretend or are you just trolling..

      • Guest

        They predicted that it would come down three hours before hand because there were fires burning uncontrollably within WTC7. When you leave a fire burning uncontrollably, it can certainly lead to unwanted consequences.

        • Truther_Hater_Is_In_Denial

          Nice explanation! (Not!!)

          * Fires have never before or since caused steel-framed buildings to collapse.

          * Logical and-or experienced minds would know that the steel will remain even if everything else burns.

          * No one would rationally predict that the buildings would come down due to fire. See the Windsor Tower fire event for what happens when fires burn uncontrollably in steel-framed buildings (WITHOUT bombs at key structural points on the inside…)

          https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=madrid+windsor+steel

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_%28Madrid%29#The_fire

          • TrutherHater

            “No one would rationally predict that the buildings would come down”

            WRONG. They did. They would and the man who BUILT WTC Robertson, also believed it would come down https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringandHomelandSecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx

            But not just the him, the worlds leading experts in controlled demolition (Loizeaux brothers) actually TRIED TO CALL FDNY TO TELL THEM TO GET THEIR MEN OUT OF THE BUILDINGS BEFORE THE 1ST TOWER FELL because he was so worried it would collapse!!!

            Just let that seep into your addled paranoid uneducated and irrational brain.. that is right someone who knows EVERYTHING about how the WTC towers are constructed believes it was fires and jets that brought them down and someone who knows EVERYTHING about demolishing buildings also knew they would come down. How in gods name do you ignore logic so perfectly, how do you continue to believe in what there is no evidence for? It must be a form of mental illness.

            Please stop this constant straw man argument about steel frame buildings never having fallen due to fires. Nobody is saying that just fires brought down any building on 9/11

          • By now I can see through your fakeness. I doubt you even believe what you say.

            Here you go, brainiac. You Isaac Newton of intellect. Listen to the guy that built the damn thing.

            “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side.

            “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel from the airplane would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But the building structure would still be there.”

            [Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.] “I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

            John Skilling, WTC Lead Structural Engineer, 1993

            http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

          • TrutherHater

            Look at the date.. 1993! You moron! 707 flying slow vs 767 flying at 500mph full of fuel! Have you any idea on the energy differences?

            And then this comment you make “I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

            Actually you just lost your bet, because the world leading expert said he couldnt have done it, nobody could have!

            He (Loizeaux) said it was actually lucky they came down (he tried to call FDNY to get their men out BEFORE the collapse) because he had no clue how he would do it (he would have been the guy in charge of taking them down)

            And it looks like *you* didnt bother reading the link I presented! This is the *REAL* lead engineers opinion on your ignorant misquoted lie. This man is the lead WTC engineer and is still alive and believes that the planes alone caused the collapse. If Skilling was still alive so would he.

            Let me help you out because you dont want to read the truth (https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringandHomelandSecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx)

            “The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

            We developed the concept of and made use of the fire-rated shaft-wall partition system, which is now widely used in place of masonry and plaster walls. At that time, masonry was the standard enclosure for elevators, stairs, duct shafts, and other internal structures. The partition system eliminates the need for within-the-shaft scaffolding, which was the common practice, provides more smoke-proof stairs and shafts, and improves safety on the job site. The shaft-wall completely changed the nature of the structural system for the two towers, making them the first of a new kind of high-rise building.

            A computerized system was conceived and developed for ordering structural steel and producing shop drawings for structural steel, as well as the operation of digitally directed tools, all directly from digital information developed as a part of our design.

            When the two towers were finished, the World Trade Center stood proud, strong, and tall. Indeed, with little effort, the towers shrugged off the efforts of terrorist bombers in 1993 to bring them down. The events of September 11, however, are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone. So I will simply state matters of fact:

            The events of September 11 ended the lives of almost 2,900 people, many of them snuffed out by the collapse of structures designed by me. The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable; none of us will ever forget the sight of those who took destiny into their own hands by leaping into space.

            It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

            Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets.

            The extent of damage to the World Trade Center is almost beyond comprehension. Figure 8 shows an overview of the site and the location of the various buildings. We did not design the superstructures of Building 3 (Marriott Hotel) or of Building 7. Towers 1 and 2, which were totally destroyed, left behind utter chaos surrounded by towers of naked structural steel. The remaining steel towers were in some ways painful beyond belief, in other ways strangely beautiful. Building 3 collapsed down to a structural transfer level designed by us. Fortunately, the people who sought refuge in the lobby of the hotel, which was located immediately below the transfer level, survived. Buildings 4, 5, and 6 remained standing but were partially collapsed by falling debris; all three burned for about 24 hours. Although there was nothing special about the structural design of these buildings, the remaining structures stalwartly resisted the impacts of the wrecking ball. Building 7, after burning for nearly 10 hours, collapsed down to a structural transfer level designed by us. The below-grade areas under Towers 1 and 2 were almost totally collapsed; in areas outside of the towers they were partially damaged or collapsed.

            In my mind, the loss of life and the loss of the buildings are somehow separated. Thoughts of the thousands who lost their lives as my structures crashed down upon them come to me at night, rousing me from sleep, and interrupting my thoughts at unexpected times throughout the day. Those who were trapped above the impact floors, those who endured the intense heat only to be crushed by falling structure, are merged with those who chose to take control of their own destinies by leaping from the towers.

            The loss of the buildings is more abstract. The buildings represented about 10 years of concerted effort both in design and in construction on the part of talented men and women from many disciplines. It just isn’t possible for me to take the posture that the towers were only buildings . . . that these material things are not worthy of grieving.”

            So.. pretty convincing no?

          • Talking to you is like talking to a goat.

            The total collapse of those structures, in that distinct, into-its-own-footprint, accelerating way, is only possible through a controlled and planned job to destroy the steel infrastructure in a precisely timed manner. That’s obvious, but you want to deny it, and you blow real hard and put out a lot of hot air trying to sound correct.

            But you might as well be trying to say that stones don’t fall down when you drop them, and making fun of Stone Fall Truthers for asserting it.

            What are you trying to argue above, anyway? That because a 767 is bigger than a 707 that it’s suddenly possible for a fire high up in a tower to magically blow out the structural steel all the way down the tower to allow it to collapse into its own footprint? And then another solid, squat high-rise across the street can also fall in that Controlled Demolition–signature fashion from the said impact? That’s laughable. If two massive, solid titanium air-craft-shaped object flew into the top 1/4 of the towers, their momentum and kinetic energy might topple the top 1/4 or even fly through, but the 3/4’s of the structures below would have no reason to freely give way as it did.

            The plain fact still remains: “There would be a fire, but the building structure would still be there.” I’m glad the Lead Structural Engineer said that in 1993 (which I clearly knew as I bolded it for you — yet you pretend that [1] I’m a moron for quoting it and [2] that somehow invalidates it) because it’s doubtful anyone with something to lose would say that (plain fact) again post-911. Because doing so would imply it was an inside job, and that is unfortunately something that people with anything to lose wouldn’t do. I expect that that’s the reason your quoted engineer wrote a soft-ball piece in 2002 saying what he did. He was really just singing along with the myth of 9/11, in contradiction to physical possibility. And I’m sure you’d totally flip-flop on your support for him if he would tell you as I do…

            …that the truth is the truth, and it’s true that the planes couldn’t have caused the collapses. The 9/11 Myth is there to justify imperial wars and domestic population control. We sing ourselves to sleep with the lie that it was all the Muslims, and we would have trouble sleeping if we believed otherwise. It’s very sad and Orwellian. We’re supposed to be the good guys, so how could we be so wrong?

            By the way:

            Check out those pictures from the first post in this thread for the Window Tower / Madrid again, buddy. That’s what the 9/11 attacks would have caused by themselves. And Building 7 would have been fine.

            That’s the truth. Have fun sleeping.

          • TrutherHater

            Haha typical truther bullshit: Ignore my points, include the facts then restate lie after lie after lie and then ASSERT with no evidence that ANY body can see it was a controlled demolition.. But wait.. I just addressed that! If you didnt get it I’ll repeat the man who BUILT BUILT THE BLOODY THING doesnt see what you say is so obvious. Lets look at your lies 1 by 1 for a laugh and to annoy you even more:

            “into-its-own-footprint, accelerating way”

            NOPE not footprint, try 10 stories piled high and 5 times the width. “Accelerating way” thats not even english, do you mean 70% of freefall? This is expected and actually predicted by models (google MIT mechanics paper on collapse)

            “is only possible through a controlled and planned job to destroy the steel infrastructure in a precisely timed manner.”

            Nope. infact it is impossible as controlled demo for about 20 different reasons (read my other points on here about how hard it would be to do). Also the WORLDS LEADING EXPERT in controlled demolition says its impossible.. so even if he is wrong its obviously not clear.

            “That’s obvious, but you want to deny it, and you blow real hard and put out a lot of hot air trying to sound correct.”

            Thats called bullshitting, if you have a valid question or challenge to something I have said lets hear it and debate it, you cant just say No you are wrong, I cant say why but you are wrong.. What? I have presented evidence for everything, you have presented nothing but crap and assertions like ‘Any one can see’ and ‘you deny the truth’. This is not how you debate, its what a child does or an annoying girlfriend who knows they are wrong

            “What are you trying to argue above, anyway? That because a 767 is bigger than a 707 that it’s suddenly possible for a fire high up in a tower to magically blow out the structural steel all the way down the tower to allow it to collapse into its own footprint?

            Its not laughable, its what happened (apart from footprint lie). Furthermore the man who built the twin towers also believes that. Are you claiming that he knows nothing about structural engineering compared to you and that 99.9999% of scientists are all morons an

            “And then another solid, squat high-rise across the street can also fall in that Controlled Demolition–signature fashion from the said impact? That’s laughable.”

            NOPE. Again not free fall and not signature of controlled demolition. But dont change the subject in classic truther fashion.

            “f two massive, solid titanium air-craft-shaped object flew into the top 1/4 of the towers, their momentum and kinetic energy might topple the top 1/4 or even fly through, but the 3/4’s of the structures below would have no reason to freely give way as it did.”

            I wrote an in depth mathematical deconstruction of how the collapse initiates and how it propagates. From what you have written here it is clear you have almost no scientific backround so I sympathise, you just arent going to undestand k = 1/2mv2 and the implied squared rule.. so it is hard to reason with you.. basically heres the point. THE MATH WORKS OUT. If it was a controlled demolition IT WOULDNT WORK OUT!

            Thats the beauty of maths and physics when you really understand it, the world around you suddenly makes sense. Why did AF447 plumet from 40000 feet? Well you’d make up some bullshit about the illuminati trying to kill an important passenger and setting it all up.. the truth is to a scientist far more interesting, unfortunately you are not a scientist and need to fill your huge gap in knowledge with myth, in many ways you are like an early god fearing Neanderthal linking every natural event to human actions!

            You are a paranoid uneducated person and it sounds patronising but you just have to trust me as a scientist (you seem to trust the ones saying the things you want to hear but not the 99% saying the opposite?.

            THE MATHS WORKS FOR PLANE ONLY COLLAPSE.

            Me, the lead engineer, MIT and millions of others agree on this (read Robertson’s other comments too) and no doubt if you asked Skilling who you quote TOTALLY out of context would also disagree with you.

            “that the truth is the truth, and it’s true that the planes couldn’t have caused the collapses. The 9/11 Myth is there to justify imperial wars and domestic population control.”

            Hahaha you moron. Islamists had the motive, they did it, claimed they did it, celebrated they did it and we saw them do it. You really are delusional so I cant help you. You can only help yourself now, all I can suggest is you take the medication you were prescribed, stop smoking weed and try to relax a bit. It really isnt all a big conspiracy. Study some history, see the patterns of behaviour, war, society, check out the first crimean war as a start.. perhaps relfect on all that RT you watch might not be the truth after all. I am not saying the west is whiter than white and there arent conspiracies (there are) but this one doesnt stack up. Even the Loose Change boys admit that now.. if they dont buy it holy shit you must be even crazier than them!

          • You’re a joke but no one’s laughing.

            I am right and you are wrong.

          • mmj420

            If he was the lead engineer then he would have been responsible for making sure they could not collapse because of impact by aircraft & resulting fire.

  • Matilda Tripp

    John Kerry admits they brought down building 7 by demolition explosives in a “controlled fashion”.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH3hrgy6URI&feature=youtu.be

    • This doesn’t mean anything though. Kerry said that it was in danger of destroying other things, so they decided to do a “controlled fashion.” It’s not like he came out and said, “Yeah part of the secret plan that we created behind closed doors was to destroy Building 7.”

      • Dax McClain

        So let me see if I understand this correctly. They decided building 7 was at risk of falling over, rounded up a demolition crew, planted explosives, then blew it to hell In just 7 hrs?

        • If the government really did plan to blow it up, they would still need seven hours to place the explosives.

          But right now I haven’t see any evidence that is what happened. What I have seen are two planes hitting the Twin Towers and the debris striking Building 7.

          As I’ve always said, I would believe in the conspiracy theory that the government was really behind this as long as there is some credible evidence. But there isn’t. You have some nutters who say that it really wasn’t planes that hit the towers, but two cloaked missiles.

          To my knowledge, there isn’t some government official who came out and said, “Yup, George W. and I were planning this with Bill Clinton over a round of golf.”

  • IsentryReloaded

    If we are come to the conclusion that “the official story/reports” on 911 is full of major flaws..? Then why building seven..? Who were the tenants (corporations,companies, agencies) in building 7..? What was lost and/or destroyed in building 7..? Were there large computer drives, banks, silos of storage and servers loaded with information..? Was this information on the investigations of large corporate dealings, off-shore account handling, assets-co-accounts, profits, taxes and tax fraud,etc? Did the FBI and the IRS, it`s agents and investigators work on some of the most well know corporate stock fraud, money laundering, and/or tax fraud cases from building7..? How-about Enron, WorldCom, Wall Street firms, traders and brokers, corporate banking, bonds, notes, securities, trading?? Is this what these agencies and “departments” would have been doing in building7..?
    It is “well known” now… that there were acts of “inside trading” within Wall St and worldwide stock firms, which “proves” “prior knowledge” of the attacks… would have the investigation for these behaviors/transactions taken place within building 7..? would it have been “7” any other ‘so-called’ time..?
    Was there more taking place in building7..? was it the command and control center for watching and/or tracking large money transactions “around the globe”?
    There are some people we should interrogate with extreme prejudice and possibly water-boarding…
    ‘L.Paul Bremer’ and ‘Bernard Kerik’ would be a great start!!

  • down with the illuminati

    The author is a an idiot government puppet. he didn’t even get very far in this article. Paragraph 4: “TRADE CENTER OWNERS STATEMENT OF DECISION TO PYLL THE BUILDING” …ok DUMB FUCK!…. so when exactly did they rig the building in ANTICIPATION of this whole event??? LOL man this guy really trying to insult our intelligence. either way the author is admitting the building was PRE-EVENT rigged for demolition. DO I NEED TO CONTINUE… lol fucking joke

  • Jimmy

    Sure…, wtc7 was an accident waiting to happen… Just like every other one in NYC.

  • spencer

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201
    seems like a lot of fact changing and bullshit surrounding a simple strategic
    implosion to prevent an unpredictable collapse

  • THERAINMAKER

    Hey Trutherhater. If you are indeed a scientist, then why not tell us where you are a scientist? What school did you go to? What is your name? Nothing! Zip! Nada! Just you spewing a bunch of B.S. & saying “Trust Me, I am a scientist.” Are you f**cking serious? The AE for truth have names, have degrees & are real architects & engineers. Then we have you, with the credibility of an ant, spewing a bunch of nonsense. Are you a paid government hack or just a complete moron?

  • John Dishman

    How do you say – FAIL…its so obvious , and if it was a CD , it would have taken weeks to plan. idiot

    • mmj420

      They had done the CD work after the first attempt with explosives in the Ryder truck in the basement didn’t work.

    • Jerhn Dooschman

      Exactly! It would be impossible for the government to plan something for…weeks. Do you realize how many resources the government has? idiot

  • zegreatbrandini

    this is stupid. Why was the building already set up for a CD? Are you saying that every building in America is set up to demolish “just in case” some asshole flies a plane into a building near it?

  • mmj420

    When I saw those two towers collapse my first response was “No Way”!! I am even more positive today that our govt did it. Obvious reasons were to destroy the CIA office in Bldg 7 & all its records plus using it to start our occupation of the oil rich middle East. But there has to be lots more to it.

  • robert

    The government brought down the building due to an internal investigation that the FBI and CIA was doing on the government. The whole thing was an inside job. Americans need to wake up. The government is not doing anything for the civilians. They are only lining there pockets with more money. All these terrorist groups have been created to pass the blame onto . Wake up America.Stand up and fight for our rights.We need to get back to the days of our four fathers. Our constitution means nothing anymore. Now the government wants to microchip everybody. Come on Wake up.

  • kelly

    It may have not been an inside job but in my opinion it was.. I believe, and like I said “I believe” the government was trying to destroy important documents or things of that nature in the twin towers and building 7.. ofcourse I believe there’s more to it than just that but that’s what it has always seemed to me.

  • baconwolf

    Amazing.

  • Keith Liberty

    Why do terror attacks always happen the same day military exercises in the same areas are scheduled?

  • ihaveabrain

    What an awful article! The so called “facts’ are almost comical! Who cares it was hot! That is why nano Thermite was found at ground zero! This article was about as intelligent as the NIST investigation! I really thought there were more people in this country with common sense!

  • Pooua

    In my experience, no one argues that 9/11 was an inside job based on the evidence, alone. All of these people who are challenging, disputing, the official account have an ulterior motive. Usually, the reason that people claim that the official account of 9/11 makes no sense is they are trying to attack either the Republicans, George Bush or Israel. Most of the people making these attacks on the official account are neo-Nazi, anti-Jews, anti-Bush. Many of them appear to be Muslims.

  • sellinpitchforks

    All you have to do is prove the building was demolished or not demolished – to validate whether it was part of a greater conspiracy. The reason being it would take several days, at least, possibly weeks to rig the entire building with charges; therein you have the makings of a conspiracy. The premise of this article seems to be, yes it was a demolition but only rigged up on that day, and only to prevent further causalities.

  • Chris Boose

    I’m not sure where to start with this article. As others below have stated, the fact that WTC 7 was unoccupied is irrelevant to the fact that it was part of the same event. You should realize that no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to either being hit by a plane or any sort of fire. 9/11 “debunkers” have tried to misinform the public by pointing out other steel-frame buildings that have collapsed due to fire, but none of them are high-rises and therefore don’t have the same internal structure. No other steel-framed building of similar height has ever suffered complete collapse due to lateral impact, a resulting fire, or both.

    All three buildings collapsed fairly neatly into their own footprints, and that only happens if they are destroyed by controlled demolition.

    Of course, that’s just one aspect of the event. If you want to talk about mass psychology, think back to the news coverage of 9/11. Over and over again news channels showed two sequences – the planes hitting the buildings, and the buildings collapsing. I think this was done so that in the minds of viewers a false causal relationship between the two was formed.

    I’ll mention a few other things I think are important. NIST violated their own protocols when investigating 9/11 – no official testing was done for residue of explosives, physical evidence in the form of structural materials was not retained, etc. Literally hundreds of eyewitnesses in and around the complex that morning reported hearing explosions from below them even before the planes hit, yet not one word of that testimony was included in the 9/11 Commission official report.

    Four planes were hijacked, but not one pilot was able to communicate that fact at any point. Military planes were scrambled, but due to a series of “errors” none were able to prevent any of the impacts and in fact were not present at all when it might have counted. Rescue workers saw government agents at Ground Zero taking custody of devices that appeared to be emergency flight recorders but the government insists those were never recovered – another very rare event, normally the only reason a black box is not recovered is that either the debris is never found, or it’s resting in fairly deep water.

    We can talk about the events leading up to 9/11 – the sudden increase in insurance coverage only months before, Donald Rumsfeld announcing one day before the event that the Pentagon couldn’t account for up to 2.3 trillion in funds (the records for which were stored in the portion of the Pentagon that was destroyed on 9/11), the SEC, CIA and other records that were destroyed in the WTC buildings, including WTC 7 that housed CIA, SEC and private bank offices.

    We can talk about all the results of 9/11. Large-scale military presence and therefore tight control over one of the most oil-rich areas in Earth – the Bushes have always been heavily invested in the oil industry, and of course Halliburton (Dick Cheney) made billions during the Gulf War and during the reconstruction of Iraq.

    Some question the motivation of government officials – why would they do such a thing? The same old why – nothing goes with money and power like more money and more power. The Government does whatever it wants, whenever it wants because we don’t react strongly enough – there is literally nothing they could do that would shake most Americans out of their delusional state.

    Let’s not forget about the results here at home – loss of individual freedoms that continues to this day, increased militarization of and violence by police, massive increases in government surveillance, etc.

    You can examine any one of the myriad holes in the official government version of 9/11 and chalk it up to poor planning, inefficiency, even something as simple as human error, whatever you choose. But when you take all the evidence together, it becomes much harder to ignore the picture that emerges.

    Sure, it’s all circumstantial evidence – that’s all we’ll ever have. Anyone who knew anything and was in a position to prove it is dead.

    For anyone anywhere who can honestly appraise every aspect of that day and come to any conclusion other than intimate government involvement, I have two words for you – cognitive dissonance…

  • dave knappett

    If 911 was NOT an inside job and the official story is absolutley true then what actually happened on that day is more scary than any conspiracy theory. Presumably, the guidelines for building new skyscrapers have been radically and globally reviewed since WTCs 1,2 and 7 collapsed to dust at virtual freefall because two admittedly large aircraft crashed in to them and office fires apparently did the rest? Does anyone know of such specific architectural legislation that has come in to force after 911? Also, I am amazed that despite such admitted and enduringly dismal incompetence by virtually all the air defence mechanisms at US disposal on that day, pretty much everyone gained a promotion! Talk about rubbing salt into the wounds. Wish I could get a promotion and pay rise for displaying a ‘failure of imagination’.

  • Robert Jeffery White

    Where were the fraud records for Worldcom and Enron ? Were they in building 7? That would be a good “Insiders” reason to blow the building up.

  • Resonant Frequency

    The current oligarchy mafia could eat dead babies on national TV and lie to the people and the majority will believe them or uncomfortably ignore it…. This is how far GONE the human species has become as a whole and how far deep the brain washing mind control has become sophisticated and implemented for generations….People for the largest part of the civilization have been trained to be trainable… they wont believe anything unless its “official” and part of the facade they seek for self comfort.. Orwell warned us but not many are left listing… they have been indoctrinated through Hollywood and the media to suspend disbelief and desire the fantasy instead..The matrix is real but they all want to remain Mr Cipher…

  • New Pearl Harbor

    This is years late to be chiming in on the conversation, but the government said this building was destroyed by office fires. That is a government lie. If it isn’t an inside job, why tell rediculous, inane lies. “DUH” would have been a better response than “office fires”.

  • Bnutz

    I’m not sure if this has been proposed but I’m sure someone has thought of it before. I always believed that after the 1993 attempted explosion in the Parking garage the Government and NY city officials asked what would have happened if the Towers were attacked successfully in the Future. They realized that the towers would fall sideways killing 100’s of thousands and not simply the souls in the Towers. As a plan to prevent further damage they had installed explosives sometime between 1993 and 2001. If an attack Happened they could drop the building down within their footprints. I believe there was fear that the Towers might collapse and that is why the Towers were brought down. The Government would of course lie to cover up the explosives. Much like shooting down a hijacked plane, people are uncomfortable with these type of policies, and could show great outrage over it. It does not coincide with a conspiracy to crash planes I know. It could explain much even though the claims that there were explosion were before the Plane impacts. It is not a perfect explanation but neither are witness testimonies. I would start with the maintenance records between 93 and 01 to find any strange work crews that might throw up any flags, if those records are available.

  • Bnutz

    Also I would not be surprised if there are other buildings in the US with pre installed explosives in case of attack. This is why it would be covered up

  • Johnny Beoghudde

    9/11 is shorthand for the Masonic ceremony using 2 rows of candles 9 wide and 11. It takes 12 hours to perform. 7/4 (July 4) is similar, taking 6-8 hours. A singular Building 7 was included to obfuscate the design that connects ONLY to “the moment” where the 2 opposites connect ‘NOW’ where past & future reside harmlessly side by side. This is a flaw in their ceremony, as they connected the 2 opposites inside at the 7th position. So? So it was performed for Islamic war-gods as an “End of the World” ceremony. Not one of our “In God We Trust”s cared to stop it or warn us. Unless something happens to offset, the ceremony will continue to be built upon by Islamic priests to our complete demise. Yes, it was ALL done by design, for our Gods, and none bothered to stop it or oppose. The End of the World was not an idea that came from man. Life is a crop to be reaped by the secret gods priests aid w/ceremonies.

    • LegallySpeaking

      Your trolling is marvellous. A+.

  • Real Nick Carter

    you guys are a joke what garbage yellow journalism!!!

  • Charles H

    It literally takes weeks if not months to set up a controlled demolition…..they could not have set this up in the time frame where it collapsed. SO, if it was prewired (no other explanation) then that means someone knew this was calamity was to take place. Also, there were CIA, Department of Defense, and IRS offices in that building as well as the towers. Some things of interest…..Rumsfeld tells a congressional committee there is 2.5 trillion unaccounted for on 9/10/01. Cheney oversees a mock hijacking scenario on 9/11/01 specifically involving planes that are using a “live fly” simulation at NORAD. Bush sits in his chair looking confused for 7 minutes on 9/11/01 (secret service do nothing?). High rise buildings fall due to fire compromising a steel structure…all falling on their own footprint (never happened before or since anywhere in the world). We then quickly go to war with Afghanistan, then for no good reason Iraq. Now the middle east is in chaos, much to the delight of war profiteers. With so much bullshit in front of you, how do you not see it??? People still say i’m crazy but i’ll tell you, fooling someone with a small lie is tough but fooling the masses with a big lie is easy. Just keep repeating it and repeating it……funny how the human brain works. I’m not saying all or any were involved but if you think anyone BUT the United States Military Industrial Complex (with the exception of Mossad) could pull off such a highly orchestrated mission so successfully……i worry for you!!! Agencies like the CIA are covered in secrecy, think far out of the moral code if the end justifies the means….remember that. For all my enlightened Americans who seek the truth……do your best to wake others up for if the powers that be can get away with this……what waits down the road for our children?? our Safety? our Freedom?

  • ExposeThe-BlackGoo

    What is all the arguing about? This web page does one of the best jobs I have seen to prove that 9/11 was a false flag event of epic proportions.

    My son dated a young woman who works for “Controlled Demolition, Inc. The family run company is world renowned (Loizeaux family) for being supreme demolitions experts. Nearly all of the high profile building demolitions you have ever seen were done by this family. She told him there was no doubt in her family that the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were brought down using controlled demolitions and that it would have taken weeks or months to place the explosives required to do this. She said it was impossible to decide one morning to “pull” a 47-story building and then execute that decision by that afternoon.

    The stupidity of many of the American people is astonishing. It’s scary that in spite of how truly simple it is to understand the physics which makes the official story impossible that many American people would rather defer to the official narrative. With so many programmable lemmings at their disposal and control–the ruling class has proven they can now get away with anything.

  • jay

    this article is complete garbage
    how is the total collapse of a 47 story building not important in the story? because that stuff happens a lot, right?

  • James Andrews

    You know that the collapse was reported before it took place, right? This sort of unravels all of the relevance of your article. Also, look up the death of the last man rescued from that building just days before the final report, though it’s not important because of the first thing I said, it is interesting.