Putting a 9/11 Mystery on the Ballot - WhoWhatWhy

Putting a 9/11 Mystery on the Ballot

Reading Time: 7 minutes

123I was standing blocks from Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex and staring directly at it when it collapsed.

Working for the Los Angeles Times, I arrived that morning just in time to see an enormous cloud of dust and people running away. I had not yet known of the rapid and deadly descent of the South and North towers. That afternoon, I called in a series of reports to a staffer in the New York bureau.

I was literally on the phone with the office at 5:21 p.m., describing the fires burning in the structure as the building began—and completed— its remarkably fast, smooth descent to the ground. I described the building neatly pancaking, and the Pulitzer Prize winner on the other end taking my dictation declared: “That sounds like a controlled demolition.”

Controlled Demolition

Controlled Demolition

In fact, I have seen controlled demolitions before and since—and indeed, that was exactly what the destruction of Building 7 looked like, except perhaps for a marginally slower collapse of the top portion

As with most people, I was baffled by how Building 7—a smaller, 47-story tower that had not been hit by a plane and was separated from the Twin Towers by low-rise buildings–would come down at all. It just made no sense.

How exactly the building did come down has never been properly explained. An investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the building was hit by debris from the collapsing North Tower that started fires. However, it ruled out diesel fuel, structural damage from the debris and structural elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) as causes of the collapse. It said the lack of water to the sprinkler system was an important factor in allowing fires to rage all afternoon. But the panel declined to state how the fires could bring down the building—and in such a rapid manner.

Reasonable Doubts

For many years, those who have been troubled by things that did not make sense regarding the 9/11 attacks have been marginalized as kooks. To be sure, some entertain enormously elaborate, complex scenarios that assume unspeakable evil carried out by a bewildering number of individuals, nations, and institutions.

However, fair-minded people who have carefully studied the evidence are troubled by the “official story,” just as they are troubled by the official explanations of the assassinations of American leaders over half a century, and other traumas ranging from the Oklahoma City bombing to the Boston Marathon bombing.

There is a reason so many people don’t trust the security apparatus and its allies in government, academia and the media, or the reassuring stories they tell us time after time that “there’s nothing to see here, folks.”Or to allow even the most reasonable question into the public discourse.

That kind of question hasn’t been possible with the mystery of Building 7. Until now.

123A small group, NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), run and largely staffed by a young man named Ted Walter, has come up with a solution: Get the public to legislate a formal inquiry into building collapses.

Noting that no high-rise building has ever collapsed as a result of fire, and seizing on the official position that the destruction of Building 7 cannot be definitively explained, Walter’s group has proposed that the city explore all building collapses since and including 9/11. The proposed inquiry pointedly excludes Buildings 1 and 2, the collapses of which have been much investigated and debated. It does not explicitly mention Building 7—but then it does not have to. Building 7 is unique in that it was not hit by a plane. Any serious investigation of building collapses would start with Building 7.

The mechanism for this is to seek to have New Yorkers vote on a ballot measure, the High-Rise Safety Initiative. Its supporters face a tough challenge ahead, and have already hit some formidable road blocks. Still they persevere.

Not Your Run-of-the-Mill “Kooks”

Ted Walter does not fit the caricature of the unshaven, grumpy, shouting activist. He’s a calm, thoughtful, precise fellow. He grew up in Wisconsin and Mozambique, where his father was an official of a private aid group, got a BA at New York University and a Masters in Public Policy at UC Berkeley, and then worked for San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.

He’d arrived in New York from Mozambique at age 19 to attend college two weeks before the attacks. “9/11 was essentially my introduction to New York,” he says.

The first thing that struck him was to wonder why, so long after the first planes hit the World Trade Center, another plane was unimpeded in hitting the Pentagon. Where were the U.S.’s vaunted defenses?

He also found it odd that a building collapse would involve entire structures virtually vaporizing in the air.

It was not until the spring of 2006 that Walter began determinedly researching the events. “During the course of a couple months of reading everything I could find, I came to the conclusion that the official account of 9/11 was false,” he says.

In 2008, others launched something called the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative. Walter volunteered as a petitioner, then managed paid canvassers. The next year, he founded a group, NYC CAN, along with some family members of 9/11 victims, and assumed control of the ballot initiative. Although they submitted 80,000 signatures, more than the required number, the city successfully challenged the initiative in court and kept it off the ballot.

This was hardly surprising. In certain parts of the country, especially in many Western states and municipalities, major policy is often legislated directly at the polls. Not so in New York City, which has long made it virtually impossible to qualify such a measure for the ballot. In fact, New York City voters have only seen two of them in half a century.

123Nonetheless, in the spring of 2013, Walter and his group talked with a top New York City election attorney, decided there might be a chance at prevailing despite the long odds, and began moving forward with another attempt. It became the High-Rise Safety Initiative.

Between May 1 and July 31, they gathered more than 100,000 signatures, far more than the 30,000 required to gain a place on the ballot. They submitted the first 67,000 of those on July 3, and plan to submit the remaining 33,000 on Sept. 4, which is more than double what’s required to override the City Council.

As anticipated, the City challenged the petition—claiming that not enough signatures are valid, and that the petition language is not legally valid. Walter and company filed suit against the City to have that determination annulled, and were due to go into court on Aug. 14.

The group believes that it has overcome the usual issue of invalid signatures by filing so many—and because even in its 2009 effort, it was able to prove that enough signatures did pass muster. Now, it must pass the arcane statutory hurdles the city created exactly to prevent such measures. Walter thinks they have a chance.

The case should be decided by mid-September. If the initiative is successful, it will be on the November ballot.  

Officials Mortified

The mayor, a liberal named Bill DeBlasio, has not had kind things to say about the effort—presumably not unlike what his predecessors, Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani, might have had to say. As reported by Crain’s New York Business:

“From what I’ve heard it’s absolutely ridiculous,” a peeved Mr. de Blasio said in response to a reporter’s question. “And it’s inappropriate, after all the suffering that went on 9/11 and since. It seems to be this is a very insensitive and inappropriate action.”

Crain’s itself couldn’t help referring to the group as “conspiracy theorists,” an unfortunate term that instantly assumes no credibility to those asking what may in fact be legitimate—if uncomfortable—questions.

The speaker of the New York City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito, a close ally of the mayor, lashed out: “Instead of wasting New Yorkers’ time and hard-earned taxpayer dollars humoring conspiracy theorists with wild fantasies, the City Council will continue to focus on passing sound legislation.”

A Skilled Communicator

Walter is very much a creature of the Internet Age. On the heels of Mark-Viverito’s statement, he was quick to put out an “Action Alert” email to his supporters:

Now we and the High-Rise Safety Initiative are calling on you to tell Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito that there are no wild fantasies here. The only wild fantasy is the one she chooses to believe—namely, that a 47-story skyscraper collapsed symmetrically, at free-fall acceleration, from small isolated fires.

Please take five minutes today to email the Speaker’s office with this message: The only “wild fantasy” is a skyscraper collapsing from fire. Explain to the Speaker and her staff why a 47-story steel-frame skyscraper cannot collapse from fire, and ask them to watch the 15-minute video Solving the Mystery of WTC 7, which features more than a dozen experts, who harbor not wild fantasies, but irrefutable scientific evidence.

If Walter and his group succeed in forcing a serious inquiry into the building collapse, they will have achieved what almost no one else in the 9/11 movement has: transforming a chaotic debate infused with powerful emotions and anger into a sober, methodical exploration of one portion of this sprawling, dark saga.

Photo Credits:





[box] WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on us. Can we count on you? What we do is only possible with your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.


521 responses to “Putting a 9/11 Mystery on the Ballot”

  1. james warren says:

    There was a well-known academic from Utah [can’t remember his name now] who was set to go on FOX “News” some time after the 9/11 tragedy.

    His host was Tucker Carson and his guest said that he had brought along a film clip of the collapse of Building 7.

    When it was time to show it, nothing happened.

    The situation was blamed on technical difficulties and life moved on.

  2. MACCUBBIN1962 . says:

    If the government should have admitted to there being explosives in the buildings which were place there by the terrorist! That would have been more believable then the plane’s fuel cause the collapse! Take it one step further and plant explosives in the surrounding buildings, find them and tell the public they failed to detonate! Our government is evil and I fear we are helpless to do anything about it!

  3. TopTC says:

    Soooo … was it on the November ballot, and if it was, did it pass?

  4. Linda says:

    Since when is seeking the truth insensitive and inappropriate? The only reason one would not want the truth known, is to protect a lie.

  5. Dale Pierce says:

    The Poop fairy of 9/11, Melissa Mark-Viverito…
    I am a father who lost his son in Iraq,
    http://www.ashleygilbertson.com/projects/noah_pierce/noah_pierce_01.htm thanks to people like Melissa….

  6. oatwillie says:

    For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof will suffice.


    We shall never forget the controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and Bldg. 7, collapsing in free fall in 10 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM

  8. gerry d welder says:

    It takes how many weeks and how many demolition professionals to do the building survey and set up before anyone can say “pull”?
    Silverstien and someone high up in the FBI needs to answer a lot of questions.
    This effected the entire world and caused mass deaths around the world

    • Cindy Kowalski says:

      It was the CIA along with the Mossad(Israeli CIA) not the FBI. All the top FBI agents were conveniently at a special conference in California on 911. Then all air traffic was suspended so they couldn’t even get to New York for days. Meanwhile the Bush administration started hauling off the evidence (molten steel) the very next day. After 911 over 120 Israeli spies were rounded up in the largest spy ring ever found in the US. They were communications and explosives experts posing as art students….

    • TopTC says:

      Many of these buildings are built with explosives already inside the structure for the time when they’ll be needed for demolition. It takes very little preplanning to bring them down.

    • MACCUBBIN1962 . says:

      There’s no way in hell explosive are built into the structures. What world are you living in!

  9. Rebecca McWilliams McAfee Whee says:

    But we SAW the planes hit the buildings with our own eyes!

  10. bobshankjr says:

    Everything I know within my university education in engineering, including mechanical engineering, engineering computing – and practical experience within such domains as United Airlines, Gates Learjet, Hughes Missile Systems and Raytheon Missile Systems (whereinal I successfully worked for 38 years as a professional), tells me beyond even a shadow-of-a-doubt the demolition of Building 7 – as well as the very well-known Twin Towers – was ‘professionally’ envisioned, carefully plotted-out and carried-to-conclusion using commercial jetliners, their impact on the twin towers, their attendant fuel, and the aftermath of the combination – as a ‘publically-believable’ scenario – to bring these buildings to their rubble. As well, the ‘supposed’ jetliner impact on the Pentagon building (no pieces of which have ever been securely-confirmed, nor publically-exposed), and the crash of a supposed jetliner in Shanksville, PA. ‘Both explosions’ to divert misguided public opinion in an attempt to ‘secure’ the belief of the ‘public-and-the-press’ at the time, that ‘at least SOMETHING went wrong’ with the perpetrators plans – that they, at least -haleluja- failed in one respect. There are plenty of ‘eye/sound’ witnesses (particularly, professional firemen) from local-and-extant companies, even drawn from around the nation, to substantiate the explosive sounds they specifically recounted while still entering buildings for rescues, to subdue fires, and carry out the dead and wounded. In addition, there are a ‘plethora’ of very scientifically-scrutinized film exposures which depict planted explosive ‘signatures’ coming from lower stories on the Twin Towers than where the jetliners ruptured the upper stories in both buildings – those explosions having come from ‘below’ the jetliner impact points at a time when rescues were under full-swing.

    How much further ‘proof’ is needed within the local and national political domains for those who essentially need it? It already exists. The problem is: we can’t find/expose those within our own government who are ‘seriously willing, with an open mind’ to even view that extant evidence. Find me one with guts.

    And that’s all you’ll ever ‘hear’ from me on this extremely crucial subject – the outcome of which desperately needs to be brought to ‘conclusion’ – and surely within our own personal rubble.

  11. Bluesman57 says:

    “From what I’ve heard it’s absolutely ridiculous,” a peeved Mr. de Blasio said in response to a reporter’s question. “And it’s inappropriate, after all the suffering that went on 9/11 and since. It seems to be this is a very insensitive and inappropriate action.”….

    IN FACT, the only proper, “appropriate” thing to do has been and continues to be in finding out every single detail of the TRUTH that the public, and the families of the victim’s DESERVE. What would also be appropriate at that point would be to see those that covered up the truth and others that may have indeed been a part of a “cover up” of an actual “conspiracy” to be held accountable, brought to trial and made to pay for what ever crimes that may be uncovered.

  12. Daniel Noel says:

    I thought I commented on this piece of work a few days after it was published, but my comment is not visible. I’ll keep a record of this one, in case it would also disappear.

    “Exactly the building did come down has never been properly explained.” The author has managed a tour de force: spending much energy reviewing Building 7’s destruction while missing AE911Truth’s analytical demonstration in layman’s terms of its controlled demolition.

    This article preaches 9/11 agnosticism, along the lines that discerning analysts may doubt the attribution of the World Trade Center’s entire destruction to Osama bin Laden’s fanatics. This reflects at best a severe misuse of observation and reason, at worst hypocrisy. Going back to the author’s failure to pass the litmus test of the elementary 9/11 baby step (http://www.global-platonic-theater.com/Censors,%20Handling/Challenging%20on%20Baby%20Step/Baker.htm), the worst case cannot lightly be excluded.

    It bears repeating that anybody who does not affirm the twin towers’ terrorist controlled demolition is not to be trusted on more complex matters, meaning just about any non-trivial matter. Readers of this web ought to use caution.


  13. Jonathan Pollard says:

    We’d never seen anything like 9/11. Except we had, but didn’t recognize it. We needn’t go back to Operation Northwoods, the Lavon Affair, or the other false flag conspiracies of suppressed history. Just two summers before, a nearly identical psyop was deployed upon the Russian people to consolidate the transfer of power to Vladimir Putin, who was facing his first election, and to provide the pretext to invade Chechnya.

    Four apartment complexes had been bombed and 300 killed. Putin promised to “liquidate all terrorists.” He proclaimed Russia was facing a war between “good” and “evil.” “It’s our boys,” said Putin, fanning war fever and hysteria, “against terrorists” belonging to an “international Islamic conspiracy.”

    Residents in the city of Ryazan discovered a huge bomb in their basement and called the local police. Initially, federal authorities claimed terrorists had been thwarted, but when the perpetrators were apprehended shortly thereafter by Ryazan police, and found to be agents of Russia’s security service FSB, the story changed: it was now claimed to have been an “exercise,” and the sack of explosive hexogen was said to have contained nothing but “sugar.” In 2002, an incurious Duma voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the bombing campaign.

    The war in Chechnya is ongoing. 10% of the Chechen population is dead. Thousands of Russian conscript soldiers are dead.

    Disbelief, a documentary regarding the bombings and the revelation of state guilt, may be viewed here: https://archive.org/details/Disbelief2004

    Not only by history’s precedence, but by current events, 9/11 isn’t really that extraordinary.

    It’s interesting to note how Western pundits who would likely dismiss as nonsense the mere suggestion of a 9/11 conspiracy have no problem at all assessing the Russian apartment bombings as state terror. David Satter, a fellow of the Hoover Institution and the Hudson Institute and former Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times of London, wrote “The Shadow of Ryazan” with funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation, which can be read here: http://www.hudson.org/research/2089-the-shadow-of-ryazan

    It’s funny how easily the generalized dismissals of conspiracy, such as how it “meets a psychological need,” or that “something so big couldn’t be kept a secret,” vanish into one’s political blind spots. That is, to the opinion makers, conspiracy can be the most reasonable explanation of events, so long as it’s OVER THERE, and it’s something THEY do. Satter finds Putin and the FSB guilty of waging a false-flag terror campaign against the Russian people, but don’t expect him to be called a kook in a tinfoil hat for it.

    And just as in Russia’s 9/11, THE AGENTS ASSIGNED TO BLOW UP ONE OF THEIR TARGETS IN THE USA ON 9/11 WERE CAUGHT IN THE ACT BUT LATER RELEASED DUE TO A SUCCESSFUL GOVERNMENT COVERUP. In the words of CBS’s Dan Rather, “Two suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives was discovered around the George Washington Bridge. Whether the discovery of those explosives has anything to do with other events of the day is unclear, but the FBI…says enough explosives were in the truck to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge.” Google “Israelis arrested on 9-11” for more information.

  14. Radman says:

    Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 as did many on my staff
    The reasons were as follows:

    1 – Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse. 
    2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
    3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. 
    4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

    For these reasons I made the decision as ranking fire officer, to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. 

    Regards, Dan Nigro
    Chief of Department FDNY

    Funny how Chief Nigro and the FDNY personal who were around WTC 7 don’t think it was a CD ????

  15. queenvictrola says:

    We must not forget that building 7 housed the investigation records of the Enron scandal and the Savings and loan crisis as well. hmmmm.

  16. prothopectore says:

    WTC7 was built during the height of the cold war
    with Russia. It was also built over top a massive electrical substation that
    provided power to the entire lower half of Manhattan, as such it was built to
    modern skyscraper code as well as being a “hardened building” in case
    Russia wanted to bomb that electrical substation with actual bombs. So it was a massively over built structure designed to withstand multiple bombings from real bombs as a means to protect that vital piece of infrastructure, the electrical substation.

  17. tosman says:

    >>UL tested the WTC steel – It passed with flying colours.

    Mr Smith: “Why did UL fire chemist Kevin Ryan for making that same false claim about their steel certification protocols…”

    Kevin Ryan was fired by Underwriters Laboratories (UL), for publicly asking questions about UL’s testing of WTC steel as well as UL’s involvement in the NIST investigation. Ryan describes how UL, began making some suspicious statements , after firing him in 2004:

    “These included the following claims related to the question of whether or not UL performed fire-resistance testing of materials used in the WTC:
    1) UL vehemently denied that it ever certified the materials.
    2) “UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in the WTC,” said the company’s spokesman.”

    “A New York Times article on April 8, 2002 reported on WTC steel furnace tests, conducted at places like Underwriters Laboratories.”


    Jonathan Cole looks at the patented tools needed to cut the steel:

  18. Max Standridge says:

    You know, I’m not sure you need to dip into conspiracy theory much at all to wonder if on the ground al-Qaeda engineers could have been involved in the Towers disaster. It could simply be something that wasn’t as easy to catch or prove. We know al-Qaeda had/has engineers in its membership: this was even mention numerous times in the early days after 911 when the media were describing the complexity and potential of the terrorist network. The fact this was missed or overlooked by our intelligence people and local police investigators, might not involve any conspiracy theory. It could just be important data we need to check out, to have a complete investigation of the persons involved in the al-Qaeda operation itself. Just sayin’.

    • Alan8 says:

      “…if on the ground al-Qaeda engineers could have been involved in the Towers disaster…”

      Misdirection by a paid shill on a newly-created account.

      We’ll have an investigation, then we’ll find who you are, and who’s been paying you to make these posts.

    • LWCapitalist says:

      Al-Qaeda operatives would have had access to the building and been able to bring in materials without question, even if those questions were after the fact. This is not a plausible explanation, which is really unsubstantiated conjecture.

  19. Dana says:

    What’s curious in the backing-and-forthing on the topic of 9/11 is the narrow-minded squabbling over physical details of the collapse of the buildings, when all one needs to do is to consider the geopolitical events, wars, and virtual political revolution that were made «palatable» by the events of 9/11.

    Who benefitted?

    Western finance / industry had lost its favorite, years’ long reliable enemy – Communism! – in the late 1980s. «Good grief, where do we go now?» Well, why not create a pretext to vilify Islam? Heck, there are Muslims all over the world, but, conveniently, millions living in envied, energy-rich regions of the Middle East / North Africa and Central Asia.

    It should be remembered, too, that numerous, major, resource-rich ME countries had more or less close ties with the Soviet Union: Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan. Think of the opportunity the collapse of the Soviet Union represented …

    Zbignew Brzezinski spelled out quite clearly, CFR, Trilateral Commission, oligarch strategies for the post-Soviet era in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives [1998].

    Throughout history, each and every major global geopolitical upheaval has been precipitated by a staged, highly publicized event, designed to enable further consolidation of global financial, industrial, corporate power.

    No need to dwell on the minute details of 911 when literally centuries of “false flag” events are there to demonstrate the mechanisms and contexts of power consolidation.

  20. K says:

    Kudos to “I’ll bury the truth” Smith…you sir are a first class Delphi technique certified troll…never have I seen such diligence in a comments section to subdue common sense and the fact that the story about WTC7 being fed to the public at large is filled with more holes than swiss cheese.

    • Alan8 says:

      There has been a decade-long effort to ensure that a troll is assigned to every major blog discussing 9/11 to try to convince people there’s nothing to see here, and there’s nothing remarkable about three skyscrapers collapsing at near-free-fall acceleration.

      These people, apparently, have no jobs that take up their time, and spend hours and hours trying to make the public go against their common sense that the government’s “explanation” for what happened on 9/11 doesn’t add up.

      These trolls are obviously on someone’s payroll. This means there’s a money trail that leads to a group with deep pockets that wants the controlled demolitions on 9/11 covered up.

      After we have proof of controlled demolition, and are looking for evidence to tie suspects to these capital crimes, I suggest we subpoena Internet/blog records, find the anti-truth trolls, and see who’s been paying their salaries.

    • beijing yank says:

      “When the people fear the government you have tyranny. When the government fears the People, you have Freedom.” Thomas Jefferson
      Yeah, it’s time the government fears the People.

      Don’t give up your guns and vote out every traitor incumbent their is. This is guerrilla warfare now. It’s decentralized. It has to be. “If we organized, they would just round us up.” as former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Dr. Roberts said. Everyone must do what they can, when they can, to fight back. The basic rules are: 1. Don’t get caught 2. Have probable deny-ability 3. Be certain to know Rule number one inside, and out. You can do anything from a slight to extreme prejudice to the war criminals at large. Boycott them. Punish any company or any person that rents space of “Lucky” Larry Silverscum “The Pimp Gangster” for example.

      Support international arrest warrants and trial of the war criminals at large. Make sure the baby killers “have a nice day.” :)

      It’s us or them. The rogue government already knows it. Time for Patriots to push back and let the war criminals feel fear. It’s on!

    • Max Standridge says:

      I would submit that what I have posted is something that could help pass this New York legislation. My point is that we might be able to broaden the level of support for the call for additional and even original investigation of all the facts, by acknowledging that it might give more information to persons not interested in conspiracy theory. If you are really interested in getting this passed, to get that investigation done, you might consider the actual dynamic for that. That boils down to votes and individual voters’ views. There has been so much bad press for “conspiracy theorists” that it might be necessary to point out other qualities of the proposal to get the necessary votes.

    • Alan8 says:

      The new movie coming out, “Anatomy of a Great Deception” (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/896-the-anatomy-of-a-great-deception.html ) should also broaden public support for a REAL investigation.

      We’re going to to the world premier of it tonight in Detroit.

    • Alan8 says:

      The movie “The Anatomy of a Great Deception” is the BEST 9/11 documentary so far!”

      It clearly presents all the most conclusive evidence the three WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and that the whole incident was coordinated by the Bush Administration.

      This movie is perfect to show to people who haven’t yet woken up to the treachery of the Bush Administration in staging this false-flag attack.

  21. BestIntentions says:

    “Not one phone, not one desk…” https://archive.org/details/911DebrisAnInvestigationOfGroundZero What turns a building to dust? Not jet fuel, and sorry guys, not nanothermite.

  22. Scotsman says:

    Simon Shack looks a Naudet’s video of the 1st plane strike in detail:

  23. Scotsman says:

    Born in Scotland ,Gordon Ross holds degrees Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering. Ross performed some of the earliest, analysis of the WTC collapse. He shows how squibs were used on every third floor:

  24. Jason says:

    Its really tragic that most people just simply don’t care about the truth. I spoke to a fellow engineer about controlled demotion. He agreed that the evidence did seem to prove this theory. He then asked me, “So what if there really was some large government conspiracy involving controlled demolition? Why does it matter now? That was 13 years ago. We have a new administration now.” I couldn’t find a logical way to respond to that. I was absolutely amazed, angry and horrified at the same time. As it turns out there are many people that share this same philosophy. I guess if it doesn’t affect them personally, its not their problem. This country has turned its back on morality and integrity. Its about me, myself and I now. If you ask me, we are all responsible for 9/11. We turned our back on God and have allowed evil our society and now we are paying for it. Just like ancient Babylon.

    • Robert says:

      While I share your anger at those Americans who no longer care about the responsibility of citizenship, the truth, or even worse attack those who seek the truth, I will never agree that you are I are responsible for 9/11. We are merely along for the ride with the mass of Americans who continue to rely on the five corporations that control most of our media for their news. Indeed they control how people think. Yet there are millions, with more and more everyday, who, because of 9/11, now know with great certainty that the our media lies and censors stories and our government lies to go to war, going as far as creating false flag attacks to get the people to go along. These millions may not be readily apparent because they are never given a voice in the media unless it is to ridicule them. Nevertheless, I assure you that their numbers are growing. Just the other day, on a flight from Boston to Los Angeles, I happened to sit next to an attorney who knew full well that 9/11 was done by elements of our own government. She knew all about what happened to WTC 7, which the media has almost completely censored. We are not alone. If you ignore the paid trolls on this site you will find that most of the people here get it too.

    • There are over two centuries of abdication behind the mess we are in. The vast majority of us have played a hand in the deliberate ignoring of history that has lead to the current inevitable repetition of it.

    • Jason says:

      I am fully aware of the Power structure and the plan for a New World Order. And i agree that there are millions who are aware of this. But where are they? Why don’t we have millions of people signing the petitions, donating money, public speeches, handing out flyers, discussions in the lunch room, strikes. The answer is fear and greed and selfishness. If its everyone’s job its nobody’s job. Thats the truth. I have done my best to donate time and money and hand out flyers. I often bring up discussions at work and with family and friends. If everyone did their part in this world, this never would have happened in the first place. Our previous generations sat on their hands and protected their jobs and kept quiet. Just like we are. Look at all the people that had inside information and never told anyone. Shame on them.

    • Robert says:

      Can’t really argue with you. And thanks for all you have done. I contribute much time and money to changing things too.

    • All administrations have been following the same handlers since at least 1913.

    • Jason says:

      Maybe even as early as 1776…

    • There were no American administrations before September 17th, 1787, because that is the day that the Constitution was presented by the Convention, by its President, George Washington.
      It can be argued that control over the colonies had been embattled since the first europeans set foot in the new world.
      It wasn’t Christopher Columbus, who just discovered Caribbean islands, and kidnapped the people he found there to be transported in the slave trade.

    • Jason says:

      True, who knows when we lost control.

    • That’s easy. It was when we started chasing the dollar and running away from individual liberty in favor of economic individualism.

    • BestIntentions says:

      Further back even… when people decided that gold was worth more than a fellow human’s life…

    • LocalHero says:

      Not true. There were functioning federal administrations as early as Sep. 5th, 1774 and operated as a confederated nation from July 4th, 1776. During that time there were (at least) 8 executive officers that were close enough in responsibilities to call them presidents.

    • Those presidents were of the Continental Congress, not of the United States of America, which had not been created yet.

    • ACE ACME says:

      My response to those who claim that 9/11 is ancient history is to say that it is still driving policy decisions today, to say that without trustworthy government reports and a courageous news media we can not have a functioning democracy.

      The 9/11 widows had 300 questions for the 9/11 Commission and only got 27 answers. Every morning they wake up and their husbands are still dead and their questions still have not been answered. That’s not 13 years ago. That’s today.

    • Jason says:

      Im with you brother.

    • Jason says:

      I honestly cant imagine the pain and anger i would have if i was one of those family members. I think about it every day and it still makes me angry.

    • LWCapitalist says:

      1. If it was operatives in the government, there is no statute of limitations for murder.

      2. What is the single defining event, through today, for American foreign policy and government spending? 9/11. Proving it was an inside job would change American views of our government and it’s long history of imperialistic wars.

      3. Perhaps most importantly, it matters because as Americans, we believe in justice and the perpetrators should face their peers in a court of law.

    • Jason says:

      Whats scares me the most is that we dont have any idea what will happen when the truth goes mainstream. How do we go about replacing the entire foundation of this country? Think of all the branches and corporations that could be involved? They all need to be replaced or at least the leaders need to be replaced. We are talking CIA, FBI, NSA, FAA, NORAD, DHS, FEMA. Then we got banks involved in the funding, wall street investers, all mainstream media, NIST and other organizations involved in the cover-up? I could go on forever.

    • abe1000 says:

      I think we should put those who perpetuated this crime on trial right now. There is enough evidence to convict Cheney and Rumsfeld and a trial will bring those who know the details out of the woodwork. When convicted they should be both executed by harpoon to the chest.

  25. BestIntentions says:

    Ye Almighty Albury, I yield to your several thousand posts about 9/11 on Disqus as proof that you are an expert in all forms of structural engineering, black ops, and media manipulation. As such an expert speaking to a lowly troofer (did I spell that right?), please enlighten me as to how a 110 story building after a collapse can have a pile of rubble shorter than an ambulance (which was not crushed by falling debris…) as evidenced here http://pesn.com/2012/12/09/9602240_Ambulance-Survived_WTC1_911–Best-Evidence_Dustification_Free-Energy-Demo/ambulance_survived_wtc1_sq_400.jpg or how photos and testimony of exploding cars http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF is related to a gravity-induced collapse? Thanks in advance for spreading the good news.

    • Albury Smith says:

      You want a whole physics course here? Read NCSTAR1. Read up on explosive demolition too. They don’t explode cars and other stuff external to the building.

    • Guest says:

      I am a chemist by degree and have sat through two perfectly good masters-level physics courses. In the photo with the ambulance in particular, where is the rest of the building? Please tell me how gravity and kerosene turned the building to dust and spread it out over Manhattan.

    • It was all in the handling of the box cuttters:-)

    • BestIntentions says:

      “They don’t explode cars and other stuff external to the building.” Looks like we agree here… Neither nanothermite nor jet fuel does that… something else does! I’ve had plenty of physics in earning my chemistry degree (by the way what’s your Ph.D in?), but in neither those courses nor in NCSTAR can I find any explanation as to why the rubble pile is largely shorter than an ambulance while basement floors/parking garages are intact… where did the rest of the building go? How about testimony from the stairwell B survivors who said the building turned to dust above them (nothing but dust fell on them, or the ambulance)? Again I beg of you, Almighty Albury, and lay offerings at your holy feet, to please explain to me, in your own infallible and omnipotent words, how a jet fuel fire turns a building into fine, fine dust. If you can do it without calling people names or mentioning NIST or Richard Gage, I’ll double the offerings :)

    • BestIntentions says:

      Or maybe you could just tell me how to turn a W14 X 730 WTC core column into dust with kerosene? That might do.

    • ACE ACME says:

      What pages in NCSTAR1 provide a lesson in physics, Mr. Smith? NIST claims that they did not analyze the collapses. How did they provide a course in physics when they didn’t even analyze the collapses?

    • Jack says:

      the way you wave NCSTAR1 about is akin to a delusional jenohva waving about a copy of the watchtower.

      NCSTAR1 does not explain how fire can melt stell colums simultaneously in order for building 7 to fall with no resistance.

      your trolling is getting worse the longer you keep it up.. time to retire all blurry…

  26. @Albury Smith says:

    “hypothesis on a typical W14 X 730 WTC core column”

    Heavy columns?
    Newton’s approximation for the impact depth does not explain how the smaller lighter top wtc section crushes a larger heavier lower section.

    Only a smart car driven by a super hero (in a cartoon/ CGI movie) demolish an entire 1000ft train:

    • Albury Smith says:

      The ~125,000-TON and ~60,000-TON upper blocks in each WTC tower were not smart cars driven by superheroes, and simple collapse dynamics made them much heavier than what the floors below them were designed to support. If the collapses were caused by something other than planes and fire damage, please demonstrate how on a W14 X 730.

    • ACE ACME says:

      They were only “much heavier” when they were already moving. To claim you’ve explained how local and asymmetrical damage resulted in a total, symmetrical and near-freefall collapse by starting with the assumption of a total, symmetrical and near-freefall collapse of one story is circular reasoning.

  27. notalent says:

    I already expressed my opinion in support of this ballot initiative below and included a comment regarding NORAD running drills of crashing jets into targets in the two years prior to 911. This was summarily refuted by “Albury Smith”, until I simply posted the source of the information (USA Today), which met with silence.

    I hope that he doesn’t get banned or deleted from these boards because i find it instructive in many ways. Unfortunately, It does make reasonable discussion very difficult.

    A cursory look at Albury Smith’s prolific Disqus account shows over 6,400 comments showing a pattern of baiting, agitating and insulting “troofers”, as he calls them, wherever the 911 issue comes up online. Perhaps, Albury Smith should set up his own forum where he can have his self-described “polite and intelligent” debate. I will see you there.

    • Albury Smith says:

      If it was met with silence (by me), I simply didn’t see it. You’ll be very disappointed if this NYC ballot initiative passes and another (this time redundant) investigation of the WTC hi-rise collapses is conducted by any group of SEs and other experts as highly qualified as the NIST WTC teams (led by an SE with an ScD from MIT and 30+ years in the profession), since the results will be similar to or exactly the same as NIST’s.
      If NORAD was crashing these alleged jets into targets pre-9/11/01, what and where were the targets, when was it done, and what training, pray tell, would NORAD personnel have gotten out of intercepting and shooting down jets (airliners?) that had already crashed? If you’re referring to the drills that actually were done on post-disaster response, they were not done by NORAD. (I don’t recall the name of the one in the DC area, but the acronym for it made it very obvious that it was for responses after the fact, not for intercepting airliners hijacked by suicide terrorists.)
      Any other alleged drills done on 9/11 involved unarmed fighters and had no effect at all on NORAD’s impossible task of getting to airliners in time, shooting down AA 11 and UA 175 after they’d both been crashed before Otis F15s were off the ground, and before any shoot-down order had been given.

      btw, I know that last part is highly suspicious because a half hour or so and 15 minutes between NYC crashes is more than enough time to 1.) know it was a suicide attack and 2.) decide to scatter 767 wreckage and passengers all over populated areas of the northeast region of the US, as had been done so many times before.

    • nick_rockefeller says:

      The “crashing jets” drills were exercises for responding to hijacks.

      The lack of a NORAD response to first: the airliners deviating from the flightplan and going silent, and second: a continued lack of response after even two hijack crashes is one smoking gun in the inside job. It was standard procedure for NORAD to scrambles fighter jets when an airliner goes rogue off the flightplan, well before 9/11.

      They did it consistently on a one-to-one basis for rogue jets before 9/11, but failed to do it for four times that day.

      It’s probably part of your pattern of insanity to shout down anyone who points this out to you: the NORAD stand-down is a smoking gun screaming “inside job”, and call them names while announcing how polite and rational you are. But it’s certainly part of your pattern of insanity to deny that it means even that an inside job was possible.

      No doubt it’s part of the same complex of blinded intellectual reasoning you have which leads you to profess that all competent structural engineers will tell us that there was no controlled demolition, when the free-fall collapse of WTC 7 into its own footprint can be nothing but:

    • Albury Smith says:

      NORAD didn’t do what it had always done in the past when airliners taking off from US airports were hijacked and crashed by suicide terrorists. Despite the lies from David Ray Grifter, there was no “stand-down order” from Deadeye or anyone else, Mineta’s 9/11 Commission testimony to Lee Hamilton dealt ONLY with the SHOOT-down order affecting the last two airliners.
      Listen & learn:
      It could not POSSIBLY be any more clear.

    • ACE ACME says:

      If NORAD had followed standard procedures, all the airliners would have been intercepted said Robert Bowman, Lt. Col, USAF (ret.) Your belief that intercepting a plane on a suicide mission is different from intercepting any other plane is irrational. Interception is interception.

    • Why didn’t you tell us that you were Griffin’s source before this?

    • ACE ACME says:

      Look at you, Mr. Smith, predicting the results of an investigation that hasn’t happened yet. That’s not very scientific.

      NORAD ran drills involving hijacked-airliner into WTC scenarios, as everybody who has bothered to study 9/11 knows.

    • Albury Smith says:

      NORAD’s drills were never for airliners taking off in the US, and the few they ran for incoming overseas flights had no FAA involvement. The idea of using hijacked airliners as weapons was not taken seriously by very many in the DoD prior to 9/11/01.
      You’ve predicted the causes of the WTC hi-rise collapses with no precedent for secret explosive demolitions, no prior investigations, no evidence, and based on the unscientific ravings of completely unqualified people who feverishly believe in the impossible.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Oh, I see. On Planet Albury, NORAD drilling on airliner-into-WTC scenarios is evidence that the DoD doesn’t take Project Bojinka seriously, and the origin of the planes somehow negates the fact that there were airliner-into-WTC drills

      What makes you think the demolition was secret? It was live on TV worldwide!

    • Albury Smith says:

      Bojinka was taken very seriously by the US and the Philippines, among others, and wasn’t about crashing the targeted airliners into buildings. NORAD looked ONLY outward for incoming threats prior to 9/11, and its drills did not involve the FAA.
      The alleged demolitions weren’t noticed by very many live eyewitnesses to them or to the debris left by them, now were they?

    • ACE ACME says:

      Bojinka was known in 1995, and involved crashing hijacked airliners into landmark buildings including the WTC and the Pentagon. You make up your facts, Mr. Smith.

      118 first responders reported sights and/or sounds of explosions. FDNY Chief Ray Downey said that in his opinion the top of WTC2 had been blown up because the collapse was “too even”.

      You make up your facts, Mr. Smith, and only a fool would believe you.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Bojinka was a plot to blow up airliners in flight, and NO NYC first responders reported hearing DEMOLITION explosiVES and linked the loud bangs inside the burning buildings to a later hi-rise collapse. Few to no FDNY are 9/11 truther nuts either, so please stop quote mining guys who lost 343 of their colleagues on 9/11.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Bojinka Phase II was a plot to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings including the WTC and the Pentagon. It was known to US intelligence since 1995. Are you feigning ignorance for rhetorical purposes?

      FDNY Chief Ray Downey opined that there were explosives in WTC2. FDNY Chief Albert Turi thought there were secondary devices.

      You make up your facts, Mr. Smith. Those sites that banned you were right to do so. You spread confusion. That’s a bad thing.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Al Qaeda had been known to US intelligence since the early ’90s. Does that mean they knew al Qaeda would suicide bomb the US embassies in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam and the USS Cole?
      US intelligence wasn’t in on the Bojinka planning; they learned of it after your heroes screwed up, and learned more with subsequent captures. Rented Cessnas aren’t US airliners with pilots, crews and passengers.
      Did Chiefs Downey and Turi opine that the loud bangs they heard in the burning hi-rises were DEMOLITION explosiVES? Are they 9/11 truther nuts? Is ANYONE in the FDNY?

    • ACE ACME says:

      Al Qaeda was funded by US intelligence during the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

      The US may very well have had advance knowledge of the embassy bombings–both the NSA and the CIA were monitoring communications from al Qaeda’s communications hub in Yemen, and the US intel asset Ali Mohammed participated in the planning of the embassy bombings. (The FBI knew all about the 1993 WTC bombing many months before it happened, and chose to let the plot go forward.)

      US intelligence knew about the Bojinka plot to fly airliners into buildings in 1995.

      Chief Downey opined that bombs had been planted in WTC2. Chief Turi opined that there were “secondary devices” in the towers. That means bombs. Try to read my posts before asking questions that are answered in them.

    • Al Qaeda was known by the intelligence agencies that created it from its beginnings.

    • NIST would probably have come up with different conclusions if their WTC team had been lead by a doctorate in physics with tenure at BYU.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Read all of it, not just the parts you cherry-picked:

  28. @Albury Smith says:

    “One-Trick Chandler should try his asinine PhysicsToolKit divining technique on a real C/D. ”

    Chandler does exactly that here in 5 minutes:

  29. Lee says:

    No mater how you look at it, the issue is the safety of other buildings that people are still living and working in. If a steel framed building can experience structural failure based on office fires than it needs to be addressed in the safety code of the city. Whether you believe in a conspiracy or not you need to support this High-Rise Safety Initiative.

  30. @Albury Smith says:

    “An object falling 417m in 22 seconds has an average acceleration of ~1.723m/sec^2.”

    Average acceleration? Why did Newton live? He would be sad to learn to think 1 in four Americans think the Sun orbits the Earth?
    Average acceleration? Newton developed calculus so that we don’t need to use averages…

    David Chandler has patience & has put some intro/high school physics online:

    • Albury Smith says:

      Calculating one constant acceleration value for a falling object undergoing somewhat unpredictable external forces in addition to constant g is way over my head, so perhaps you or One-Trick Chandler could enlighten me. I simply took the approximate total ET of 22 seconds (it was 22+ seconds) for the 1368′ North Tower collapse, calculated an acceleration based on distance and time, and presented an average.
      “Rozza,” the OP I was addressing, is a 9/11 “truth” aficionado who undoubtedly agrees with Chandler’s risible cause-divining-by-acceleration junk science, has just told us he thinks accelerations are expressed in “meters squared per second,” and came up with 6.13 “meters squared per second” somehow. He might think the sun orbits the earth too, or that Newton’s calculus of variables eliminated the applicability of averages.
      9/11 troofers say the funniest things…

    • @Albury Smith says:

      “I simply took 1368′ & the ET of 22 seconds, calculated an average acceleration based on distance and time.”

      You can calculated a velocity based on distance and time – but you need a couple velocities to calculate an acceleration – I know its complicated…Back to averages – Have you tried using an average speed to fight a speeding ticket? NIST used an arbitrary 5.4 seconds to claim some nonsense average before Chandler caused them to change their report and admit freefall.

      “One-Trick Chandler…Newton’s calculus eliminated the applicability of averages.”

      Three tricks actually. Troofers dont say the funniest things – but Chandler uses humor in the first of three NIST videos:

      Chandler explores the implications of NIST’s admission that WTC7 entered actual freefall:

    • Albury Smith says:

      I didn’t calculate any velocity; I calculated an average acceleration based on distance and time. s=1/2at^2 is only complicated if you’ve never taken or slept through HS physics.
      One-Trick found that a precious ~2.25 seconds of WTC 7’s EXTERIOR collapse was at g, and is too ignorant of the structural engineering aspects of that trivia to understand why. NIST’s 5.4 seconds was not “arbitrary”; it was for the top ~18 stories, i.e. the part actually VISIBLE on collapse videos. Your cause-divining 9/11 crackpots got 6.5 seconds for the entire 610′ by LYING; it actually took an estimated 8.5 seconds.

  31. sgtdoom says:

    Another interesting, yet often overlooked detail, is that the first clean up organization on site at both the Pentagon and the Twin Towers was MEC, a foreign owned firm, whose CEO was a fellow director at ABB, when Rumsfeld was also a director there.

    Now why would a foreign-owned firm (registered in the UK) be first on site at two such sensitive sites?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Assuming your information is correct (link or anything?), who should “really” have been first on site? Cleanup for the first few days consisted primarily of looking vainly for survivors, and there were plenty of demolition and other contractors involved in the nearly 8-month cleanup.
      The steel was handled by Local 40 & 361 ironworkers who also erected WTC 7 ~14 years earlier, and probably even some who erected the towers, and none to my knowledge is in your 9/11 “truth movement.”

    • William Rodriguez was probably the first surviving building occupant on the scene.

    • ACE ACME says:

      You’ve confused Mr. Smith. He doesn’t know that Jamie McIntyre was in Arlington. He doesn’t know how to google. He gets all his talking points from lying propagandists.

    • It is difficult to tell the difference between confusion, ignorance, and stupidity, the latter being the only one of the three that can only be cured by a miracle.

    • ACE ACME says:

      There are different kinds of stupidity. I tend to be somewhat slow-witted myself, but the disadvantages of that can be mitigated by careful study of the facts, and avoiding leaping to premature conclusions. Another form of stupidity often plagues very bright people–excessive faith in unjustified assumptions and hasty conclusions, confirmation bias, and a lazy seeking out of excuses to discard information that is inconsistent with one’s own belief system.

    • Stupidity is the inability to use information, regardless of the amount available. Those who are born stupid wil die stupid, short of a miracle.
      Confusion can befuddle the most intelligent if they refuse to recognize the reality of what they know to be the facts.
      Propaganda works best on those who cannot (stupid) or will not (confused) bring their intelligence to bear and/or prefer to believe what the gorgeous presenter with huge cleavage is reading to them from the TelePrompTer. There are way too many men thinking with their small heads instead of their large ones.

    • BestIntentions says:

      I think it also bears mentioning that reporters simply are not trained as engineers, or anything beyond a pretty face that reads the script. We should be kind to them, even if stupid or confused, because sometimes they really are doing the best they can. Check out this Jennings/Stephanopoulos clip. All the debris evaporated? Jennings tried! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFn5h5D0950

    • The first reporter on the scene was Jamie McIntire of CNN, who promptly reported the absence of aircraft debris. He later recanted his original accurate eyewitness reportage, just before leaving CNN. His original report is probably hiding on the Internet.

  32. BestIntentions says:

    Thank you incredibly for reporting on this issue. It is amazing how many people simply refuse to consider basic empirical evidence after the “conspiracy theory” flag comes up in their mind. After all, a “conspiracy theory” addresses the question “who,” while the High Rise Safety Initiative simply addresses “what” and “how.” Therefore, it is not a conspiracy theory by definition. If I were an architect or structural engineer, I would be very concerned that details of such a failure would be classified… why on earth would it be classified? Shouldn’t building professionals have all the information they need to make sure buildings don’t simply collapse if they catch on fire? Even if NIST is correct, which is debatable to say the least, then there still needs to be an investigation to make sure another high rise doesn’t collapse from fire!

    • Albury Smith says:

      What’s classified? A provision of the NCST Act proscribes full PUBLIC release of NIST’s complete ANSYS & LS-DYNA FILES, but they can still be seen at a NIST facility, although Mr. Gage and his “experts” prefer not to do that. They’ve also had SIX YEARS to run their own models using the reams of input DATA in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A, but haven’t even started doing that.
      Is the High Rise Safety Initiative the slightest bit interested in what ae911″truth” thinks about fire-induced hi-rise collapses? I hope not.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Read it. Instead of whining about the NCST Act, why won’t your 9/11 “researchers” request to see the FILES at a NIST facility? Why haven’t they even started doing their own ANSYS & LS-DYNA modeling using the reams of input DATA spoon fed to them in the NIST WTC 7 reports?
      Isn’t SIX YEARS enough time for “more than 2100 experts”?

    • abbabooboo says:

      Why would anyone fool around with modeling when there is real data to analyze? Modeling is what you do when you have no clue as to what happened and are looking for possibilities.
      In this case, an evaluation of the speed of the collapse, the total destruction of the buildings, the deposition of the ruins in the basement, the persistent heat signature beneath the buildings, coupled with the lack of competing hypotheses that do not violate the laws of physics leads to one conclusion, controlled demolition.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Why bother to do serious forensic structural engineering investigations of hi-rise collapses using FEA and other state-of-the art tools when some simpletons can just time them, apply some fractured logic based on their absurd belief that explosives or incendiaries produce heat for months, and divine the causes for you from their junk science?
      Here are some clues for you:
      Global building collapses are fast and complete by nature, gravity deposits ruins below collapsing buildings regardless of what caused them to collapse, massive debris fires stay hot until they’re extinguished, the NIST investigations didn’t violate any laws of physics, and the ridiculous secret controlled demolition “theory” is without any evidence or motive, as well as being literally impossible.

    • Albury Smith says:

      My more lengthy comment addressing all of this has mysteriously disappeared.
      You’re promoting junk science and have no excuse for the fact that Gage and his 9/11 crackpots have all of the input data they need for the modeling they’ve never even started, and have not asked NIST to see the FILES at a NIST facility.

    • BestIntentions says:

      Or how about this, Albury: You obviously have done a lot of research on this subject. Congratulations and thank you. However, if you want to prove to us here on the internet that you aren’t some intelligence agency’s troll, then why not take AE911Truth up on their debate offer? In person, that is. http://sgtreport.com/2014/07/911-debate-challenge-credentialed-professionals-need-only-apply/

    • andy says:

      As far as the Sacred Tower,anyone could clobber Gage in a debate.
      I could train my daughter to recite the salient facts of that collapse and Gage would be left trying to sway some saps with a blizzard of peripheral suppositions and erudite speculation.
      It’s all over but for the massive pile of used black T-shirts at the 10 cent table down in Austin

    • BestIntentions says:

      http://pesn.com/2012/12/09/9602240_Ambulance-Survived_WTC1_911–Best-Evidence_Dustification_Free-Energy-Demo/ambulance_survived_wtc1_sq_400.jpg ok, have your daughter tell me where the heck the rest of the building went. Right, into dust all over Manhattan… as a result of boxcutters, a giant aluminum can, kerosene, and gravity… right… Recreate that one in a model… or train your daugher to do it, whatever

    • ACE ACME says:

      The laws of thermodynamics and Newtion’s laws of motion are not “peripheral suppositions and erudite speculation,” andy.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Your corruption of them is, however, although not even that good.

    • Under Common Core, Newton is ignored along with Washington, Franklin, Madison, Adams, and Jefferson.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Maybe you should try training a structural engineer. Mr. Gage’s group has put out a challenge for a debate with a qualified person, and so far nobody has accepted.

    • Albury Smith says:

      That should tell you something. Ae911″truth” is ignored by Gage’s own(?) AIA, the RIBA, ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, SEAoNY, structuremag.org, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ENR, etc. No one with relevant top-level credentials is in his 9/11 “truth” group, and no one that qualified wants to mud wrestle with a profiteering crackpot either.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Thank you too, but I have no interest in being shouted down by Gage’s toadies while he dances around the facts and perverts science to promote foolishness. He’s been trounced enough times in debates, and then goes back to the safe confines of his web site and declares victory anyway.
      I’d be a lot more interested in seeing him and his “experts” actually demonstrate their secret C/D theory on a typical W14 X 730 WTC core column:
      but that would just put him out of the 9/11 “truth” business and restore sanity.

    • sgtdoom says:

      What this Albury Smith character, and the rest of the great unwashed minority who still believes in the official cheney/bush conspiracy cannot explain, is what became of the compound resistance in the collapse of the twin towers and building 7?

      A simple question unanswerable by the simpletons.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Time the collapses honestly and you’ll have the answer to that simple question. WTC 7 took ~17 seconds to collapse, ~8.5 seconds of which was the hollowed-out exterior, and the towers took 15+ and 22+ seconds respectively. Those times are only “too fast” to people who have no understanding at all of collapse dynamics or even basic gravity taught in HS physics classes.

    • ACE ACME says:

      NIST’s NCSTAR1 report tells us that WTC1 fell in less than 12 seconds, Mr. Smith. If you’d actually read the report you would know that.

      What sound did the hollowing out of WTC7 make, and why is there no audio recording of that sound?

    • Albury Smith says:

      I have and NIST corrected those times with their 8/30/06 FAQ item #6:
      Obviously, the towers’ collapse zones didn’t fall anywhere near as fast as the loose airborne perimeter column trees and other actually free-falling debris. The collapses are not that hard to time, so please do it.
      What sound did your imaginary explosives make? Did you hear WTC 7’s exterior collapse on any video? Did any live eyewitness claim that the interior collapses happened silently? How many of them drink your Kool-Aid?

    • ACE ACME says:

      That link doesn’t correct any times, Mr. Smith. It changes the subject to exterior panels hitting the ground. How do you know the towers’ collapse zones didn’t fall as fast as the loose debris? NIST’s report says they did.

      You didn’t answer my question. Why is there no sound from the secret interior collapse of WTC7?

    • Albury Smith says:

      NIST wrongly assumed that YOU had some common sense. You didn’t answer my questions either:
      -Did you hear the east end of the WTC 7 penthouse collapse ~6.9 seconds before the exterior started falling?
      -Did any live eyewitness claim that the interior collapses happened silently?
      -How many of them drink your Kool-Aid?

    • Albury Smith says:

      I answered all of those absurd questions last night, but my comment was deleted without a trace. Please look at any WTC tower collapse video if you’re still confused about the fall rate of the loose debris v the collapse zones, and re-read my (so far undeleted) comment on the WTC 7 interior collapses preceding the visible portion of the collapse.

    • Probably because it started before the first plane arrived at the first tower to be struck.

  33. faustinaagatha says:

    Thank you, Mr Baker for reporting on this. Since 9/11 still haunts us and is the justification for foreign policy insanity, domestic spying and militarized police, we need investigations that answer the real questions that many people, including myself have.

  34. tosman says:

    “A Skilled Communicator – Walter is a creature of the Internet Age.”

    ReThink911 campaign ran ads in 12 cities. ReThink911 raised $24,000 in three days in October to sponsor a billboard across the street from the New York Times.The billboard asks theTimes about its lack of coverage of questions concerning the destruction of WTC7:



    “Common office fires burn more than hot enough to turn steel floor joists into noodles.”

    I remeber that the UL tested the WTC steel – It passed with flying colours. Jonathan Cole looks at the patented tools needed:


    • Albury Smith says:

      Then why did UL fire chemist Kevin Ryan for making that same false claim about their steel certification protocols, and win the subsequent lawsuit? Jonathan Cole proved that thermite will eventually melt through a horizontal W16 X 57 if enough contraptions are screwed onto it to keep the thermite from falling off. He did not demolish any architectural enclosures and do it secretly in a furnished and occupied Manhattan hi-rise office building to a vertical W14 X 730 core column. 11 of the 24 core columns in WTC 7 were W14 X 730s, as were the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
      (The first link proves that a large band saw cuts a W14 X 730 in ~7-1/2 minutes using loads of water, so there’s another secret demolition theory for you.)

    • ACE ACME says:

      Elevator shafts are hardly a public place, Mr. Smith, and most of the core columns in all three skyscrapers were accessible from the elevator shafts.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Manhattan’s a public place. Now that you’ve added Ace Elevator, PANYNJ maintenance, the PAPD, and IUEC Local 1 to the plot and moved the working elevator shafts above the 78th floor sky lobbies close enough to the core columns to reach them, try your secret C/D there on one of those W14 X 730 columns I linked to.

    • ACE ACME says:

      I didn’t add anybody to any conspiracy, Mr. Smith. I simply pointed out that your insinuation that a secret demolition was impossible was contrary to reality.

    • Albury Smith says:

      So the many people you didn’t add were all blind and stupid?

    • ACE ACME says:

      No. Actually, the behavior of the 80 ACE Elevator mechanics on the site that morning suggests that they were anything but blind and stupid.

    • Albury Smith says:

      So they were only blind and stupid during the months it took your imaginary evildoers to plant your imaginary explosives in their workplaces?

    • ACE ACME says:

      I said “they were anything but blind and stupid,” Mr. Smith. It’s pretty hard for 80 guys who are supposed to be working to police 15 miles of elevator shafts.

    • andy says:

      I take it back.It’s actually nutty,somewhat plausible speculation,and you’re handling it for Mr. Gage.
      S’pose you’re not as sure as you seem? Then what?
      Try the trump card,the oral testimonies that prove you’re dead wrong.
      That’s the hard evidence,not your “maybe,suppose and really could be”.

      Let’s call you the Prince of Perhaps and call the whole thing a shot in the dark that supposes the FDNY men are village idiots who are in on the cover up.

    • ACE ACME says:

      What oral testimonies are you referring to? You’re bluffing.

    • Albury Smith says:

      That’s their job. If they weren’t all blind and stupid, were they “in on it”?

    • ACE ACME says:

      Did you read the elevator renovations contract, Mr. Smith? Where in it were the elevator mechanics assigned the job of policing 15 miles of elevator shafts?

    • andy says:

      Pure unadulterated prime center cut speculation steaks being served at Ace’s Place!

    • ACE ACME says:

      15 miles of elevator hoistways are not a speculation, Mr. andy. Nor is the fact of a 9-month elevator renovation leading up to 9/11. Nor the peculiar behavior of the 80 elevator mechanics on site on 9/11.

  35. @Russ Albury Smit says:

    Liar? Civil? In the past 12 hours, 40 comments have been approved for Albury Smith.When you consider that 150 comments have been approved in 2 days, this looks more like a denial of service attack:

    Glen Greenwald has described tactics for manipulating and distorting online political discourse

    • Albury Smith says:

      Try posting actual facts and making sense on a “forum” run by the 9/11 “truth movement” and see how quickly you’re banned and have all of your comments removed. Why have you (whoever you are) posted using my name?

    • Rozza says:

      What Albury such as WTC1’s collapse at an acceleration of 6.13 meters squared per second?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Uh…that would be 6.13m/sec^2 (time is squared, not distance), and it’s not the correct acceleration. An object falling 417m in 22 seconds underwent an average acceleration of only ~1.723m/sec^2.

    • sgtdoom says:

      That certainly hasn’t been my experience: I routinely get banned from The Guardian, boingboing.net (Doctorow and his so-called free speech bullcrap), nakedcapitalism, huffingtonpost, and a bunch of others, all for providing technical data with supporting links.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Those sites aren’t posting 9/11 “truth” nonsense, and I was referring to web sites with “forums” on nothing but 9/11 fantasies and paranoia. If that’s their thing, all comments should be permitted unless they’re in violation of a reasonable TOS rule. HuffPo for one has a stated policy against troofer articles and posts.

    • ACE ACME says:

      People who are well known all over the internet for pretending to knowledge they do not have should be banned on sight, Mr. Smith.

  36. sgtdoom says:

    The critical missing items here, especially to an educated structural engineer, is what happened to compound resistance?

    The two towers collapsed in a steady-state fashion at incredible rate of speed, indicating that all compound resistance was removed.

    According to the official NIST report, the collapse of the floor above caused the core of the building to be crushed — quite odd given that the floors surrounded the core, which is why it was built as THE CORE, duuuuh!

    Again, with Building 7 (mortage lease holder of record: the Blackstone Group), we observe zero compound resistance, regardless of any warping due to raging fires, compound resistance would still exist, yet again we observe a steady state collapse, only achieved by removing all compound resistance at the same time which is accomplished with a controlled demolition.

    Now, I don’t claim to know what occurred with Building 7, which is why I appreciate Mr. Baker’s article above, but the Twin Towers were being outfitted with dark fibre (not yet, and never to be, activated) through a process of pumping it through the ventilation system, conviently travelling through and under the core of the buildings.
    This was accomplished by the outfit, EurekaGGN, which had been contracted to do this. (Supposed to have been installed in the top 20 stories of each tower. And if that had not been actual fibre, but construction grade explosives, the demo of the top 20 stories could easily have led to what was observed that horrible day!)

    Given the minimal occupancy of both towers (hence the low mortality rate on 9/11, which originally had been estimated by the talking heads at well over 100,000) how the owners could have ever paid off EurekaGGN for installing optical fibre throughout the towers and the rest of the WTC gives one pause.

    Excellent article.

  37. Robert says:

    Hi Russ,

    No discussion of what happened to building 7 can be complete without including mention the eyewitness accounts of explosions within the building. NIST’s report on omits any mention of such eyewitness reports which, I consider a major part of the criminal fraud that their report represents. Eyewitness testimony is vital evidence in any investigation or trial. New York City housing official Barry Jennings was in the WTC 7 that morning after the building had been abandoned, and together with another official Michael Hess, they both experienced a powerful explosion within the building that destroyed the stairwell beneath them as they were trying to get out. They were subsequently rescued, well before the 5:20 demise of the building. On 9/11 Jennings and Hess gave an eyewitness video account of their traumatic experience–which suggests that WTC 7 was scheduled to have been destroyed during the collapse of the twin towers, but something went wrong with the plan. Courageously, Jennings gave another video account of the explosions much later, and Hess (I guess he was scared) refused to confirm the accuracy of his 911 video account. Jennings died somewhat mysteriously at age 53. There is a whole website devoted to the Barry Jennings mystery: http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com/

    • Albury Smith says:

      So Jennings and Hess heard demolition explosives that only people inside WTC 7 could hear, and that took more than 7 hours to bring down the building? Why didn’t these demolition explosives leave any explosively-cut steel in the WTC 7 debris pile? Why were the FDNY and the owner on the phone 4+ hours after Jennings and Hess heard these explosives discussing WHETHER to “pull it,” which in 9/11 troofer-speak means secretly demolishing it with explosives? If it was secretly demolished, why did IRI pay the owner ~$861 million without investigating it?

    • andy says:

      Whoa there,tiger.You’re making way too much sense for this crew.

    • Albury Smith says:

      The moderator here is thinking of deleting my comments and banning me, so I’m toning it down a bit. :-)

    • andy says:

      I just posted an innocuous poke at the cult (up above…eventually?) and it’s in the moderation queue.
      I guess the jibe that my own daughter could be trained to recite the basic facts of #7’s collapse enough to expose Gage (or whoever they trotted up there),was a bit too much for these bright eyed chipmunks.

      Seems they want you to debate this stuff with Gage.You should take them up on it.It’d be redundant in light of the mauling you’ve given them here,and elsewhere,but…..you’d actually be providing a public service.

      Sad thing about this cult is that they have the agility of a birdbath in Central Park.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Gage never loses a debate. He packs the place with plenty of his toadies, gets his ass handed to him every time, and declares victory on his web site the next day just the same. Asking him to answer a question is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree — he just changes the subject and keeps jabbering troofer stuff.
      I wish someone would just buy him a 4′ length of W14 X 730 and some explosives or incendiaries and point a video camera at him. THAT would win a debate very quickly. No more 9/11 “truth” industry for him. :-)

    • Albury Smith says:

      Debates with Mr. Gage are futile. He loads the place with true believers, ducks all of the facts and evidence presented to him, and just keeps parroting unscientific nonsense before returning trimphantly to his web site to declare victory once again.
      Our best and brightest SEs with doctorates and PEs have no interest in mud wrestling with charlatans, but even Chris Mohr annihilated him. Mr. Mohr’s a clergyman, journalist, and owner of a funeral parlor, but has enough grasp of science to counter Mr. Gage’s lunacy with ease.

    • andy says:

      The stuff you linked by Dr .Dutch was really quite interesting.He makes important points for all to consider.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Dr. Dutch’s screed is ludicrous because he fails to recognize the circular nature of the piledriver argument.

    • andy says:

      I’m zipping down to the Yankee game in a minute.I’ll get back later.Al-boyo will probably have torn you three new bungholes in the meantime,I’m betting.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Dr. Dutch is one of the few people at that level who even bother debunking 9/11 troofer nonsense. It really doesn’t take that much relevant education to do, and it’s a little demeaning. Few to no structural engineering professors waste time with ae911″truth,” and they’re the most qualified to do it. Gage’s own(?) AIA wants nothing to do with him:

    • russbaker says:

      You have deliberately ignored a request that you identify yourself and provide some useful biographical information. Going to start deleting your comments now. Banning is next. Get to it.

    • andy says:

      Mr. Baker,surely you don’t think it’s useful for a political outreach movement to be armed with such weak,error ridden and easily dismantled talking points do you? Your anger towards a skeptic of yours and your recent erasure of a bland comment I made indicates that you may be too emotionally involved with this demolition angle to be a useful overseer—-(I stand corrected,my comment up above was reviewed and re-entered on the boards).

      Commenters aligned with the demolition cult regularly heap contempt on skeptics like Albury Smith and others,who deal mainly in facts but will fight fire with fire when provoked.Are you saying 40 to 3 is too shaky a lead for the Gang of #7 and that you must step in to rescue these folks?

      It’s a “truther” staple to label,demean and gang up on anyone offering counterpoint to this Building 7 gang of lemmings,who are taking the last vestiges of the 9/11 conspiracy movement right over the cliff.I daresay a writer as sharp as you must have found the information that Smith,myself and others have encouraged you to consider somewhat useful.I don’t know how you couldn’t,it directly contradicts and even refutes so much of what the demolition gang is proffering.And besides,it comes from the public record such as videos,testimonies,etc.

      As I have stated in heated debates with Mr. Smith prior to this particular article,there are ample and compelling reasons to think 9/11 was an insiders operation with moles in the government and rogue operators at key points along the way to facilitate this disaster.There has clearly been a cover-up and the deeper politics of our intelligence agencies clearly indicate the sabotaging of our legitimate and decent public employees in a diabolical scheme to undermine good people.
      That doesn’t mean that any and all that suppose this is an inside job know what the heck they’re talking about,including myself.They often don’t.When they don’t,they don’t spectacularly and leave the whole story a disaster of a mess with speculation rising to the top,crowding out real facts which make the story a little more ambiguous,complicated and not easily discerned.Paradoxically,the points that Smith makes end up forcing folks to come to a deeper understanding.They might have to shed some cherished points but will look deeper and end up where the truth takes them.Wherever that may be is apparently a frightening proposition indeed.It would be sad if you were one of those people.

      The only reason I ever comment on these #7 stories is to warn people away from the controlled demolition arguments.They are a honey pot and the Grassy Knoll of the 9/11 story.You can’t get much past a slug-out with able scientists on each side of the issue and in the case of #7 it is simply a provable fact that it did come down from impacts and raging fires,NOT explosives.Despite some intriguing and curious stuff it’s a slam dunk case.

      The FDNY is not in on the cover-up of the murders of 343 of New York’s Bravest.

      The oral testimonies illustrate amply that the talking points of the demolition cult are error strewn and need a serious revamping,which never seems to come.Newbies pour into this issue armed with information that was debunked and exposed years ago.This is a real problem.
      Deleting and banning the few who come here to debate with real opposing arguments would continue to relegate the truth movement to the echo-chambered backwater it’s been for many years now.
      Surely many of the posters here use phony names or ID’s.I don’t,but who cares? Why single out your adversaries for arbitrary enforcement of loosely designed controls?

      No,we don’t work for Mossad or the FBI and how can you let comments like that stay without reprimand while hectoring and censoring Mr. Smith for simply being flamboyantly opposed to the majority of commenters?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Who else has had to identify himself on here with anything more than a s/n, Russ? The WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11/01 are the topic of your article, and you seem to have an unnatural interest in shutting down polite and intelligent commentary on it.
      I’ve given you my pertinent background information despite being the only one who’s been required by you to do it, but a few death threats from 9/11 “truthers” over the years have dissuaded me from using my real name online.
      Please feel free to diminish the discussion you started here by removing my rational and well-informed commentary if that’s what you’d rather do instead of addressing it. It’s hardly the hallmark of responsible journalists, but somewhat understandable from one who was at the WTC when WTC 7 finally came down at ~5:21 PM and didn’t even know by then that both towers had collapsed many hours earlier.
      My apologies for thinking from your article that you had any interest at all in the truth about the fire-induced WTC hi rise collapses and the deadly 9/11/01 al Qaeda suicide attacks on my country.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Since some of my comments here have mysteriously disappeared without a trace, Mr. Baker, it seems that you’ve already gotten to it. My pointing out your transparent hypocrisy in making these demands of me were among the ill-fated ones. We obviously have different views on journalistic ethics and real quests for the truth. Kudos on “disappearing” them with no notice that they were ever posted here. Nice touch.

    • Robert says:

      Without insulting you, I will ask you a question and then answer yours, why did two NYC officials give a reporter an interview on the day of 9/11 (while still covered in dust) and say that they not only heard but experienced a powerful blast within WTC 7 which nearly killed them and forced them to retreat out of a collapsing stairwell? Did they make up a story just for fun? Those interested in hearing an unadultered, eyewitness account can watch the Barry Jennings/Hess interviews here: http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/9-11-wtc-7-internal-explosions-trap-barry-jennings-and-michael-hess/SKmuLfHp_cxOG0PX7sE9og

      I don’t know why I bother, but let me answer your questions. First off, as I suggested, these explosions in the building may have been intended to weaken the building and bring it down during the collapse of the Twin Towers but something went wrong. I did not say these blasts that Jennings experienced brought down the building seven hours late. As you might concede building demolitions involve preliminary cutting of supports and then many carefully timed explosions to finish the job. And things do go wrong, as many CD videos show. Next question: Most of the steel from the building was destroyed (against the wishes of professional engineers and firefighters) before it could be properly examined. Nevertheless, some evidence remains of WTC 7 steel that has been eroded by something, presumably the high temperature thermite that there is evidence of in all three towers. Here is a photo of NIST’s John Gross in the debris pile next to the “swiss cheese” steel (evidence he claimed did not exist): http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1174/johngross.jpg Your next question doesn’t make sense to me; are you asking why Larry Silverstein talked about pulling WTC 7 and then you denied in the same sentence that this is what he meant? Not clear what you are trying to get at. Your last question is a good one however. Why did the insurance companies pay out when there is so much evidence of controlled demolition? I can only speculate that they were well compensated for keeping their mouths shut. Perhaps they got a small portion of 2.3 TRILLION dollars that Donald Rumsfeld announced could not be accounted from the Pentagon books on the day before 9/11.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Good points, Robert. Here is some speculation: If WTC7 was meant to be brought down by demolition, the best time to do it would have been when the building was hidden by dust from the collapse of WTC1. If some true patriot involved in the op sabotaged the detonators on the demolition charges, this would give away the whole op. A bomb set to go off after the dust cleared would attract attention. And then there’s a 47-story building with explosive charges set, with dud detonators

      So what are the demolitionists to do for damage control? The bomb blast keeps FDNY out of the building. They already thought the towers were blown up, so the idea that WTC7 was wired too makes sense. There was the elevator car blown thirty feet down the hall. And besides, those wimpy fires were hardly worth fighting.

      So the demolitionists go in, set some fires, put in new detonators. But they can’t just bring the building down symmetrically and monolithically –that looks too hinky. Best would be to have one side fail first, but how can they make an asymmetrical collapse total and realistic at the same time? So they do the best they can. The cut the beams under the 45th floor so the penthouse caves in above the column 79 area.

      All speculation, of course, but it well deserves investigation IMHO..

  38. tosman says:

    “If the initiative is successful, it will be on the November ballot. The mayor, a liberal named Bill DeBlasio, has not had kind things to say about the effort”

    ReThink911 is a public awareness campaign, running ads in 12 cities. The videos found on their site are better than the average Googled video:

    A billboard asks the New York Times about its lack of coverage of questions concerning the destruction of WTC7:

    ReThink911 is a global public awareness campaign launched on September 1, 2013 to educate the public and galvanize support for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. Led by the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and supported by a coalition of organizations, ReThink911 raises public awareness by introducing viewers to the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 and informing the public that over 2,000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7 and the Twin Towers.

    In September 2013, the ReThink911 campaign ran ads in 12 cities ads posing the simple question, “Did you know a 3rd tower fell on 9/11?” in reference to World Trade Center Building 7. ReThink911’s September 2013 ads included:

  39. Albury Smith says:

    You’re not being very clear about what happened. Column 79 buckled because of partial floor collapses that left it unsupported laterally for 7 or 8 stories. Those collapses were caused by the axial thermal expansion of 5 W24 X 55 beams east of the A2001 girder that pushed that W33 X 130 girder westward and off its seat. Asymmetry and the simple 4-bolt gravity connection there are the main contributors to the ~5:21 PM collapse of WTC 7, which obviously could have occurred even if that critical W14 X 730 column had remained at room temperature.

    • Rozza says:

      Is this the NIST report girders of 2004 with the normal engineering device, shear studs or the 2008 sans shear studs WTC7? It’s definitely the 2008 NIST collapse model created using a computer simulation whose physics engine has never been released. It’s also the 2008 simulation that has never been presented for pier review. It;s the model in which an asymmetrical internal collapse based on 0 physical evidence is said to have internally structurally compromised WTC7 so badly that what can be seen, the actual observed external reality was a 3 stage symmetrical collapse into its own footprint the second stage at free-fall.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Your imaginary shear studs on WTC 7 girders explained:
      34. (added 6/27/12) For the WTC 7 16-story model for structural response to fire effects, why did NIST model the girders without shear studs, given that articles published in the open literature showed drawings of typical floor framing plans of WTC 7 with shear studs on the girders?

      The source documents used for developing the structural analysis models of WTC 7 were the structural drawings prepared by the structural engineer of record (Irwin G. Cantor, Structural Engineers) and the erection drawings prepared by the steel fabricator and erector (Frankel Steel Limited). Neither the structural drawing for typical floors 8 through 20 (Structural Drawing S-8) nor the erection drawings for floors 10 through 13 (Erection Drawings E10/11 and E12/13) show any studs on the girders. A structural drawing showing modifications to Floor 10 (Structural Drawing S-8-10) to accommodate increased floor loads in certain areas did indicate shear studs for the girders in the affected areas, though the additional load was not identified on the drawing. The modification also indicated reinforcing some floor connections and adding new plates on the bottom flanges of some north and south floor beams.

      A paper by J.J. Salvarinas that was published in the Canadian Structural Engineering Conference Proceedings (1986) contained “Figure 5 – Typical Floor Framing” that showed shear studs on the girders, although no reference was cited for the information presented in the figure. The number of shear studs indicated on the floor plan by Salvarinas is similar to, but not exactly the same as, the number of studs indicated on the modified framing plan for floor 10. For typical floors 8 to 20 (excluding floor 10), both structural and erection drawings of WTC 7 obtained by NIST are not consistent with Figure 5 in the Salvarinas paper.

      For the 16-story model of WTC 7, NIST did not include shear studs on the girders based on the following reasoning:

      (1) The structural floor plans and erection drawings for typical floors are consistent and do not indicate any shear studs on the girders,

      (2) The Salvarinas paper did not cite a source for its figure showing “Typical Floor Framing,” and

      (3) To make the modifications to the framing on Floor 10 would have required accounting for the structural changes shown on drawing S-8-10 (steel plates on bottom flanges of floor beams, shear studs on girders, and reinforced connections), and making the attendant changes to the floor loading in order to be consistent. Since the drawings did not provide any information on revised floor loading or revised connections, this was not possible.

      Note: There’s nothing stopping Gage and his “experts” from modeling with the precious imaginary shear studs on the A2001 girder. The real ones on the beams began failing at ~103C, i.e. just over the boiling point of water.

    • ACE ACME says:

      There is no need to model the girder with the shear studs. Everybody knows that with shear studs it could not walk off its seat.

    • Albury Smith says:

      The “everybody knows” argument only works for 9/11 troofers; SEs model to prove things.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Oh, you’re not the Albury who was talking about common sense?

      Don’t you think that if NIST could have failed the shear studs with thermal expansion of the beams, then they would have failed the shear studs?

      But no, instead they had to deny that they were there.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Why would NIST factor in imaginary shear studs? Thet fully explained in item #34 here why they didn’t:
      When are your 9/11 crackpots going to model with the nonexistent shear studs on the A2001 girder? NIST claimed that the real ones on the beams began shearing off at 103C. Do you even know the purpose of shear studs? Uh, no…

    • ACE ACME says:

      Shear studs are not imaginary. They are ordinary construction practice. Their purpose is obvious to competent people–to make the steel framing composite with the concrete floor.

      Your own reference says that structural drawing S-8-10 shows shear studs. The drawings that NIST has released reference a supplemental drawing that has not been released–as you would know if you had bothered to look at the drawings for yourself.

  40. Bilbo says:

    Hi Russ,

    I’m fascinated to hear that you personally witnessed the collapse of WTC 7. A few questions: Were you with this bunch of reporters at the time, including Amy Goodman? Were you informed ahead of time that WTC 7 was going to collapse? Were you only permitted to be in a certain area? (There are no videos of WTC 7 from the opposite side of the building at the time of its collapse.) Did you hear any explosions prior to or during its collapse?

    And did you know about Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko’s interview where he is certain that it was a controlled demolition? Unfortunately, Mr. Jowenko died in a single car collision in 2011.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Mr. Jowenko apparently had X-ray vision that even worked on grainy surveillance videos with no audio. He actually figured out that gravity was working normally in NYC on 9/11/01.
      See “It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition” here:

    • Bilbo says:

      Hi Albury,

      You link to a paper by a geologist as a refutation of what an expert on controlled demolition confidently claimed was a controlled demolition? Try harder. Meanwhile, there are a number of peer-reviewed papers challenging the official stories of all three building collapses:


      And here is one that you can read online:


    • Albury Smith says:

      Geologists are scientists, and Dr. Dutch was merely providing a basic scientific critique of the ludicrous secret C/D nonsense.
      Linking me to papers by serial liars like Steven Jones, Anthony Szamboti, Kevin Ryan, etc. with some mentions of real researchers with structural engineering doctorates and PE certification is typical 9/11 troofiness. If these “researchers” ever had to demonstrate their absurd secret explosives (or is it incendiaries today?) hypothesis on a typical W14 X 730 WTC core column, their quasi-scientific gibberish would VERY quickly be exposed for what it is:

    • Math & Physics says:

      Here is the P-wave manifested in camera “shake” mounted on a tripod. Classic demo timing, 12sec.


    • Albury Smith says:

      A shaky camera’s now a “P-wave”? Was this “P-wave” recorded by the LDEO seismographs or any others close by? Did you see any of that dense smoke disturbed by your “P-wave” BEFORE the top section started to fall? Even your imaginary explosives would’ve blasted it out at supersonic velocity.
      236 of the 283 columns in each tower WERE IN PLAIN SIGHT. Hello?

    • Math & Physics says:

      That’s b/c you are so simple minded, conventional explosives are all you can comprehend, hayseed.

    • Albury Smith says:

      That’s exactly why we need to ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to show us on video with audio how explosives (or is it incendiaries today?) secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
      If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
      *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

    • just_a_guest says:

      You vocally persist in this point: that the AE911 Truthers (Richard Gage and every other architect/engineer for 9/11 truth) can’t show how the specific steel girders used to construct the WTC buildings could be demolished. I think they can and do. A combination of conventional “loud” explosives in some locations, and quiet exotic nanothermitic demolition materials seem to have been used.

      They almost nearly answer your points in two of their prepared FAQs. Hopefully, in the future they go all the way and craft a perfect video of less than one minute in length which proves the point. For now, please read the FAQs. I’m quoting parts of them, but you must take the time to give a full and honest reading of any argument before you try to rebut it. So read the full FAQs and not just the quotes.

      FAQ 8: “What is nanothermite and could it have been used to demolish the WTC skyscrapers?”

      We find that thermite has in fact been used to demolish steel structures in the past. For example, Popular Mechanics itself documents[1] that thermite was used in the demolition of structures such as the Skyride Tower in Chicago and the dome of the German Reichstag. Furthermore, experiments conducted by civil engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that ordinary thermate can be used to effectively cut through steel columns [2]. And as described earlier, the effectiveness of nanothermite is much higher than that of ordinary thermate.

      [1] http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/575-popular-mechanics-ignores-its-own-historical-records-of-thermite-demolition-destruction-of-skyride-towers-reichstag-dome-set-incendiary-precedent.html

      [2] http://www.911blogger.com/news/2010-11-10/911-experiments-great-thermate-debate

      FAQ #4: “Sounds of explosions?”

      As 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.com, the continuous and rapid explosions of the Twin Towers would make distinct explosions nearly impossible to hear, except perhaps by those who were right next to the Towers [3]. A news clip from Fox shows witnesses in midtown NYC stating that the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise sounded like “another large aircraft flying overhead” [4]. These roaring sound waves were heard miles away.Furthermore, sounds strongly suggesting explosions can indeed be heard in numerous videos of the towers’ destruction, including these videos of WTC 1 and WTC 2 obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies [5].Those who would still contend the sounds heard on 9/11 were not on par with acknowledged controlled demolitions should note a peer-reviewed paper by Danish chemist Niels Harrit, Ph.D., and other scientists, which documented that active thermitic materials were present in the WTC dust. The partially ignited and unignited residue of this energetic material indicates that thermite and nanothermite played a significant role in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. The literature on these materials states that their shockwave characteristics can be “tuned” for various purposes, which might include reducing the overall volume or sharpness of the blast sounds. Such a capability would make these materials ideal for use in “deceptive” controlled demolitions, in which the muted blast sounds would instinctively be blamed by at least some observers on the buildings’ floors hitting each other as part of a “natural” collapse.

      [3] http://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html
      [4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er9SOzS_pL0
      [5] http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist

      And finally: please don’t feel so persecuted from now on. Maybe the reason you get banned from forums is for being such a sorehead and loudmouth who doesn’t listen well enough to others, not because you are right and people have to ban you so that they can go on living in an imaginary conspiracy world.

    • Albury Smith says:

      The yarn just gets sillier by the minute. I usually get banned just for very politely suggesting that they decide whatever their miracle substance du jour is and demonstrate it on a typical WTC core column on video with audio. 11 of the 24 core columns in WTC 7 were W14 X 730s, as were the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
      Gage is great at dropping empty cardboard boxes on each other while lying about collapse times, but doesn’t care much for actually demonstrating his malarkey for us.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Was NIST’s lead investigator lying when he told NOVA that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Dr. Sunder obviously mistook debris times for collapse zone times. NIST did not model complete tower collapses, and did not time them.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Dr. Sunder is a PhD structural engineer. Do you think he doesn’t know the difference between loose debris and a collapsing structure? The NIST report says the buildings came down “essentially in free fall”. Your denial is ridiculous.

      NIST certainly DID model the collapses. We know that because they told us that their models did not converge on a single solution. You make up your facts, Mr. Smith. Why would anyone do that?

    • Albury Smith says:

      NIST did not model whole tower collapses and fully explained why. Dr. Sunder has an ScD, not a PhD, and was obviously referring to the loose debris that really was free falling. Even top SEs with doctorates from MIT make occasional mistakes in front of groups of people. If NIST believed in divining the causes of building collapses by timing them, I’m sure his times would’ve been accurate.

    • ACE ACME says:

      You didn’t answer my question, Mr. Smith. . Do you think that Dr. Sunder doesn’t know the difference between loose debris and a collapsing structure?

      Dr. Sunder was NOT referring to loose debris. He said THE BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

      Anyone who has knowledge of the 1st law of thermodynamics recognizes its relevance to the duration of a building “collapse”, Mr. Smith. I’m truly sorry that you never took the opportunity to inform yourself.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Dr. Sunder was mistaken, now wasn’t he?
      You get credit for a GOTCHA!!!

    • Math & Physics says:

      Gage is a disinformation agent, as is the jones brothers steven and alex, along w/ their cousin jesse. All of these hayseeds want people to continue believing commercial airliners hit the WTC.
      “nano-thermite” is a red herring coined for MSM to promote the great carpetbagger’s HOAX. Dimitri Khalezov explained the details in 05′, 1,2 & 7 were taken down by underground nuclear fission. Hard to cover up, yet the gullible hayseeds can’t see the forest for the trees.

    • Bilbo says:

      Hi Albury,

      The peer-reviewed papers you are referring to include more than just the paper regarding the nanothermite found in the WTC dust. They also include analysis of the collapse of all three buildings and why the official explanations don’t adequately explain why they collapsed. If you want to say that the authors are liars, I can’t stop you. But I think most reasonable people would find your reaction to be rather unreasonable. Not sure what the links you provided are supposed to show.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Those are just links to W14 X 730s like the 11 of 24 core columns in WTC 7 and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core that you think were secretly cut with explosives (or is it incendiaries today?) in busy Manhattan. They only have 4.91″ flanges and 3.07″ webs of solid steel, so let’s see how it was done — on video, with audio.
      NO “nanothermite” was found in the WTC dust — your crackpots were “reminded” of it by rust, aluminum, sulfur, etc. The Bentham “Active Thermitic Materials…” paper’s a farce.
      Here’s the ONLY peer-review of that one:

    • Bilbo says:

      Hi Albury,

      We know that only a very small minority of the steel columns were saved by NIST from being shipped away and recycled in China. I wouldn’t expect them to save the parts of the columns that were demolished by nanothermite. However, FEMA saved a couple of pieces and did a metallurgical analysis of them:

      And the NIST engineer (John Gross) who claimed that he didn’t know anything about melted steel was proven a liar:

    • Bilbo says:


      Yes, the editor resigned, but nowhere did she say that there was anything wrong with the content of the paper. Most likely, she was under pressure to resign because of the controversial nature of the paper.

    • Albury Smith says:

      The paper’s not controversial at all; it’s completely asinine, which is why Dr. Pileni resigned as pay-to-publish Bentham’s editor-in-chief. The “researchers” discovered that there was rust, sulfur, aluminum, etc. in some WTC dust samples, concluded that it “reminded” them of thermitic material, and presented no exemplars of anything for comparison. They also claimed that their new miracle substance was painted on the steel as a “highly energetic coating” or “nice adherent film” and somehow miraculously all migrated to a straight diagonal line and secretly cut through it.
      Jones had previously used photos in his “Why Indeed…” paper of WTC columns cut with oxyacetylene torches as “evidence.”

    • Albury Smith says:

      Dr. Gross was asked by the 9/11 troofer down at UT Austin about “pools of molten STEEL,” and simply gave the guy the melting point of steel and asked him for proof that it was steel. I don’t know whether any of the steel at JFK is W14 X 730 columns, but they’re easy enough to get new. Just stand one up and show us your hypothesis on video with audio. 215 sq in. of solid steel should be no problem. If your miracle stuff keeps steel molten for three months, you’ve proven that one too.
      Go for it.

    • Albury Smith says:

      My comment debunking your spin on what Dr. Gross told the 9/11 troofer at UT Austin has disappeared, unfortunately. In short, pools of molten anything in the WTC debris fires are not evidence of explosives or even incendiaries; they don’t stay hot for more than a few minutes, and the molten metal was observed for months. Dr. Gross did not lie to the guy — he simply asked him for proof that it was steel, since no temps recorded there were hot enough to melt it.
      Hope you see this before it also disappears…

    • ACE ACME says:

      “Troofer” is “civil” on Planet Albury, I suppose. Dr. Gross said he never heard that anyone had seen melted steel. Yes, he restricted his answer to “pools” of melted steel, but it was dishonest of him to
      claim ignorance of pools of steel and not explain that people saw melted steel that was not in pools. It was in the FEMA report, and it was in the New York Times.

      Leslie Robertson had told the story twice about seeing molten steel. There’s a photo showing Dr. Gross in the steel junkyard next to a piece of the melted “swiss cheese” steel.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Dr. Gross asked the UT Austin guy for evidence that it was STEEL. Les Robertson is not a metallurgist or a 9/11 troofer; he’s a surviving SE of record for both WTC towers who’d gladly explain to you why his huge buildings collapsed from fire on 9/11/01.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Do your homework. There was melted steel. The FEMA report says so. Dr. Astaneh photographed melted girders.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Do yours. Explosives and incendiaries don’t keep any metal molten for months, and NIST fully addressed the possibility of molten steel in item #13 here:

    • ACE ACME says:

      How do you know that explosives and incendiaries don’t keep metal molten for months? When did you become an expert?

      NIST’s #13 “answer” so blatantly dodges the questions that it’s a joke, Mr. Smith.

    • Albury Smith says:

      You’re the thermodynamics expert, so please tell me which explosives and incendiaries keep metal molten for months.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Your riddle is an argument for the need for new investigations, Mr. Smith. The second law of thermodynamics is the one relevant to the molten steel in the rubble pile. Your homework load is growing.

    • Bilbo says:

      Both your most recent comments and mine seem to have disappeared, Albury. Are they trying to give us a hint?

    • Albury Smith says:

      The moderator has given me more than a hint. It’s possible that polite and rational comments here are unwelcome.

    • Minchoff Gomorkovsky says:

      In case you place better credence in links ending with “.gov”, here is a small excerpt from the lawrence livermore reporting of research on energetic materials back in the year 2000:

      “Energetic nanocomposites have a fuel component and an oxidizer component mixed together. One example is a gel made of an oxidizer with a fuel embedded in the pores of the gel. In one such material (termed a thermite pyrotechnic), iron oxide gel reacts with metallic aluminum particles to release an enormous amount of heat. “These reactions typically produce temperatures in excess of 3,500 degrees Celsius,” says Simpson.”


    • Albury Smith says:

      Is that the one Jones, Harrit, et al. claimed they were “reminded” of by the rust, sulfur, aluminum, etc. they discovered in some WTC dust samples? I thought they were reminded of a high explosive, not an incendiary. Since they didn’t bother to provide any exemplars in their Bentham farce and no WTC steel was cut by either one, I guess it’s really moot.
      I’d place better credence on seeing how either one works on a typical W14 X 730 WTC core column:
      but they’re not to keen on the idea for some reason…

    • Minchoff Gomorkovsky says:

      not at all Alby, that was a link indicating that, even in open disclosure, military R&D was working with thermite, and of course, it establishes for us the 3500 deg C temp. The paper you refer to is at this link and shows the microscopic distribution of materials within the WTC dust particles indicative of state of the art nano tech manufacturing processes. found here: http://www.bollyn.com/public/Active_Thermite_at_WTC.pdf

    • andy says:

      Chris Bollyn was too far gone for even the Jew hating,Holocaust denying American Free Press nutjobs.
      In case you gave a hoot..

    • Albury Smith says:

      I’ve read the paper and it’s a sham. Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni read it too:
      http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html Your 9/11 “researchers” were reminded of something by rust, sulfur, and aluminum, and she was reminded to resign in disgust immediately from her editor-in-chief position at Bentham.
      Bollyn’s a one-trick pony who blames da Joos for everything bad including al Qaeda suicide attacks. Great sources.

    • Minchoff Gomorkovsky says:

      Alby, I’m interested to hear specifically what part of the paper you consider a sham and why. Are your credentials in nano-science and physical chemistry so strong that you can provide strong arguments to counter the conclusions or methods of the researchers? I read the paper and it seemed to me to be rather well structured and logical in its conclusions.

      I looked at the article link you posted regarding Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni and, contrary to your implication, she had no scientific refutations of the content of the paper whatsoever. Here is the exact text from the link you provided in case you missed it:

      “Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.”

    • Albury Smith says:

      You only read part of it, Minchy Gomy. Does a highly-respected physical chemist and nanochemistry expert usually just resign because the nonsense in a sham paper lies outside of his or her field of expertise? Does Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni’s field include knowing what rust, sulfur, aluminum, etc. “remind” some crackpots of? Don’t real scientific papers show exemplars of their discoveries?
      Try painting some of their miraculous discovery on the 4.91″ flanges and 3.07″ web of a W14 X 730 WTC core column and let me know how it all works out for you. Several coats may be needed for one of these:

    • Minchoff Gomorkovsky says:

      I think you missed my point entirely here Alby, that being that Dr Pileni through her own admission stated that this area of science is NOT within her area of expertise and therefore she has NO issues with the content of the scientific study other than the fact that it was published in a journal she had responsibility for without her knowledge.

      As for your continuation of the argument that the size of the core columns precludes the possibility of their destruction by thermite based pyrotechnics, I have already indicated that the core columns would most likely have been attacked at their weakest points, the junctures between the core columns and lateral structure. So instead of a picture of a massive core column as you present to substantiate your claim, see if you can find a picture of the juncture points.

    • Albury Smith says:

      I didn’t claim that “the [massive] size of the [W14 X 730 WTC] core columns precludes the possibility of their destruction by thermite based pyrotechnics,” Minchy Gomy; I simply said I want to see it demonstrated on video with audio. The cause-divining nonsense from your 9/11 “truth movement” obviates your “junctures [connections]” scenario.
      Junk science is not in any serious research scientist’s field of expertise.

    • Minchoff Gomorkovsky says:

      As for your insistence that the applied thermite pyrotechnic had to cut through the core columns, I doubt that anything was targeted directly at the core columns when all that was needed was to melt away the connecting points.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Exactly. NIST says that one girder falling off its seat started a chain reaction that brought WTC7 down. The girder seat was 1″ thick and 12″ long and ^” to 10″ wide. Less than 50 pounds of steel to melt.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Great thinking; the Local 40 & 361 ironworkers who erected the WTC hi-rises and removed the debris steel after the collapses were all blind and stupid or “in on it” too…

  41. Matt Prather says:

    I think your reasoning here is obtuse.

    I don’t take issue with any of the facts you stated, but the problem is they still don’t nearly explain the building collapse.

    Unless the fires all over Building 7 caused the steel to fail in several key places at once, the observed collapse is not consistent with buckling or warping.

    Such buckling and warping would cause a slower collapse, and it would be partial to the sections held by the point of buckling. (Unless you want to try say with a straight face that they failed due to fire at every key point of the building at the same time, allowing it to fall neatly straight down.) Fire-caused destruction would be more entropic and occur in multiple phases.

    That’s one thing that makes so many people on the “conspiracy” side exasperated with the other side: Building 7 went from standing to straight-free-fall in one moment, and yet you want to pedantically argue that because it’s possible for steel to weaken and break before the melting point, that such failure could possibly explain the sudden collapse we saw.

    • Albury Smith says:

      The triggering event in a global building collapse does not impact the fall rate. Trying to divine the causes of building collapses by timing them ignores simple collapse dynamics and is laughably inane.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Your response is completely inane, you realize?

    • Albury Smith says:

      It would only be inane to someone totally ignorant of simple collapse dynamics. One-Trick Chandler should try his asinine PhysicsToolKit divining technique on a real C/D. All of the columns aren’t cut with explosives, and most of the uppermost floors collapse solely or almost solely from GRAVITY, so One-Trick should be able to analyze the acceleration and tell us exactly where all of the charges were placed and where they weren’t.
      He didn’t care much for my suggestion:
      (Turn on the audio there and learn something.)

    • Rozza says:

      The physical evidence comes first the criminal investigation after that which should follow the evidence. Oh that’s right sequential logic isn’t required in the official 9/11 world. Nice attempt at derailing the logic of observed reality onto the red herring merry go round of conjecture.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Try this logic: Since the ae911″truth” theory is secret C/D, ask Richard Gage* and his 9/11 “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
      If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
      *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

    • hb091666 says:

      Yes, complete nonsense!

    • ACE ACME says:

      Thanks for revealing your ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics, Mr. Smith.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Thanks for revealing your ignorance of collapse dynamics and showing us your ability to spell “thermodynamics” correctly, despite confusing it with mechanical phenomena.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Where do you get the idea that mechanical phenomena are immune to the laws of thermodynamics, Mr. Smith?

      I’ll tell you: you get the idea from Albury University, where you teach yourself everything you know and you never need to take a test or write a paper or do any problem sets.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Where do you get the idea that you know anything about mechanical phenomena or thermodynamics?

    • ACE ACME says:

      From college courses I completed and from considerable life experience afterwards. Where do you get the idea that mechanical phenomena are immune to the laws of thermodynamics, Mr. Smith?

      I think your investigation of thermodynamics stopped with with your assumption that it only applies to heat. Every scientist in the world knows that assumption is laughable.

  42. Jack Hamilton says:

    Tell me one just thing since you seem to have bought the official propaganda; why did the BBC broadcast live at 5:00 PM that the Salomon Bros. Bldg. (WTC 7), had collapsed (with WTC 7 clearly still standing in the background) when, in fact WTC 7 didn’t come down (at free-fall speed into it’s own footprint, I might add), until 5:19? It seems that the BBC was prematurely reading their script.

  43. lieswon'tend says:

    It’s quite obvious cognitive dissonance is a extreme problem in the US and always will be.

  44. lieswon'tend says:

    Lol I can’t help but laugh!!! All it takes to realize it was a clear cut demolition is going on YouTube and typing in “WTC 7 collapse.” Not only can you see the squibs of the charges going off, in some videos you can see the flashes of light from the charges. If you have actually taken any physics or engineering classes you would know a building can’t fall at free fall due to floors hitting one another unless the supporting columns are severed, which is exactly what demolition experts do to bring down old buildings. You realize the entire 47 story building fell in 6.7 seconds right? Even NIST admits it fell in free fall speed for at least 2 full seconds…. Do I need to continue? Keep buying the government version of “melting steel” making a it collapse in perfect symmetry. I can’t put into words how delusional people are who buy a second of the “official story,” its sickening….

  45. Tosman says:

    “The mayor, a liberal named Bill DeBlasio, has not had kind things to say
    about the effort”

    Other city mayors have not had kind things to say about the successful ReThink911 media campaign.

    My favorite clip was of the sock puppet and the billboard in The Story the Times Missed video:

    The Official ReThink911 Video is only 5 minutes:

  46. John says:

    You obviously are NOT clear about hat happened. If what you say is true, Bldg 7 would have leaned slowly to one side and then collapsed asymmetrically. This was NOT what we saw happen. Not to mention the collapse was announced on the BBC 25 minutes before it actually occurred. Looks like someone doesn’t know exactly what happened.

  47. slobotnavich says:

    Thanks for this cogent comment, though I doubt that it’ll satisfy the fevered ravings of all the wacko conspiracy theorists.

  48. You left out the part where you become a certified Delphi technique propagandist.

  49. andy says:

    Matthew,at any minute a slew of maniacs will pipe in with the predictable “but there were only a few small fires” and the like.You can time your watch by these saps.

    You can waylay them (and possibly save them from a serious waste of their own time) by directing them to a youtube video, “Steve Spak Building 7 footage”,which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were serious fires in that building.Skip ahead o the 6 minute mark for the footage of the south side of the building with smoke pouring from virtually every floor.

    It’s a shame that the Controlled Demolition Cult is so chock full of liars.

    • It is also a shame that they are the only ones who passed high school physics.

    • MS34 says:

      Let’s assume it was the fires that brought down WTC7. How do you also explain the freefall collapse into its own footprint? If the steel weakened from raging office fires it’s simply not plausible to believe everything would’ve given way to allow it to collapse uniformly into its own footprint.

      You people are braindead bootlickers.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Now now, Andy; have you never heard of FIREPROOF demolition explosives? :-)

    • Greta says:

      What, you haven’t? Explosives are manufactured with different sensitivities–some won’t explode in fire, only when properly detonated. Your “common sense” is 100% wrong.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Are they also made plane-proof and to explode silently?

    • Greta says:

      They can be made to resist shock in addition to heat, yes. Silent, no. BUT thermite will thin steel with molten iron making it possible for a smaller amount of explosives to trigger failure. In addition, many of the explosives were detonated timed with other events like the plane crashes and “collapses” (actually demolitions) of the other buildings. In the north tower you can even see an explosion that occurs simultaneously with the second plane impact, and that’s in addition to the explosions in the basement (blamed on the miracle jet fuel that also caused a huge fireball outside the building and according to you lit several floors on fire) that occurred simultaneously with the first plane impact. During the “collapses” there is a continuous deafening roar that is by no means silent.

    • Albury Smith says:

      ~9500 gallons of jet fuel lit several floors on fire according to many eyewitness accounts, videos, and photos too:
      ~140-ton 767s going ~440 0r ~540 mph make pretty loud explosions, but nothing compared to cutter charges that are heard for 15 miles or more. Do ~500,000 TON hi-rises collapse silently from more than 1/4 mile up in your little fantasy world too?

    • ACE ACME says:

      Is “your little fantasy world” civil on Planet Albury?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Always. Am I now the topic here?

  50. andy says:

    Ted Walter having a meltdown after spending too much time in his office fielding phone calls from his handlers at Urantia,Inc.:


  51. Eye Spy says:

    The reason no one can find the people who executed 9/11 is that most of them were mossad and are back in Israel wiping their lips after so much children’s blood has been spilt in their latest operation. If you look closely you will find that Israelis can slip in and out of the US with impunity. All courtesy of your Israel firsters that run Congress, the Democraps, Repuglicans, Code Pink, Human No Rights Watch, Hollywood, etc etc

    • Douglas Kelly says:

      There is nearly irrefutable evidence of this. Mossad is really only a handful of people, but to remain absolutely secret, it does its work by using others under false flags all over the world. They are very clever indeed. And they have spied and conducted espionage in the US almost at will and with impunity, as you say.

      Mossad could have easily convinced a dozen young nut cases from Saudi Arabia to do this for their homeland and for Saudi Arabia under the false flag of Saudi Arabia, and they would have no way of knowing the difference if they were convinced their lives would be in danger if anyone learned of it — especially anyone from Saudi Arabia.

      I contend that if bin Laden had really conducted this act in order to bring down America, as has been said, he and his well-financed organization could easily have done this simultaneously in four or five different cities. That would have brought America to its knees. Bin Laden could afford the cost and if he could pull off one act, why stop there? Considering the simple strategy to accomplish his ostensible goal, it makes no sense that he would not do this. Therefore, I doubt very much that he did. And Bush sent the military to Afghanistan to find him “to bring him to justice”, but yet the greatest military and intelligence agency in the world could not find one man in more than ten years. Think about that.

      I also contend that bin Laden would not have done this while his family was in the US. He would not jeopardize his family. Interestingly, Bush knew exactly where his family was at the time, and why not? The bin Ladens and the Bushs have been close friends since Prescott Bush arranged the first oil deals with King Fisal and the Saudis in the 1920s. So Bush flew the bin Laden family out of the country immediately, the only flight allowed that day. Curiouser and curiouser. Why weren’t they held as persons of interest as any others would be in the same circumstances?

      Looking at the evidence provided by hundreds of structural engineers and demolition experts agreeing these buildings did not fall because of the planes hitting them, and with the knowledge that there is a warehouse in New Jersey full of items collected from 9/11, leased by the Israeli government, which is restricted with no access by anyone, one can only conclude that the whole thing is a cover-up. Strange that the 9/11 Commission never asked about the contents of this warehouse, since tons of evidence are stored there.

      If anyone has read the “Official Report on 9/11” as I have, it is obvious throughout the report that it is a story that was simply made up out of whole cloth. It does not have the ring of truth nor are the proper connections made to prove anything. But then neither did the Warren Commission’s report in which bullets are shown to have made ninety degree turns in mid-flight and a man shot in the back has no exit wounds in his front.

      You can bet that nothing will come of this valiant attempt at getting the truth, just as nothing has come of any investigations into the assassination of John F Kennedy. But Mark Lane, one of the most inquisitive of the investigators spent years in the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri, in the psych ward.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Negative, simply do some research on the pax lists of those four airliners.

      Not guilty parties, simply a highly contained operation where the parties who would put this plan together had no idea what was about to transpire.

      Just do the research, unless you are too lazy. (I’ve explained this many, many times over the years, so you can google the pertinent key words and my signon and you can find out the easy way, but doing the research on your own would be more beneficial.)

  52. andy says:

    Paranoid nuts always call Mark Roberts an “agent” or a “shill” or a disinfo creep,but he’s really just a working stiff from New York and his extensively sourced paper on #7 (“wtc7lies”,you can google it) thoroughly demolishes,implodes,shellacks and vaporizes the idea that the tower was blown up by Larry Silverstein,the FDNY or whatever the Controlled Demolition Cult is saying this year.

    Anyone actually interested in truth and facts and not just bandwagoning behind a bunch of hustlers owes it to themselves to read this information,which is kryptonite for front men like Ted Walter,who is actually Pinocchio to the Urantia gang’s Geppetto.
    Before you get roped into sending money for this scam in NYC find out what a bunch of malarkey it is.

    • Rozza says:

      So you’ve been reduced to name calling. Perhaps you could try to one day learn to use classical physics to understand events in the macro physical world rather than saying nasty names like a petulant child.

    • andy says:

      Get back to us after you read the paper,dingbat.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Maybe you can explain why polite and mild-mannered debunker Mark Roberts has had his life threatened by 9/11 troofers:

    • ACE ACME says:

      How do you know it was was “troofers” who threatened him? Maybe some buddy of Mark’s made anonymous threats to give Mark something to talk about. Did you ever consider that?

    • Matt Prather says:

      I just read the linked page.

      Sorry to admit it, but it’s plausible to me that most of those are real quotes. I have seen angry people using such self-defeating rhetoric many times.

      Talk is cheap and easy and so many “life threatening” statements (“I’d hang this traitor myself!” etc.) are actually made without any potential for fulfillment, so they aren’t really true threats as such.

      But still, a person has a right to worry that any one of them could be from someone with the potential to fulfill their rhetoric.

      I should add that I only believe that the cheap comments made from anonymous individuals on forums are mostly genuine statements (made by an angry person genuinely, not by a false agent trying to make the other side look bad). For me to believe that a more public individual like a founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth actually said what was reported in that link, I would need more proof.

      Angry, belligerent, “life threatening” statements come from both sides of the debate — “troofer-haters” have said similar things to the objects of their hate.

      This low level of discourse is very self-deating, and has zero prospects for either side to win over the other — everyone goes on believing the same thing, now with more hatred and disdain (and fear if they actually believe their life to be threatened) than before.

      I’ve realized all this many times before, after failed debates with people who believe ignorant things about 9/11 and profess them loudly for truth. And I’ve realized each time that proper convincing argumentation must be made with as much dignity in ourselves and conciliation for the others as possible. I must not hate people like Albury Smith, or mistreat people in the future who argue like he does.

      “There is room for everyone at the table of victory.” I like that phrase.

      That means that the best way to argue for 9/11 truth is in a way that allows for the people on the other side of the debate to sit at the table of victory with you in the near future, break bread, and laugh about the mistaken anger you both felt back when you were arguing.

      Unfortunately, I already feel like I have again failed to argue in that manner this week in this forum. Again I go through the cycle of presenting my case in debate and failing to convince any one on the other side to change, and feeling like part of the problem afterwards.

      The truth is on the side of the “it was an inside job” camp, though many here in the camp believe un-true things for irrational reasons, and many here behave badly toward the other side which says “the official story is mostly true; virtually all of the theories of malignant conspiracy are much farther from the truth than the official story.”

      And we’d better start learning to argue better, if we are ever to achieve any change as we want to see come from a 9/11 Truth Movement.

    • ACE ACME says:

      But how do you know the anonymous quotes came from truthers?

    • Matt Prather says:

      You mean all of them?

      I don’t.

      I’ve met people in real life who have used such heated rhetoric. . . .

      And then, people tend to more easily use extreme words when they hear others say them first. Thus it’s possible that no person who ever genuinely used death rhetoric on the subject of 9/11 disinformation agents did it without having been encouraged by the non-genuine words of provocateurs.

      But (1) I just know that there’s some deserved blame for some truthers. Even if it’s just the extremest (most extreme) sort of genocidal “Jews are so bad they need to be exterminated” person who also believes in 9/11 conspiracy on top of his genocidal agenda, there are some truthers who go to far.

      And (2) there’s no need for me to insist that none these anonymous quotes could have come from truthers. Bad custodians of an argument are not sufficient proof to say that an argument is wrong, so they don’t un-prove 9/11 Truth, which is what I care about. So I simply apologize for the existence of truthers who make truthers look bad to a majority of outsiders, and remind all truthers to bring their best attitude to the table.

      But the direct answer to you question is that I don’t know that the anonymous quotes came from truthers. Just that “most” of them could very well be.

    • Albury Smith says:

      I’ve caught their act myself, and Roberts documented their threats on his life:

    • ACE ACME says:

      You didn’t answer my question. How do you know that anonymous threats came from truthers?

    • Albury Smith says:

      I already did. Mark Roberts did too.

    • ACE ACME says:

      Right, you don’t know the anonymous threats came from truthers. They came from anonymous people.

  53. disqus_eEbPU3IGDU says:

    There are just too many problems with the official view regarding the September 11 attacks. Too many unanswered questions. Too many questions that refuse to go away. It’s time for an investigation, this time a real investigation.

  54. prov6yahoo says:

    George Carlin said it best – “The investigators NEVER investigate themselves.” If the thieving class (gubment) cannot stop the ballot initiative then they will just have another fake 9/11 Commission, just like they had with the first one, along with the fake Warren Commission for JFK.
    The real bottom line here is that We The People have to come to the understanding that as long as there is government, that government will stage, and take advantage of, crises in order to justify there existence/paychecks.

  55. slobotnavich says:

    This has to be the one of the most ridiculous wacko conspiracy theories ever promulgated by deranged conspiracy theorists, an alarming number of whom are also UFO believers. A fire started by 50,000 gallons of JP-4 could certainly cause any steel-framed building to collapse once the burning contents added their heat to the conflagration. For some reason certain people always want to believe that dark and powerful unseen forces are always manipulating events, that nothing ever is as it clearly seems, and that any random occurrence is never merely random but a carefully orchestrated event caused by shadowy conspirators. Thus, the Titanic was actually sunk, not by an iceberg, but by shipping competitors who paid crewmen to open petcocks flooding the hull…..

    • Saul says:

      “50,000 gallons of JP-4 could certainly cause any steel-framed building
      to collapse once the burning contents added their heat to the
      conflagration.” That`s an interesting hypothesis considering it`s only ever happened three times in human history,all three in one day.But the twin towers aside,it does not explain building 7.A furniture fire would not make two dozen structural steel pillars yield at exactly the same time in perfect symmetry and allow the building to fall in it`s own footprint at free fall speed.Thast is ludicrous.Add to that the suspicious circumstances of Silverstein`s admission on video,the ‘terrorism’ insurance applied at such an opportune time,the reports of witnesses hearing explosions,the BBC`s HUGE gaffe,and….my God man!Just who is the conspiracy theorist here?

    • andy says:

      You are.

      And besides,only a sap actually believes that Silverstein admitted anything.

    • He didn’t have to admit anything, just collect the insurance payments on buildings he didn’t own.

    • lieswon'tend says:

      Mr. Andy the delusional

    • Albury Smith says:

      Why did Swiss Re, Lloyd’s, Copenhagen Re, Zurich Financial, and at least 8 other major insurance companies all pay Silverstein a total of ~$4.68 BILLION for his 9/11-related losses? It covered ~1/2 of them, factoring in his mandatory rebuilding costs, loss of tenants and cash flow for years, etc.

    • He did pretty well for the loss of a building he was just leasing. This is similar to employers who take out life insurance on their employees.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Only if you completely ignore his mandatory rebuilding costs, loss of tenants and cash flow for more than a decade, etc. I wouldn’t recommend a career in real estate investment for you…

    • Why would he rebuild a building that he didn’t own, especially when it would have cost more to remove the asbestos than it was worth, which is a pretty good justification for getting someone else to tear it down for you, and charge it off to a well covered false flag terrorist attack.

    • Albury Smith says:

      He was CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to rebuild, and NONE of the 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises had an asbestos problem. The code changed before the South Tower was closed in, and after the bottom 38 floors of the North Tower had ACM, most of which was removed during tenant fit-outs before 2001. Silverstein Properties built WTC 7 in 1986-’87, ~16 YEARS after the code revision went into effect.
      Is your imaginary 9/11 perp the owner/lessee who lost BILLIONS, the evil US gubmint that was as good as in Afghanistan as soon as UA 175 hit the South Tower, the evil Israelis whose principal enemy is and was Iran, all of them in an amazing secret plot to gain nothing, or does it just change constantly?

    • sgtdoom says:

      Excellent point, since that so-called Dodd-Frank “financial reform” legislation includes a loophole (actually, quite a few major loopholes) to allow the major banks to take out insurance on their employees, and JPMorgan Chase filed a patent, BOLI, or Bank Owned Life Insurance, which means they made a bundle on all those recent and strange deaths of their banking people.

    • Saul says:

      Anyone with a funtional brain can find the video on youtube.I quote,”I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
      telling me that they were not sure
      they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said,
      “We’ve had such terrible loss of life,
      maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.”
      And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” Take it from a former army field engineer,”pull’ or “pull it’ is slang demolition speak,just as it is on a firing range.Maybe you should put on your funny little hat and exercise your right of return.

    • andy says:

      Yes,Sir.Very much so,Sir,Obviously insane.

    • Albury Smith says:

      In the 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Larry Silverstein said this about building 7 on 9/11:

      “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that THEY WERE NOT SURE THEY WERE GONNA BE ABLE TO CONTAIN THE FIRE, and I said, WE’VE HAD SUCH A TERRIBLE LOSS OF LIFE, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And THEY [the FDNY!] made that decision to pull and then we watched the building
      –L. Silverstein

      -regarding the term “pull it”:
      We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with.” -Brent Blanchard of Protec in “A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint”

      (check it yourself on any demolition contractor’s web site.)

      -What was the Silverstein Properties and the FDNY’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for eight years and counting, spending almost the entire $861 million insurance settlement on obligatory replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?

      -Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime if he publicly admitted to defrauding them, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich, and London?

      -How did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for the

      -If the explosives were pre-planted, and were what Barry Jennings heard around 10 AM, why was there any discussion in mid-afternoon about whether or not to
      demolish it with the other apparently fireproof ones a few stories higher?

      -Do controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?

      -Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends?

      -Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?

      -Is the FDNY in the controlled demolition business?

      -Please link me to a C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” to refer to building demolition using explosives.

      -Why doesn’t UL agree with Kevin Ryan about the WTC steel, why was
      his lawsuit thrown out of court, and why did he change the wording in Silverstein’s statement to make it appear that he and the FDNY were complicit in a major felony, when Mr. Silverstein clearly and unambiguously said that “THEY,” i.e. the FDNY, made the decision?

      -How does the “terrible loss of life” (in the WTC tower collapses) referenced by
      Silverstein affect a later decision to demolish a burning building across the
      street with no one in it?

      -There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long (~52′) girder and (~47′) beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a ~200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of ConEd’s equipment. This ~$314.5 million lawsuit by ConEd and a half dozen of its insurance companies:


      was ONLY for NEGLIGENCE, and the plaintiffs LOST. No mention at all in that court summary of secret C/D.


    • Greta says:

      Here is why, in addition to helping out his friends in Likud… http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3497

    • Albury Smith says:

      That’s funny; you answered none of my questions there. Are all of his 12+ insurance companies “his friends in Likud” too? Swiss Re? Lloyd’s” Zurich? Copenhagen Re? They all paid him a total of ~$4.68 BILLION to cover ~1/2 of his 9/11-related losses, so they must be REALLY GREAT friends.

    • andy says:

      Plus,you’re actually still stuck on thinking that the FDNY “made that decision” to blow up the tower.
      Maybe you need to stop pulling your pud.

    • sgtdoom says:

      There you go again, bringing facts into the discussion, this always gets their panties in a bunch!

    • Truman says:

      Peppering a flatly false assertion with insults and strong language doesn’t make it any less false. Your “jet fuel + other stuff” explanation lacks any rational or scientific merit and also completely fails in the face of the evidence? What evidence? Every other steel skyscraper in the history of ever. No fire ever can, ever has nor ever will bring down a steel structure. Not even when you factor in your ridiculous “other stuff”. Scream as loud and insultingly as you wish. It won’t change this. We remain unmoved and you just look more and more foolish and desperate the louder you yell. Sorry.

      And spare me any ” witty” comebacks (which will be insults since that’s all you have). You are stuck in an argument 10 years debunked. I have no further time for you.

    • the_locust says:

      Guess what, dude. That’s not the Titanic down there – not unless you think its name is spelled using the letters M and P, as shown in video taken by a submersible.
      It was a “titanic” insurance scam, substituting the sister-ship Olympic .
      Thanks for bringing this into the discussion.

      Everything important that our government says is a LIE.
      And why not, when fools like you will believe what you’re told to believe.

    • disqus_eEbPU3IGDU says:

      Good point. The evidence suggests that JP Morgan switched the identities of the Titanic and the Olympic, then had the Olympic, now renamed the Titanic, blown up to collect on the insurance.

    • Given the Gulf of Tonkin, are you sure there is even a ship down there?

    • slobotnavich says:

      Amazing how they’ve been able to keep this quiet all these years. Why, there must be hundreds of thousands in on this conspiracy, perhaps millions! Just goes to show how we’re surrounded on all sides by dark and powerful evil forces.

    • sgtdoom says:

      The number was 23, you clown!

      Try doing some research for once in your life instead of spouting the same script over and over and over again.

    • Albury Smith says:

      You should research this timeless mystery:
      If anyone can crack that case, it’s a 9/11 troofer.

    • Maynard says:

      Says the ostrich with its head in the sand.

    • bert says:

      that’s all well and good, but what you fail to entertain in your insults is the fact that iraq was destabilized falong with all of the middle east now for NO reason because of this false flag, we are guarding poppy fields for NO reason because of this false flag, the unpatriot act was created with all it’s totalitarian and authoritarian anti-freedom nonsense because of this false flag, and homeland insecurity (now the national police force) was created because of this false flag.

    • Aside from the fact that JP4 burns hotter than anything else in any of the towers, but still not hot enough to soften, let alone melt, construction grade steel girders, no steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire.

    • slobotnavich says:

      Few steel-framed buildings could survive the enormous structural damage from a half-million pound aircraft hitting it at 300+mph, thus seriously deforming and compromising its structural integrity, plus having its interior structure then subjected to the heat generated by perhaps 50,000 gallons of flaming Jet-A. Do you actually think that, during the construction of the Twin Towers, crews somehow planted an elaborate arrangement of explosives, with related wiring, fuses, and detonators in the buildings that nobody noticed? Or that the janitorial service employed by the Port Authority maintenance people (and doubtless also by al Queda) somehow sneaked tens of thousand of pounds of HE, detonators, and thousands of feet of det-cord into the interior structure of the building, then set it off just as the plane crashed into it? Pulease!

    • Draebe Killas says:

      No, building 7 was not constructed with the demolition devices in place. Those were installed when the CIA moved in. On the day of destruction (the day after it was announced that $2.2 trillion could not be accounted for by the Pentagram) Building 7 housed exclusively government agencies and financial institutions.

      IRS, CIA, SEC, Secret Service, Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management

      It would be a rather safe bet information that could lead to that “missing” $2.2 trillion would be found in that building. Hence the importance of it not surviving.

      This building was not hit by an aircraft. Jet fuel played absolutely no part in its collapse.

    • Albury Smith says:

      So the IRS, SEC, Secret Service, and Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management wanted the CIA to destroy their workplaces, personal belongings, etc.? Gee, I thought it was the owner’s brilliant idea to destroy his 14 year-old, nearly fully-occupied Manhattan office hi-rise, lose all of his tenants and a decade of cash flow, and bear the ~$800 million expense of rebuilding and starting over.
      The ~$2.3 trillion referenced by the SecDef was from decades of waste, contractor and DoD fraud, and other long-term problems, not a miraculous money-grab of trillions of dollars by a few evil perpetrators. The records of it exist in many offices all over the US, as well as in computer files, and the task of investigating all of it will never be done, regardless of a fire-induced NYC hi-rise collapse.
      How strange that one of your imaginary perps would publicly announce the alleged motive right before WTC 7 collapsed.

    • Albury Smith says:

      He lost BILLIONs on the 9/11 al Qaeda suicide attacks, even with the ~$4.68 billion from 12 or more insurance companies. Any thoughts on why Swiss Re, Lloyd’s Zurich Financial, Copenhagen Re, and at least 8 other major insurers all paid him that ~$4.68 billion?

    • andy says:

      That building was hit by heavy debris from #1.
      Your point about no aircraft hitting it is a very large and ungainly red herring.

    • All airliners are eggs with wings, the cockpit being reinforced so it can withstand a collision with a large bird, not so much skyscrapers. None of them can maneuver at 300 mph at sea level without losing a wing. Don’t you think that Silverstein knew someobe who knew how to “pull” a building discreetly? HE wouldn’t have been stable after decades of heat inside the frame closets. It wouldn’t have taken tens of thousands of pounds of thermate to cut the girders and produce the squibs that can be clearly seen on zoomed in footage of the collapses. Most of the fuel was consumed in the fireball, for shock and awe. All of the fire was starved of oxygen, as indicated by the billows of black smoke, whuch would have been a relatively cold fire.
      Are you a descendent of Saul Alinsky or just a wannabe manipulator?

    • Albury Smith says:

      ~9,500 gallons of fuel per airliner, but obviously enough to start massive fires instantly over tens of thousands of square feet of furnished office space.
      9/11 truther nuts only show photos of the impact sides of the WTC towers because the planes pushed most of the combustibles to the opposite or adjacent (in the South Tower) sides.

    • Greta says:

      And also to pour down 1000 feet of non-continuous elevator shafts to account for the explosions in the basement as you claim?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Actually ~1200′ in the North Tower. Elevator #50 and several others were express elevators, and there were no reports of doors being blown off in the basement from non-continuous shafts. Your explosives are now plane-proof, fire-proof, silent just prior to collapse, work from 1200 or so feet away from where the NT collapse started, don’t collapse the basement until the rest of the tower lands on it, burn people’s skin off, stink of jet fuel, and take 1 hour and ~42 minutes to work.
      You really need to patent them.

    • ACE ACME says:

      The towers were designed to survive the impact from a 4-engine jetliner flying at 600 mph–and the resultant fires.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Common office fires burn more than hot enough to turn steel floor joists into noodles. The floor framing in both towers and WTC 7 was extremely long span and lightweight.
      Ask the FDNY and the Local 40 & 361 ironworkers why those steel-framed NYC hi-rises collapsed.

    • Joists are not similar to girders, being very lightweight pieces of common steel or wood that merely support other structures by connecting them to the main frame or foundation of a building.
      This is like saying that the frame of a car failed because the mirror fell off.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Car mirrors don’t span 60+ feet and support heavy concrete slabs and live loads. The towers’ bar joists had no component heavier than the 3″ x 3″ x 1/4″ structural angles for top chords and the 1.09″ diameter cross bracing, and weighed ~24#/foot. They were very quickly toast in those fires.

    • Draebe Killas says:

      Building 7 was not hit by an aircraft. There was no jet fuel inside.

      Why do you insist on believing the conspiracy theory that debris and normal fire caused a building to collapse in on its own footprint?

      The twin towers, based on their age, would have been constructed differently. The steel reinforcements had no coating to protect them from the wet concrete, allowing them to rust. Aircraft are made from aluminum.

      Aluminum + rust = thermite.

      Official “theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true.

      In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

      The term [conspiracy theory/ist] was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

      In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.”

    • slobotnavich says:

      Actually, these camel-jockeys did in fact spend several hours in a couple of 727 simulators, declining to spend any time on “landing and taking off.” That this didn’t of itself alarm the FAA was remarkable. If all you’re trying to is direct an airplane into a large structure little skill or proficiency is required, as Japanese Kamikaze pilots with as little as 2-3 hours flying time proved repeatedly in WW II.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Your lack of high school physics is once again showing.
      There’s no disputing that fires could have taken, and did take place, but the collapse of the building was an anomoly, just as the steady-state collapse of the Twin Towers was also an anomoly.

    • slobotnavich says:

      An anomoly doubtless caused by tens of thousands of small explosive charges installed during the construction process that somehow went unnoticed by the perhaps 10,000 construction workers involved in the project…unless, of course, they were all in on it!!
      That must be it, truly a conspiracy of unimaginable dimensions, one in which tens of thousands of people had to be paid off in order to insure their silence!

    • ACE ACME says:

      You’re loading the issue with false assumptions–there was no 50,000 gallons of jet fuel. There was 11,000 in each plane, and much of it burned up in the fireballs outside the buildings.

      Where do you get the idea that demolition charges were planted when the towers were constructed?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Here are more anomalies for you:
      How should fire-induced building collapses “really” look?

  56. Lady Val says:

    This is not a “either/or” matter. The planes DID hit the buildings (I saw the second plane hit!) so that is not up for question. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean that the buildings were not actually brought down to the ground by some very different means other than being hit by the planes. The method of destruction was far too “pat” for my liking from the beginning. Also, my husband worked for a time in the North Tower during the Y2K hysteria and he said that there were an astonishingly few people in the buildings at that time on a weekday morning.

    Then there are little stories such as the female supervisor for the MTA who stopped all subway traffic into the WTC station VERY early on before anyone realized that this was an attack rather than an accident. I had always believed that she had the courage and foresight to step in and prevent more commuters from going into harm’s way, but it is also possible that she had her orders, especially if the claim that there were large amounts of explosives in the basement of the buildings is true.

    What I have learned about the Oklahoma City bombing has also caused me to rethink the possibility of this being a false flag operation. After all, our government has been involved in such things for over 150 years, starting with Fort Sumter and going on to Cuba and Hawaii. Depending upon what the scenario was, I do not doubt for a moment that this could well have been the means by which to convince Americans that they had to lose a few liberties to be assured of their safety.

    • John Does two and three probably have sinecures in the White House now.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Gravity just has a way of being “pat.”

    • Lady Val says:

      Anyone involved in demolition will testify that it takes considerable expertise to bring a building down on its “footprint” – and there were THREE such brought down on 9/11.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Anyone involved in REAL explosive demolition will testify that the 9/11 “truth movement” is fos. It just plain doesn’t happen secretly:
      especially in furnished and fully-occupied office hi-rises in NYC.

    • Lady Val says:

      Please get and view the DVD the Honorable Lie. It’s about the Oklahoma City bombing and you will discover that it IS possible to prepare a building for demolition “secretly” if you have the resources.

    • Albury Smith says:

      McVeigh’s demolition technique wasn’t very secret after the fact, now was it? Was OK City another “false flag” attack as an excuse to execute that loathsome pos?

    • Lady Val says:

      Watch the DVD if you have the courage to do so.

    • Albury Smith says:


    • Lady Val says:

      Yes, COURAGE. It take moral courage to give an objective hearing to something about which you disagree. Roll your eyes all you like but get back to me when you prove yourself man enough to challenge your own opinions.

    • Albury Smith says:

      So Timothy McVeigh just went to his death by lethal injection for what some other evil S.O.B. did? Why didn’t he plead not guilty, pray tell? Do innocent people use the “necessity defense,” i.e. claim they did something because they feared the evil US gubmint?

    • There was one witness to his execution that said she didn’t know that people kept breathing after they were dead. Her appearance was stricken from following reports. Maybe he had to catch up to the two John Does who rode with him in the truck.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Yeah, THAT’S IT! You’re an idiot.

    • McVeigh didn’t build the bomb that blew the glass OUT of the building or cut the support pillars all across the front of the building. He just drove and parked the truck and walked away from it with two John Does that the FBI never bothered to look for, probably because they went onto their next covert operations.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Always wear at least TWO of these, shiny side OUT for BOTH layers:

    • Using that premise, I’d have to assume that you haven’t heard of the Manhattan Project or the Kennedy assassination, either.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Were Oswald’s JFK assassination and the US development of the crude nuclear weapons used against Japan secret conspiracies too? The Manhattan Project is old news, as is the overwhelming evidence that LH Oswald bought, owned, and fired the ONLY gun used to assassinate JFK.

    • Hmmm says:

      The first JFK conspiracy theory, paid for by a CIA – On Nov 23/63, the CIA linked the accused assassin Oswald to Castro:

    • sgtdoom says:

      Actually, and I’m not disputing what you say, but the Twin Towers’ architecture was such that this was the only matter in which to bring them down, since they were built around a central core, with a thinner outer structural membrane.

    • Lady Val says:

      I am not saying that this was some conspiracy, but sadly, I’ve seen, heard and read too many such conspiracies from Roger Stone’s “Who Killed Kennedy” to the DVD mentioned (The Honorable Lie) and there are so MANY “unexplained” events (and dead witnesses) that I can not discount our government’s involvement no matter who flew the planes. Did you know that the FBI was informed by one flight school about the Muslims asking to learn simply how to fly a big jet but not to take off and land – and that agency wasn’t interested? Does THAT make sense?

    • sgtdoom says:

      You are referring to SAC Colleen Rowley and FBI agent Sinder (if my memory of his name is correct).

      According to the Moussaioui trial transcrpts (public domain knowledge and free to all paid trolls such as this Allbury clown), Agents Rowley and Sinder contacted the FBI’s counter-terrorism office, manned by Frasca and Maltbie, over one hundred times, and were either refused or ignored each of those occasions.

      And yes, I most certainly do believe it to be a multi-trillion dollar conspiracy involving the movement of trillions of DoD funds offshore to hedge funds and various offshore finance center holding operations.

      Follow the money and it leads to individuals within the Office of the VP, the Office of the SecDef, the Blackstone Group, Veritas Capital and AIG.

      And one need simply research the backgrounds of those passengers aboard those four airliners to understand why no one came forward with technical knowledge of the 9/11/01 operation, but the official Cheney/Bush conspiracy theorists always refuse to do so.

  57. notalent says:

    George W. Bush said, “Nobody in our government… could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.” This, despite NORAD’s admission to running several drills of exactly that for the two years prior to 911, and quite possibly on the actual day of September 11th.

    Surveying the massive destruction at the WTC complex (not just 1, 2 and 7), I wonder why there hasn’t been a push to severely restrict the 28,000 daily commercial flights in the US? These deadly craft would be enough to destroy any number of cities or military targets, right?

    Anyway, I hope this petition gets through, Shine a light on this mess.

    • That is why visionaries seldom work for governments.

    • Albury Smith says:

      NORAD had NEVER run a 9/11-scenario drill prior to 9/11/01, and had only its usual TWO ARMED F15s on standby at Otis AFB and TWO ARMED F16s on standby at Langley AFB that day. Because of al Qaeda’s SUICIDE attacks on the US, who and what goes aboard commercial airliners is now restricted.

    • notalent says:

      From the April, 18th 2004 edition of the USA today headline……. “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons”

      “WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties”

      By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

      You’re just as much a “conspiracy theorist’ as anyone else on this site, and perhaps the most fervent believer.

    • sgtdoom says:

      On that very morning, the NRO was conducting an exercise where multiple planes were flown into their operations center facility.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Rpt: NORAD had NEVER run a 9/11-scenario drill prior to (or on) 9/11/01. Whatever drills were being conducted that morning were with UNARMED planes; NORAD still had only its usual TWO ARMED F15s on standby at Otis AFB and TWO ARMED F16s on standby at Langley AFB.

    • You forgot the fighter jet that was scrambled from a base in Montana and completed his mission after the failsafe period expired, spreading an airliner over several miles in Pennsylvania. They made a movie from a different script…

    • Albury Smith says:

      That must’ve been the imaginary NORAD fighter the voices in your head told you about. There’s an easy remedy:

    • NORAD doesn’t have any equipment or personnel. It is an association between the militaries of the United States and Canada. It was a United States Air Force fighter jet that blew the airliner out of the air, after it refused to be escorted by it.

    • Albury Smith says:

      What airliner, pray tell, was blown out of the air by the evil US military in your latest 9/11 wet dream?

    • The one that was scattered over several miles of Pennsylvania, as happens when planes explode in the air, contrary to the one that disappeared on contact with the ground, along with the passengers.

    • Albury Smith says:

      ~96% of UA 93 was recovered from the soft fill dirt at the abandoned strip mine near Shanksville, PA. All of the passengers and crew were forensically identified, as were some of the 4 hijackers. Some of the lightweight debris like papers, etc. was found as far as a mile or so downwind of the crash site, but the FDR and CVR clearly indicated exactly what happened aboard that airliner, as do the 37 phone calls to relatives, friends, and the “Let’s roll” phone call from Todd Beamer to Verizon’s Lisa Jefferson*. 35 of the 37 documented calls were from Airfones; the other 2 were made from cell phones at low altitude right before the crash.

      What’s especially stupid about the yarn that it exploded in the air is the fact that Deadeye had finally issued a shoot-down order, and NORAD would’ve been more than willing to accept the credit and blame for shooting down one of the four hijacked airliners if they actually had.

      * http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/2006/06/I-Promised-I-Wouldnt-Hang-Up.aspx

  58. Josh Mitteldorf says:

    Of course they have to resist this ballot initiative with every gun in their arsenal. Once the story of 9/11 comes unraveled, it will lead inevitably to the whole house of cards. A lot of very powerful people will be revealed as gangsters. The entire “war on terror” is a fraud, not a mistake. The rise of the NSA and the closing down of the American press will come to light as plans conceived and executed at monstrous cost to the American people and American way of life.

    They can’t afford to let the light in. It is cheaper and less embarrassing to stop the ballot initiative at this stage than to stack another committee with paid shills, to bribe another round of experts and to stage-manage another whitewash.

    • slobotnavich says:

      God, reading all these conspiracy theorist posts makes me wonder whether the average IQ of Americans really is 98-100. No doubt of it, the entire American press corps, left, right, and center has been effectively muzzled by the FBI, CIA, DIA, and all local and state police forces, the entire press corps (all of whom we know are really in on it), and all good and patriotic Americans are too intimidated to speak out on the matter. Yup, no doubt of it, the conspirators are keeping a tight lid on it, lest the truth get out and powerful people (whomever “they” may be) would be destroyed. Doubtless “da Jooz” are behind it all.

    • rapedexploited says:


    • You missed Delphi technique implementer.

    • Saul says:

      “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — William Colby, former director of the CIA (1973-1976)

      “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” — US official quoted in Carl Cameron’s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

    • lieswon'tend says:

      My god you have no hope……. DO RESEARCH!!
      There have been plenty of leakers and whistleblowers over the past years, but of course the main stream media won’t report on things like that. They are made out to be “outrageous conspiracy theorists, nut jobs, etc.” And think how do you learn about things… through the media WAKE UP MAN!!!

    • It doesn’t matter what your IQ is if you are ignorant and gullible enough to believe everything you are told by someone who works for a government or the military-industrial complex. Most of ‘da Jooz’ are just as ignorant and gullible as they were when their ancestors boarded trains to be taken to nice safe concentration camps. Most Americans will do likewise when DHS comes to “evacuate” them.

    • N. Furthermore says:

      The engineering issues in the debate are beyond my technical knowledge, but the “muzzling” of the press is a much simpler issue.

      Careerist motivations among reporters are massively powerful and require no conspiratorial management from above. People in the news media know that it is very bad for their careers to go against the grain, and they know that parroting the gov’t line – especially on intelligence and national security issues – is the safe route, and the way to get access for interviewing high-level officials

      Many mainstream press reporters are obviously just cheerleaders. A perfect example of this can be found in Glenn Greenwald’s article this week at The Intercept about a National Public Radio reporter shilling for the CIA.

    • sgtdoom says:

      So all those reporters like Amber Lyons and Cris Hedges, etc., who were either fired because they printed the truth (or resigned like Hedges because the NYT refused to allow him to do so) are figments of our imagination?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Why does your 9/11 “truth movement” ban sane and rational comments on its “forums,” Josh? I’m not even allowed to ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to show us on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215
      sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
      If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
      *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
      Shouldn’t a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) educational organization EDUCATE people instead of silencing them and removing their comments?

  59. Steve Brown says:

    So no other high rise has ever collapsed from fire. But has any other high rise on fire ever been allowed to burn uncontrollably?

    • Truman says:

      There are many examples of skyscrapers experiencing raging fires, some lasting over 20 hours. You can find the news clips all over the internet. Most are so violent and out of control they make the building 7 fires look pitiful. Nonetheless NONE of these buildings fell, not even partially. WTC 1,2 & 7 are the only 3 steel buildings to EVER collapse from “fires”. This being the case there are still things to be learned even if you buy the ” fire” theory. Overwhelming evidence says jet fuel alone could not be responsible. So what was behind this unprecedented fire? And why don’t the keepers of the official narrative want to investigate? There are many other skyscrapers in NYC. Wouldn’t one want to know all they can for the safety of these building and their occupants? Why don’t they?

    • Bob Conway says:

      It wasn’t just the fires, but the deformation of vertical support columns from the kinetic energy of those two aircraft. The WTC1 and WTC2 towers probably would still be standing otherwise, or would have been brought down later as condemned structures.

      WTC7 is a different matter, and that’s what is at issue with this ballot measure.

    • The planes collapsed long before they could transfer any kinetic energy to the cores.

    • Albury Smith says:

      WHAT? Good lord…

    • Even the Mythbusters are afraid to investigate.

    • Albury Smith says:

      No hi-rise fire in history except in WTC 7 has ever been in one with beam spans over 52′, girder spans over 47′, asymmetrical framing, simple 4-bolt gravity connections to core columns, and a water main to sprinklers and fire hoses shattered by a nearby hi-rise collapse. Overwhelming evidence says jet fuel alone WAS NOT responsible for any of the 3 fire-induced WTC hi-rise collapses.

    • Lee Chen says:

      On the evening of Feb 8, 2008 I watched the Beijing Mandarin Oriental (MOH) hotel burn, completely, from top to bottom for over five and a half hours while emitting flames over 10 meters high. I clearly heard numerous explosions coming from within the building (not from fireworks in the area) during this time. While a few fire crews were spraying water onto several bottom floors, the rest of the tower was an inferno completely out-of-control.

      The MOH building did not turn into pyroclastic-appearing clouds of billowing dust and a deep hole in the ground at any time thereafter. Very unlike 2 WTC and 1 WTC, which I also watched dissolve away less than seven years earlier. Nor like 7 WTC which symmetrically collapsed into a neat pile two stories high (the spectacle of which I actually missed). No emergency workers ran about screaming that the “building is coming down”. No officious entity decided to “just pull it”.

      Two months later structural engineers reported that x-ray surveys revealed absolutely no deformation nor damage to the base structure of MOH. Cleanup began immediately thereafter and the building was eventually completed and is in 100% use today.

      Five and a half hours of raging, out-of-control fire and a 40-story building of ‘Made in China’ quality and materials emerged relatively unscathed.

      That MOH building was intended to be a hotel with some marketing gimmickry (e.g. movie theatres, studios, etc). 7 WTC had FBI, Secret Service, NYC Office of Emergency Management, and a CIA station among many others.

      Cui bono?

    • Albury Smith says:

      For the 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Larry Silverstein said this about WTC 7 on 9/11:

      “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that THEY WERE NOT SURE THEY WERE GONNA BE ABLE TO CONTAIN THE FIRE, and I said, WE’VE HAD SUCH A TERRIBLE LOSS OF LIFE, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And THEY [the FDNY!] made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
      –L. Silverstein

      -regarding the term “pull it”:

      We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with.” -Brent Blanchard of Protec in “A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint”


      (check it yourself on any demolition contractor’s
      web site.)

      What was the Silverstein Properties and the FDNY’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for eight years and counting, spending almost the entire $861 million insurance settlement on obligatory replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?

      Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime if he publicly admitted to defrauding them, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich, and London?

      How did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for the demolition?

      If the explosives were pre-planted, and were what Barry Jennings heard around 10 AM, why was there any discussion in mid-afternoon about whether or not to demolish it with the other apparently fireproof ones a few stories

      Do controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?

      Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends?

      Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?

      Is the FDNY in the controlled demolition business?

      Please link me to any C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” to refer to building demolition using explosives.

      Why doesn’t UL agree with Kevin Ryan about the WTC steel, why was his lawsuit thrown out of court, and why did he have to change the wording in Silverstein’s statement to make it appear that he and the FDNY were complicit in a major felony, when Mr. Silverstein clearly and unambiguously said that “THEY,” i.e. the FDNY, made the decision?


      How does the “terrible loss of life”(in the WTC
      tower collapses) referenced by Silverstein affect a later decision to demolish a burning building across the street with no one in it?

      There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at
      the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long (~52′) girder and (~47′) beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a ~200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of ConEd’s equipment. This ~$314.5 million lawsuit by ConEd and a half dozen of its insurance companies:


      was ONLY for NEGLIGENCE, and the plaintiffs LOST. No mention at all in that court summary of secret C/D.


    • Yes, in Spain. You do know how to use a search engine, don’t you?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Not a good example for your 9/11 “truth movement.” The steel-framed portion of Madrid’s Windsor Tower that was exposed to the fires collapsed completely; the steel-reinforced poured-in-place concrete core prevented a total collapse.
      Read & learn:

    • It is interesting that none of the claims at the link you provide are supported by any corroboration at all, the typical situation when the Delphi technique is the plan.

    • Albury Smith says:

      What part of those totally-corroborated accounts of other fire-induced collapses of steel-framed buildings didn’t you understand?

    • Corroboration requires more than a mention, it requires a valid citation, and you include no citations at all. Flicker can’t do your due diligence, especially when it is down.

    • Albury Smith says:

      ALL of those steel-framed building collapses were solely fire-induced and can be verified by many other sources. I can’t do your due diligence for you if you’re just going to ignore it.

    • I can’t find what you imagined.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Those solely fire-induced collapses of steel-framed buildings were not just “imagined.” It’s fortunate that you’re not a forensic SE.

    • Albury Smith says:

      You’re being deliberately obtuse. Should fireproofing and sprinklers be written out of all steel-framed hi-rise building codes?

  60. anarchyst says:

    …look up “dancing Israelis and 9-11” (yes, dancing Israelis). The mossad is arguably one of the finest spy agencies in the world. Yes, they could have (and had) pulled off this “false flag” operation. According to the “dancing Israelis”, terrorism ahd come home and “was our problem now”.

    • slobotnavich says:

      It’s true that some Israelis and other Jews were celebrating the event, not because they were glad to see many Americans die, but because they rightly assumed that it would draw this nation into the conflict in general against Middle Eastern terrorists. And no, I’m not a Yid, just a hard-right Presbyterian conservative who uses smart Jewish accountants and lawyers to protect me from the depredations of the US government.

    • The Mossad attacked the USS Liberty for similar reasons.

    • slobotnavich says:

      I’ve always agreed with that theory. The Liberty was unmistakably flying the American flag when it was repeatedly attacked by Israeli jets for several hours. The Israelis didn’t want their “official” version of how the Six-Day war started contradicted by information from a US intelligence ship.

    • That wasn’t the motivation for the attack, which wouldn’t have been necessary if LBJ had merely ordered it out of intel range. They still claim that they mistook it for a much older Eqyptian warship, and LBJ called off rescues until the IDF was done. Then all of the ship’s crew was ordered to STFU or be court martialled. Now that they are much older and closer to death, many are telling their stories, on websites like honorlibertyvets.org

    • Albury Smith says:

      You just love to make sh*t up, don’t you? LBJ had no time for this alleged order, and “if all of the ship’s crew was ordered to STFU or be court martialled,” they certainly didn’t get the message, now did they? Many of them are still very outspokenly furious about nearly being killed, but were in no position to know anything about the mistaken identity incident.

    • Albury Smith says:

      You must know more than every US president and congress since 1967.

    • slobotnavich says:

      Actually, I believe they know it too but are so terrified of AIPAC that they refuse to investigate the matter. The Israelis were fully aware that the Liberty was an American vessel and that they were killing American sailors with their repeated attacks on it. Whether this was to conceal the fact that they in fact started the Six-Day War and were afraid that information gathered by the Liberty would contradict their false version of events, or whether they feared that we’d transmit their intentions to their enemies in the Middle East I can’t say. But that they knew it was an American Naval vessel prominently flying a large and unmistakable American flag was and remains beyond dispute.

    • Albury Smith says:

      If your absurd claim were true, the USS Liberty would’ve gone down in seconds with no survivors or distress calls. The Six-Day War was started by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, a very well-documented FACT that’s uncontested by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. They’ve also been unsupportive of Hamas during its latest unprovoked attacks on Israel.

    • slobotnavich says:

      You’re right in one respect – had the Israeli jets been armed with the appropriate armament for attacking shipping the Liberty would have been destroyed promptly. As it was they attacked it mainly with 20mm cannon fire and (as I recall, perhaps inaccurately) napalm and CBUs. And they attacked it repeatedly and over an extended period.

    • Albury Smith says:

      So why didn’t they sink it? The Israeli jets WOULD HAVE been carrying and deploying the appropriate armament in a hurry if the attack was deliberate.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Need to check with the Israeli administration then in power, but I believe Golda Meir is dead?

    • Albury Smith says:

      That’s what usually happens to people in their late 70s. Is Golda Meir’s death a big mystery to you too?

    • sgtdoom says:

      Israeli pilots later admitted to this, you don’t get out much do you?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Da Joos don’t do al Qaeda SUICIDE attacks on Israel’s most powerful ally.
      From OBL’s 1998 (second) fatwa: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God [blah, blah, blah…]'”

  61. PunchDrunkLove says:

    I flirted with 9/11 truth back in 2006-08 but the further you go with the theory the less it holds together, by the time you’re done you have to believe in some pretty incredible things to fit it in with the inside job theory, IE you have to believe that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people were involved in the plot and not one of them blew the whistle or exposed it, I know someone is going to use the Manhattan project to counter this, but there is a distinction, the people involved in the MP thought they were doing something that benefitted the country.

    Also you then find yourself having to believe the phone calls from the plane were faked, you get to a point and think “i’m just making stuff up to fit my conclusion and confirm my bias” (ironically this is what the official story tellers and truthers both have in common!).

    For these reasons alone I don’t believe 9/11 was a TOTAL inside job, that theory is preposterous, logistically it would be impossible to carry out without being busted, however I still don’t buy the official story as told by the 9/11 commission (even the people who wrote the damn thing don’t!).

    • Some Guy says:

      Impossible… Like the sinking of the Lusitania, or the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, or the War in Iraq, or Syrian Government using chemical weapons. Yeah… there is no way a whole lot of people could believe that doing harm to their country could lie and believe that killing innocents would help the country.

    • PunchDrunkLove says:

      Here comes the sarcasm and non sequiturs, what next “go and do some research” ?

      a total inside job including the wiring of the buildings, the remote flying of airplanes, the faking phones calls and so on and so on would require massive teams of people.

      and then you have to explain why the hell they’d use saudis as the
      patsies! the US government goes to great lengths to stop any criticism
      of saudi arabia, why would they frame up saudis for the attack ? why not
      enemy number 1 saddam ? (who they had to lie about having ties to 9/11)

      Just because they’ve lied about other stuff doesn’t mean they carried out 9/11! i know they’ve lied lots of times, and they’re lying about 9/11! (mostly lying by omission) we just disagree about what they’re lying about.

      There’s your version of 9/11, there’s their version of 9/11 and then there’s the truth! the truthers and official story tellers both peddle the same BS!.

    • notalent says:

      This seems like the kind of posting that just kills any reasonable discussion. I’m not sure if that was your point.

    • Ian Harbison says:

      The two countries who seemed to benefit the most from 9/11 were Saudi Arabia and Israel. They benefit from the increased US support and protection as “allies” in Middle Eastern policy.

    • Albury Smith says:

      If any country benefited at all from the 9/11/01 al Qaeda suicide attacks on the US, it was Afghanistan. Mullah Omar and his Taliban thugs weren’t beloved by all of the citizenry, and more than a trillion dollars in nation-building was well-received by most of them.
      The problems will start when the evil US pulls out and peace-loving and tolerant ISIL moves in.

    • Truman says:

      I don’t disagree with your last statement. But it also applies to the points you make above it which are also total speculation. So it all comes back to the central premise: why not relentlessly investigate everything until we do know the complete unfettered truth? Its a simple concept. Seems suspicious when the so called ‘crazies’ want that but those claiming the rational high ground don’t. Its disingenuous to point to the most ridiculous theories as justification for not investigating the yet unanswered questions. “My” version is that we don’t have all the facts but want them. Is this really so kooky? Video footage exists that would answer every outstanding question. Why has it been so deeply suppressed when if it would fully collaborate the official story without dignifying any other kooky theories?

    • bert says:

      your supposition is false. you have no idea how false flag conspiracies work, none!!

    • lieswon'tend says:

      You said it best “Go and do some research” so now go and do it….
      Its a scientific fact that thermite was used to bring down the buildings, it was in every dust that covered the downtown NY area, samples collected that very day. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about like the majority of Americans when it comes to 9/11. The government and main stream media paints people who don’t buy the official 9/11 fairy tale out to be crazy, nut job, whack jobs and they’ve done a damn good job of it. Its time you did your research and wake up. My best guess is you like the greater majority of America suffers from cognitive dissonance.

    • lieswon'tend says:

      Man my hangover grammar is on the struggle bus today.

    • Some Guy says:

      I mean… I never claimed to know what actually happened. There is little in the realm of trust within the government and it has a track record of lying and keeping things from the populace.

      There is nothing either group could produce (save government documents showing complicity) that could convince either group of their oppositions position.

      All that I believe is that there should have been a more thorough investigation… and that however the totality of 9/11 was executed… It is impossible to believe that the government knew nothing. Especially given that they had documentation of such an impending attack prior to 9/11.

      I don’t know if people wired the building…. or if Saudi’s were complicit or framed… I don’t know if it was a foreign attack allowed to happen (the most likely if I had to guess) or if Aliens directed the whole thing.

      My personal position is that I am skeptical of the line of thinking that purports that the government knew nothing and had no hand whatsoever. That in the scheme of history is unbelievable.

    • PunchDrunkLove says:

      and non of those examples required the USG to actually directly kill huge numbers of their own population inside the USoA, they just required lies and manipulation through propaganda.

      the iraq war would have happened without 9/11, it certainly helped to sell it, but they would have found another way to justify it.

      at some level there may have been a blind eye turned to the imping attack, they MAY have thought that a terror attack wouldn’t be the worst thing to push their agenda, but even that theory have flaws, IE donald rumsfeld, who every truther agrees would have been in on the plot, was actually at the pentagon on 9/11, would he really go into work knowing a plane was going to hit the building at some point ? i doubt it.

    • Maynard says:

      “the iraq war would have happened without 9/11” Perhaps, but would the PATRIOT ACT have come about without it and the subsequent abuses of domestic government power in the so-called war on terror?

    • The Patriot Act was gathering dust on a shelf before it was passed.

    • lieswon'tend says:

      Try looking up “Operation Northwoods”…. JFK didn’t allow this false flag to happen when is entire supporting staff was clamoring for it. Ultimately lead to his assassination a little while later by the CIA and shadow government that actually rules this country.

    • Albury Smith says:

      How many thousands of people in the US would’ve been murdered if the rejected Northwoods operation had been implemented by the evil US gubmint?
      Why were LHO’s fingerprints on the murder weapon found exactly where he worked? Was the photo of him with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in his hands photoshopped in 1963? Was his receipt for it faked? Why did the “real” perps let him run around in Dallas right after the killing instead of offing him so he wouldn’t spill the beans on them?

    • russbaker says:

      Mr. Smith, we don’t know what to make of your opinions re Building 7. But your remarks about Oswald betray almost total ignorance of well established facts from testimony, books, etc. It is impossible even to begin to address such ignorance, starting with your lack of familiarity on the fingerprint issue. Please do your homework. Otherwise we may decline to give you a platform to post so very many comments here.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Did we notice that my alleged “almost total ignorance of well established facts from testimony, books, etc. [on LHO’s assassination of JFK]” was in the form of 4 questions that we didn’t bother to answer? I don’t know what to make of your opinion on WTC 7’s ~5:21 PM solely fire-induced collapse either, nor do I understand why we would silence someone for posting facts and evidence supportive of the NIST findings, but it happens frequently on “forums” run by the 9/11 “truth movement.”
      Why is that?

    • russbaker says:

      Since you are so active in expressing yourself, “we” wonder if you would be willing to identify yourself in some meaningful way, and since you know who “we” are. What is your real name? What is your profession? How did you come to be involved with these issues? Are you retired? What is your expertise? How are you able to post such a large number of detailed comments if you have some other employment? Please answer these questions seriously. It’s a prerequisite for your being permitted to post so extensively here. If you choose instead to just post more sarcastic comments, we reserve the right to push the “delete” button. Thanks for your cooperation.

    • Albury Smith says:

      We certainly are eager to suppress honest discussion, now aren’t we? ~45 years in commercial construction management and supervision, including a lot of field engineering. I’ve worked on a number of steel-framed buildings including some hi-rises.
      Do you ever wonder why Richard Gage has never presented his ludicrous dog-and-pony show in front of the Local 40 & 361 ironworkers who erected the WTC buildings and worked on the debris steel removal? I don’t. He wouldn’t go near their meetings, or an SEAoNY conference either. His own(?) AIA wants nothing to do with him, nor does the RIBA:
      Why is that, Russ, or have you read enough facts and reason now to ban me and remove my comments?

    • Matt Prather says:

      IE donald rumsfeld, who every truther agrees would have been in on the
      plot, was actually at the pentagon on 9/11, would he really go into work
      knowing a plane was going to hit the building at some point ? i doubt

      Well, I wish I had better evidence to actually sustain a belief that someone (anyone!) was definitely or probably in on it behind the scenes of the official story, but I just have to say that if Rumsfeld had inside knowledge (and, beside the point: desired that the attacks would happen), then he would also know where to be in the Pentagon to certainly avoid any danger. In fact, his position made him one of the safest people in the building: he was on the dead-opposite side of the impact, 1000 feet away from it, separated by almost as much concrete as possible.

    • Albury Smith says:

      How would anyone inside the Pentagon have known where Hanjour was going to decide to hit? He overflew and had to try again at lower altitude, and that could have come from any direction. 125 people inside the Pentagon were killed by the crash, some of whom were undoubtedly close acquaintances and friends of the SecDef.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Listen, clown, if there was an actual suicide pilot he would have flown into the top, dead center, of the Pentagon’s roof, not dead center into the supposedly rehabbed west wall.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Your al Qaeda hero murdered 125 innocent people inside the Pentagon and 59 innocent passengers and crew aboard AA 77, “clown,” and succeeded in committing suicide with 4 of his AQ buddies too. Wasn’t that enough for you?

    • Matt Prather says:

      Well, I’ll speak hypothetically again here, because this is all merely plausible according to a theory that Rumsfeld desired that the attacks would happen, or that if he were ignorant of the “inside job”, then at least the insiders would arrange things to keep Rumsfeld safe.

      It’s true that the official story has Hanjour “overflying” and coming again at a lower alititude. That’s one way of putting it. Bit of a simplification or mis-statement though.

      Let me point out that the precision of his “coming again at a lower altitude” maneuver was surely the most expert bit of piloting of all the hijacks that day. He did a spiraling, helical sort of descent of ~5000 feet that was something like 315-330 degrees (so: a little shy of a full circle), levelling off ~2000 feet above ground to accelerate again towards the Pentagon, ramping down in altitude to come in nearly parallel to the ground at less than 100 feet.

      But now let me get back to the point. In my hypothetical vision, the insiders wanted one particular section of the Pentagon to be hit. In fact, this particular section was un-hypothetically the one best hardened against attack, and had only a fraction of its workers there that day, due to renovation work. You know, come to think of it, that sounds like the kind of place a military insider would choose to sacrifice, were a military insider having to choose.

      It would explain the pain-staking expert hijack flying maneuver, which you breeze over as “he overflew; had to try again,” as the plane had to be positioned precisely to hit the chosen location.

      As far as your assertion that Rumsfeld undoubtedly had close acquaintances and friends there, I would say that’s no more certain than the wave of your hand.

      A bit more certain would be to say that teams of accountants did die that day, one day after Rumsfeld’s famous announcement that trillions (thousands of billions) of budgeted money was un-accounted for. If Rumsfeld were a war-mongering villain, as someone said “all truthers believe,” then this would be a notable message to accountants that they must not get crazy ideas of impeding his sublime imperial war machine with earthly details like honest audits: you die, and we still go on with the business of war, with the majority consent of the nation, any questions?

      I’ll say finally, again, that this is just a story, a plausible interpretation of events that attempt to place Rumsfeld or other high-level insiders as masterminds of an inside job. This is all just leads and circumstance which I noted but couldn’t come up with real proof for.

    • Albury Smith says:

      GeeDubya, Deadeye, Rummy, etc. were asleep at the wheel when the al Qaeda suicide attacks occurred, not desiring that they’d happen. The “official story” is from AA 77’s FDR recovered inside the Pentagon. Your hero overflew and had to circle and try again.
      Here are more shills for the evil US gubmint:
      Weren’t 184 innocent victims enough for you? One 757 crash ANYWHERE would not wipe out all of the records of the ~$2.3 trillion in waste, fraud, errors, etc. that the DoD had accumulated over DECADES, and it was the least of Hanjour’s concerns.

    • Matt Prather says:

      How dare you call him my hero!?

      I’m shaking with anger.

      I won’t be replying to you further.

      You clearly did not understand the points I was making, and your attitude here and elsewhere all over the board is clearly: unclassy.

      You are a bad custodian of anti-truther arguments. I should have recognized that before replying to you. I did recognize it, but I had hoped for something different if I spoke clearly and precisely.

      I have seen your type before: you make it a mission to respond to every truther point with derision, CAPITAL LETTERS, and this whole attitude of “wow it’s laughable how dumb other people are; how easy and clear the truth is! the issue is so simple!” and use that attitude to carry half the weight of any point you try to make. As if it could.

      And then, of course, you miss the points of people who contradict you, and reply to them with more of the same derision and smarmy superiority.

      Sad. And it makes you a bad representative of your beliefs about 9/11. I and other truthers must work hard to forget people like you when we interact with the rest of the people who haven’t realized the inside job yet.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Were the 1998 al Qaeda SUICIDE attacks on the US embassies in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam and their 2000 SUICIDE attack on the USS Cole “inside job[s]” too? It is laughable how dumb other people are when they completely ignore the facts.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Why are you connecting the Iraqi War with the 9/11 attacks?

      The comptroller of the Pentagon announced that their auditing groupd (DIA’s Financial Management) had uncovered an unaccounted amount of $2.3 trillion in missing DoD funds, and that auditing group is almost completely wiped out when an airliner hits the central point of the Pentagon’s west wall, where they are in a most convenient meeting at that time.

      And how did they move those monies?

      Just examine the corporations situated where the two airliners struck the Twin Towers.

    • Some Guy says:

      The spot in the Pentagon that got hit was completely vacant save a few key personnel. It was under construction. Considering the level of protection the Pentagon offers as a building… I would say that while it is unlikely it is not altogether out of the realm of possibility.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Well done!
      And how many uncurious Americans (Ameritards?) to this very day realize that it was Carnegie and Schwab who sold those subs to the Germans which ended up sinking the Lusitania?

    • Some Guy says:

      I’ll be honest… I didn’t know. I’ve researched the historical aspects… but I’ve only recently got into tracking the money. “War is a Racket” turned me on to that aspect.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Gen. Smedley Butler, the last Real Marine!

      Historically, it was Gen. MacArthur (along with Eisenhower and Patton) who was responsible for the slaughter of over one hundred men, women and children at the Bonus Marchers Village.

      For a better idea of history, please read Sally Denton’s book, The Plots Against the President.

    • Josh Mitteldorf says:

      “Not one of them blew the whistle…”
      In fact, there have been thousands. Some have been murdered. Some have lost their jobs. But a lot are still screaming for air time, and some of them are continuing the slow and careful task of research and forensics.

    • Lee Chen says:

      Barry Jennings is an excellent example. While not exactly a “whistleblower” he was actually in the building on that day and refused to lie about it.



    • Albury Smith says:

      Here’s what a real explosive demolition sounds like:
      The people in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area who weren’t dead or comatose didn’t need a “whistle blower” like Jennings to tell them that demolition charges went off. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles would’ve seen the explosively-cut steel in the debris too.

    • Albury Smith says:

      These are some of the reasons why all of that “screaming for air time” is falling on deaf ears:
      The ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, SEAoNY, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, structuremag.org, ENR, etc. want nothing to do with your 9/11 “researchers” either, nor does the Uniformed Firefighters Association IAFF Local 94, or the Ironworker Locals 40 & 361.
      Here’s the ONLY “slow and careful task of research and forensics” done by your pals so far:

    • sgtdoom says:

      Funny how one year before, Structure Magazine ran a story on the reconstruction of the west wall of the Pengaton, and questioned why they were only rehabbing the west wall?

    • Albury Smith says:

      You’re fos, but what good did this alleged “reconstruction” do against a ~530 mph 757? Why didn’t you post a link to this alleged structuremag.org article, or do only 9/11 troofers know about it?

    • Albury Smith says:

      Here’s the only one who’s been murdered so far:
      Poor Jessie Evans was only 27 years old, just asking questions, and…KABOOM!!! How terribly tragic.
      PLEASE be extra careful around hi-rises, Josh.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Exactly so, at least three military officers committed career suicide by coming forward, one at a military base in Florida, one an associate dean at Monterey’s Defense Language Institute, and the third was an Army type, forget where he was stationed.

    • Diaz's cashed bowl says:

      “logistically it would be impossible to carry out without being busted”
      In this instance your reasoning is absolutely wrong.

      Did the nazis get busted for the reichstag fire? No.
      How about uss liberty USA was attacked by Israel but just ignored it.
      why? because ijn all three of these examples the victims/criminals were the ones doing the “review of select facts” the patriot act was already written b4 911, and if you read PNAC you will see that this is what they planned all along.

      And… was there an actual criminal investigation into 911? NO. Uhn uh, nada, zero, nothing.

      Before I go, do a search of April Gallop, ask yourself…

      Should April Gallop have gotten a different judge than John Walker Bush while she tried to sue Dick Cheney?

      well since that judge dismissed the case as “stupid” I would say yes, but you can’t pick the judges can you? But someone went out of their way to make sure that a close relative of the defendant was the one to judge this case.

    • sgtdoom says:

      you have to believe that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people were involved in the plot and not one of them blew the whistle or exposed it

      First, you are repeating the same scripted pablum we always hear, so I am skeptical about you from the get go.

      Secondly, that number is both stupid and silly.
      Easy to prove you wrong — you simply research the passenger lists on those four airliners involved that day.
      It was a highly contained operation, with those involved not knowing what the overall event was, simply doing their job working on counterterrorism plans, remote piloting hardware/software, etc.

      Just research those pax lists, and if you aren’t a complete and utter fool, it will become obvious.
      Three unique groups aboard those planes that day, three unique individuals (two of which were most likely victims of opportunity), the third a physicist with the directed energy office of the Naval Survace Weapons Center.

      Just do the homework sometime.

      Perps: Office of the VP, Office of the SecDef, Blackstone Group, Veritas Capital and AIG.

  62. Diaz's cashed bowl says:

    because I know a lot of you wont even bother to read it…
    from the initiative…

    “If approved by voters, it will require the NYC Department of Buildings
    to investigate high-rise building collapses in NYC that occurred on, or
    any time after, September 11, 2001. Its provisions exclude the collapse
    of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, but apply to the collapse of
    World Trade Center 7 and any high-rise collapse that may occur in the

    In case you missed it…

    “Its provisions exclude the collapse
    of the World Trade Center Twin Towers”

    Because a man wearing a harley shirt already determined ON 911 that the buildings collapsed because the fire was so hot. And anyone who doesn’t believe an actor on the street playing the part of an average harley shirt wearing red blooded american, is just not american are they?
    No need for any real intelligent non partisan people to look into that…
    And everyone knows that those 2 buildings collapsed from a terrorist attack, thats what the insurance company said when they paid out $7,000,000,000 to the Lease holder.

    • Albury Smith says:

      So the “Harley Guy” was the only one who sensibly concluded that the WTC tower collapses were fire-induced? The total payout to Silverstein Properties was ~$4.68 billion, and covered ~1/2 of the losses they suffered on 9/11, factoring in mandatory rebuildings and loss of tenants and cash flow for more than a decade.
      Here are some of the VERY intelligent and non-partisan people who actually investigated all 3 WTC hi-rise collapses:
      Their teams were ~2/3 CIVILIAN.

  63. tosman says:

    “NISTdeclined to state how the fires could bring down the building—and in such a rapid manner.”

    NIST did admit that WTC fell @ freefall after David Chandler pointed out this error in their initial report in a humorous way:

    “why a 47-story steel-frame skyscraper cannot collapse from fire, and watch the 15-minute video ‘Solving the Mystery of WTC 7’ ”

    I see that some videos and documentaries are getting some traction – PBS showed a documentary last year and Ed Asner talked about ‘Solving the Mystery of WTC 7’ on CBS Sunday Morning.

    Clips of Chandler and Jonathan Cole are seen on Ed Asner’s video. Cole’s videos ( http://911speakout.org/?page_id=10 ) describe the physics entertaining way ( in the back yard! ) while embarrassing institutions like the BBC,National Geographic, NIST and Myth Busters.

    “For many years, those who have been troubled by things that did not make sense , have been marginalized….A Skilled Communicator,Walter is a creature of the Internet Age.”

    Also a a creature of the Internet and a skilled communicator, Corbett gives you Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes:

  64. Beef Cake says:

    Either the coward American people take back their country right now or forever hold your peace.

  65. Cathleen McGuire says:

    Thank you so much for posting this story, Russ. You stand as a lone beacon in a sea of media sheep.

  66. blackwidow says:

    I read Family of Secrets and loved it. Thank you for covering 9-11.
    Finally more mainstream journalists are showing the courage to cover this issue in a respectable way. A that treats peoples honest questions with consideration. 9/11 truth is the answer to the chaos around the world today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

  67. sk1951 says:

    Your diagram does not account for all the windows being blown out on the right side in a straight line from bottom to top. Obvious demo but that stands out as a blazing red light.

  68. yomomma says:

    For the love of GOD, why does no one ever mention WTC 6? It blew up from 8 stories underground without ever being hit and as much as 1 TRILLION dollars in Kuwaiti gold was in the basement. Where is the gold? How did the building spontaneously and simultaneously just EXPLODE with the North Tower when it was hit by the plane?

  69. bunnyswanson says:

    Everyone knows 911 was an inside job. But it has been unfashionable to “Say it.” let’s end this nightmare and send the murderous traitors where they belong.

    • Peanutcat says:

      Who would that be? If everyone knows, then who’s responsible? Who should be charged and arrested?

    • Matt Prather says:

      Well, I like the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They can say for sure that there was controlled demolition occurring, quite apart from the plane hijack damage. This point itself merely establishes that “something other than” the official story is true.

      They then keep things at that point, not making erroneous conclusions outside of the most undeniable facts. They say “we don’t know who is behind this, and we would like to have a better investigation”. That’s quite reasonable.

      Alternatively, there is this punchy site, based on a book, with a lot of further investigation and some potential people to be charged and arrested


    • Jason says:

      At this point we need to establish the “What” , not the “Who”. How can you arrest the criminal without a homicide being declared first? We need everyone on the same page here.

  70. ICFubar says:

    As much as the truth needs airing I will be surprised if this initiative makes it to the ballot, especially as the requirements are so easily changed, re-interpreted, to just down right leaving it off. I give this try about the same odds as seeing G.W.or Obama on trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity. But best of luck to all those involved on the ground there.

    • SeenItAllBefore says:

      It will follow the usual M.O. at every step to whatever extent it progresses: It will be prevented from ever reaching the ballot. If it somehow prevails, it will be distorted by the opposition in the weeks leading up to the election so that voters will actually vote against it, believing they are voting FOR it, defeating it. If it overcomes this manipulation, the Board or Panel convened to do the “investigating” will be stacked (ala Alan Dulles, whom Kennedy fired, being placed on the Warren Commission) and will dutifully render the “correct” conclusions, i.e., building 7 caught on fire and fell, all at once, to the ground. After all that it will be even more “official” causing anyone who was on the fence to accept it as investigated-therefore-proved fact. All we who know better will just give up and go away.

  71. Peanutcat says:

    Ah, a 911 truther, eh? Could at least one of you nuts tell the rest of us why anyone would set this up like that?

    • bunnyswanson says:

      It’s called a Quiet Coup – Silent Coup for a reason. Everyone knows it but you. Do you feel like a freak? (You should, you know)

    • Peanutcat says:

      Why should I feel like a freak? Because I’m not a conspiracy nut?

    • Jonathan Mailer says:

      No, but you are still a nut even if a peanut isn’t really a not but a legume.

    • Peanutcat says:

      But you don’t dispute the “cat” part . . . . .

    • Matt Prather says:

      I’ve had back-and-forth Disqus dicussions before with people who go “troothers = nuts = ridiculous = obviously”. I tried hard to state things plainly. It wasn’t my fault, but we made no headway.

      As I said elsewhere in this thread post, I refined my presentation of the facts here:

      In the end, I have found it better to just say “I’ve laid my case out, here it is,” than to go back-and-forth in a thread. So many people don’t listen.

      If you take the time to consider things there, maybe I can convince you it’s not nuts. Seriously.

      People would set us up like this for more authoritarian power, and to create an enemy, the hatred for which could unite a squabbling, fractious, partisan population of Americans towards the actions the authoritarians want: TSA homeland authority, war of conquest abroad. Et cetera. Et cetera.

      Of course, I have no hope of convincing you of these things. And maybe you really don’t want to be convinced. Maybe you either want to spread troll venom for amusement, or to make people look bad by filling up a thread with anger and fallacious attempts at rebuttal, or maybe you can’t believe that such an inside job could possibly be true, because that would be too psychologically unpleasant.

      This point about filling up the thread with fallacious attempts at rebuttal is an interesting one. As long as you focus on people who make false conclusions and fallacious arguments about the inside job, you can more or less feel like you can dismiss everything everyone says when they say “inside job”.

      But it’s quite a different thing to rebut the worst custodians of an argument than to rebut the argument. Imagine if someone convinced themselves the world had to be flat because they habitually rebutted the most illiterate “round-earth truthers”.

    • Claire Calvey says:

      Peanutcat, I am a so-called ‘truther’ but actually I have sympathy for your question – it’s one which has crossed my mind too. Chomsky asks the same question – why not have 19 Iraqi terrorists if the intention was to go into Iraq? It seems a terribly convoluted plot, much of which is so blindingly obvious and blundering you’d wonder how more people haven’t questioned it. I’m pretty sure if you gave me a couple of hours, a pen, paper and a bottle of whisky I’d come up with a far more convincing one. I can only conclude that the murderers who hatched this plot were relying on people’s stupidity and gullibility, as Adolf Hitler said, ‘If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.’

      Saying all that, a quick glance at the evidence will convince you that this is indeed an inside job.

    • Peanutcat says:

      Oh yeah, the old “they didn’t think we’d be smart enough to notice” excuse!

    • Peanutcat says:

      Like why make it look like a controlled explosion? If you’re trying to hide what you’re doing, wouldn’t you have the brains to make it look accidental?

    • The tangled mess that would result in an “accidental” collapse would have required additional work to fit the pieces onto flatbed trucks to be hauled to the waiting ships in the harbor, in addition to having to be removed from the street and adjacent buildings.

  72. Matt Prather says:

    I did a sober, methodical exploration of the inside job which must have accounted for the obvious controlled demolitions.

    I collected the most undeniable facts here:

    Maybe one or more facts there will help someone come to a clearer understanding or concretization of their own considered opinions.

    Then again, this whole subject area is about the #1 reason I have no hope for anything anymore. People overwhelmingly believe first and reason second. Exceptions to this “overwhelming” fact, many as they are, can be said to prove that the general rule is true.

    I have such respect for Russ Baker after reading his forensic work, and experience more frustration after seeing people ignore his work as they ignore my 9/11 work.

    In the end, I decided that “money” is a more fundamental source of our inabilities to develop answers to the many problems we are aware of, more fundamental than what people tend to think of when they think of what the fundamental problems are.

    And then, there are even more fundamental problems than “money”.

    Good bye.

    • Brainster says:

      Well, Matt, I just read your five minute explanation, and have to comment on this point:

      “It is the fact that the steel infrastructure so
      thoroughly and rapidly gave way, allowing the buildings to collapse into their own footprints, leaving no core columns standing that is my five-minute explanation for why 9/11 was obviously an inside job.”

      But in fact the core columns did remain standing briefly after the outer superstructure had collapsed–as many as 40-50 stories high. This is known as “the spire,” and can be vividly seen in the movie 9-11 Eyewitness, for example. They didn’t remain standing for long; they toppled over with nothing to support them laterally.

    • Matt Prather says:

      I think I can see what you’re talking about here:

      Likewise the bottom-right picture in this:

      I’ll stand by my statement though: so very thoroughly and rapidly did things give way, that this one peculiar thing we now call “the spire” was all that was left before it too crumbled.

      (It might seem wrong to say “well the exception to my statement is an example of how true my statement is!” but, well, in the scope and proportion of things in this case, I maintain my statement as you quoted it: the core columns did so thoroughly and rapidly give way that it had to be a demolition job. This exceptional “spire” is no contradiction to that.)

      I can’t explain all aspects of the demolition, but I can say that the hijack crash damage was far too limited to explain the rest of the destruction that took place, with rapid onset.

      I remember seeing that “spire” before in my studies, some years ago; I think it was presented as part of a larger theory that underground nukes had to have been used for the demolition. Something like that. I considered it inconclusive and didn’t think about it again. I waded through a lot of poorly-formed theories and reporting during the time I was studying this. I only kept the good stuff in my own report. But that’s besides the point of this paragraph, which to say that I have seen the spire before, and one thing I never thought was that it contradicted controlled demolition. It doesn’t.

      I thank you for a reply which was not of a bitter, biting, your-side-of-the-argument-is-stupid-my-side-is-intelligent characterization. Though I be still unmoved from my belief, and you may (or, may not?) be moved from skepticism about my belief, at least our thread of discussion can be an example of civil exchange, in contrast with much of the rest of the 9/11 debate on the internet.

    • Brainster says:

      Here’s my problem. You originally state that the fact that the core columns didn’t remain standing was the evidence that supports the argument that it was controlled demolition. Faced with the fact that the core columns did remain standing you do not change your conclusion. This is the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a detective. A detective starts with the evidence and works with it to reach hypotheses which he can test in order to find conclusions. If a piece of evidence turns out to be incorrect, the detective will have to reach new hypotheses, which may lead to different conclusions. A conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, starts with a conclusion and sifts backwards through the evidence looking for something to support that conclusion. Thus, even if the evidence (core columns did not remain standing) turns out to be incorrect, the conclusion does not change. Or, as Jonathan Swift once observed, you cannot reason a man out of an opinion that he was not reasoned into in the first place.

    • Matt Prather says:

      You’re short-changing me. And it’s clear you did some pseudo-detective, pseudo-logical reasoning yourself, taking no more time to follow my report than it took you to find one thing which you (fallaciously) concluded undid my conclusions.

      Not only did you quit in error after reaching the conclusion you wanted, you surely decided to quit reading my report, yes?

      Re-read the quote you started with. I didn’t say “because 100% of the mass of the core columns went straight down… [therefore this consequent statment follows]”.

      So when you say “Look at this spire thing! That means not 100% was gone! That undoes your point!” you are actually wrong yourself there.

      The “spire” is clearly <1% of the mass of the steel substructure, and it a piece from just one of the two towers (the other one had nothing standing), and the "spire" itself fell down in a very short measure of time. So this doesn't at all contradict what I said, and I think if you had given me just a little more credit than you did, you wouldn't have made this mistake so easily.

      If someone 100 years from now talks about how thoroughly and rapidly the polar ice-caps dissolved, and you say "you're no detective because look! <1% of the original mass is standing!" you would be in error there too.

      I could rephrase myself on my website to avoid making a (slightly) erroneous statement to help people like you not quit reading when you think you find one thing wrong, but my point is true as it was written, so no revision is necessary. The problem is between your ears, not in the analysis, summary, or body of what I reported.

      I'm not the sort conspiracy theorist you want to believe I am, and I'm very sorry you did so little thinking outside of your own box. Take your Jonathan Swift quote to heart, please.

  73. Brainster says:

    The Truthers don’t really care about WTC-7, nor should they or any thinking person. In the context of what happened on 9-11 it’s trivia. Fact: Nobody died in the collapse of WTC-7, because the firefighters had cleared a collapse zone around the building hours before when they realized that it was quite likely to collapse.

    No, the Truthers only pretend to care about WTC-7 because they see it as the thin end of the wedge. If they can somehow prove that the building did not collapse from structural damage and fire but from controlled demolition, then they hope to move on to getting people to believe in controlled demolition for WTC 1&2 as well.

    • rapedexploited says:

      No one died, eh? You apparently aren’t aware of Barry Jennings’ testimony. And yes, #7 is the gateway to 1 & 2.

  74. Dan Bland says:

    What? Albury Smith hasn’t commented here yet? There needs to be a real 9/11 investigation. I’m a 63 yr old American veteran who has been study 9/11 for over 5 years. It’s all one big lie with countless problems.

  75. Winston Smith says:

    NIST made several serious errors with their theory of how WTC7 collapsed.

    1. Four hour fires feeding off of 30 minutes worth of fuel. (had to so the beams could reach 600C)
    2. No shear studs on the A2001 girder in a composite floor system that put multiple studs on every other element. (had to so the A2001 could walk)
    3. A2001 walks off the 13th floor seated connection due to 5.5″ expansion of beams framing into it from the east. (5.5″ happens to be the maximum expansion for the 53 foot long beams and the exact distance to move across the wrong size seat) (they later admitted they had the wrong seat width, increased their girder travel to 6.25″, but didn’t explain where the required expansion came from)
    4. Purposely omitted girder A2001 stiffeners at the column 79 seat. (Oh my!!)
    5. Purposely omitted three lateral support beams from the 13th floor G3005 beam. (Oh my, my, my, my my!!)

    Read more about this here: http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

  76. David Alspaugh says:

    Gee, only “conspiracy theorists”, per Crains and Melissa Mark-Viverito. George W. Bush topped them in a 1994 response: “all a giant conspiracy theory” (Russ Baker’s Family of Secrets,pp. 354-356).

  77. Diaz's cashed bowl says:

    This is a sham. Read the initiative. Its a trick to legitimize the faulty NIST conclusion regarding the wtc7 collapse, and to ignore wtc 1,2.
    It clearly states that wtc 1,2 will be excluded from any investigation now or in the future.
    Only wtc 7 and any other new collapses will be investigated.
    Oh I guess everyone agrees with what rudy G, the Harley shirt guy and jerome H said ON 911… that the buildings collapsed because the fire was just too hot.
    This is perfect way to cover it up by preventing an investigation into wtc 1,2.
    While supporting and allowing NIST to finish their inaccurate report on WTC7.

  78. JosephConrad says:

    EXCELLENT! Is as there too when Bldg 7 was demolished to cover up a host of US and US corporate criminal acts by burying documented evidence in the rubble then hiding what was found during the cleanup. Americans has let the WHITE WALL STREET WEALTHY STEAL, LOOT & PLUNDER THIS ONCE GREAT NATION!

  79. Bob Conway says:

    It’s refreshing to see an article about WTC-7 with no mention of “squibs” anywhere in it. Clever to make this ballot measure about an investigation of all building collapses since those of WTC-1 and WTC-2, so as not to focus on anybody’s pet theories about 911.

    I’m not a so-called “911 Truther” nor a conspiracy theory buff in general, but I’m all *FOR* the scientific investigation of mysteries. No questions that are answerable, about 911 or any other mystery that has touched the lives of so many, should be left unanswered.

    • Math & Physics says:

      Aluminum in free space can not penetrate a larger piece of structural steel at subsonic speed (STP@SL)

      As long as they can keep the public from realizing the LAWS OF PHYSICS, they win. Everything else is subjective, and they will do their best to keep it subjective.
      Look at the Empire St bld impact, that was granite, which has negligible tensile strength. Structural steel has the highest tensile strengths of building material, hence suspension bridges.

    • Bob Conway says:

      Aluminum can easily penetrate the spaces BETWEEN the structural steel elements of a building like that.

      When you throw a potato at a steel grid at 200 mph, some of the potato will be stopped by the steel of the grid, but most of it will go through.

      You also are likely to bend the grid wires somewhat, especially if it’s a large potato or a whole sack full of them. If you’re using that grid to support a table, the support may no longer be as stable as it had been before being pelted by your wimpy little potato canon.

      Laws of physics.

    • Paul Lake says:

      A better analogy would be pushing a piece of cheddar against a grater. The columns of the buildings’ core were massive, the flanges were almost 5 inches thick and the webs were over 3 inches thick. The sheet metal of the aircraft would be shredded with negligible damage to the columns. And don’t forget, the buildings were designed to resist a direct hit by the biggest commercial aircraft of the day. The total kinetic energy of the impact would be accommodated in the design by elastic displacement, that is, like a baseball hitting a flagpole, the structure would sway and then return to position. To the extent that pieces of the shredded aircraft would pass between the steel columns, the kinetic energy of these (slowed down) pieces would not contribute to the deflection of the building.

    • Math & Physics says:

      “BETWEEN”, are you saying it all magically only went through the windows, which comprise about 25% of the facade area? Then how did the columns get pushed out of the way? Shear mod alum 25Gpa, steel 70Gpa.
      I suppose these airliners passed through structural steel like Muhammad ascended through the dome of the rock. Allah must be the more powerful god to overcome the laws of physics. Maybe the religious types should convert to Islam and learn to speak Farsi.

      Time to salt the hayseeds.

    • Albury Smith says:

      A B-25 at that speed has 1/60 or less KE than a ~140-ton 767 at ~440 or 540 mph. ~200 gallons of fuel does not equal ~9500 gallons of fuel. Conventional (ESB) framing is not 1/4″-walled 14″ square tubular columns and extremely lightweight bar joists spanning more than twice as far.
      Your ESB analogy is nfg, Mr. “Math & Physics.”

    • Math & Physics says:

      A 767 will never travel 400+ mph at sea level, too much drag and the frame would never handle it nor could the engines create enough power.

      “Conventional (ESB) framing is not 1/4″-walled 14″ square tubular columns
      and extremely lightweight bar joists spanning more than twice as far.”
      Neither was the WTC, you are using innuendo to make a false claim. Even the local farmer’s market open air shelters are 3/8″ I-beams, never seen a vertical support column less than 3/8″. Your statement is nothing more than an attempt to create a myth that the HOAX is possible. If what you are saying had any validity, YOU COULD PROVE ME WRONG BY SIMPLE EXAMPLE. But we both know breaking the LAWS OF PHYSICS will never happen.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Explain to the Boeing Company exactly how fast Boeing 767s CAN go at sea level, not how safely they can do it. Tell Leslie E. Robertson, SE of record for both WTC towers, what the wall thickness of the perimeter columns “really” was on the upper levels where the airliners hit. Look up 3/8″ I-beams and tell me what the dimensions of one are.
      You’re priceless.

  80. Everyone knows 911 is a fraud so what’s the point. Let’s worry about their next scheme.

    • Tom Pain says:

      The point is that just MAYBE some of the perpetrators of this crime might be exposed and get prosecuted for their criminal involvement. THAT could help derail any further schemes.

  81. Rob says:

    These politicians are no different than any of the others in how they handle any objections to the official account. They always smear the objectors with the usual labels and then use an emotional appeal to the people who suffered loss that day. Of course they always tap dance around any of the family members who also object to the official story, of which there are many.
    The somewhat veiled concern that they all share however is the implications of re investigating any aspect of 9/11. In this case, if WTC 7 was in fact brought down with explosives, then what about the other 2 towers? This is why they will fight this tooth and nail.