On The Other Hand …

This video is worth a watch.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

220 Responses to On The Other Hand …

  1. It looks like a controlled demo job to me.

    • omanuel says:

      It is impossible to know the limit of government LIES when members of the Nagional Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Nobel Prize winners refuse to discuss precise experimental data that FALSIFY

      1. Big Bang Cosmology, BBC
      2. The Standard Solar Model, SSM
      3. Anthropologic Global Warming, AGW
      4. The Standard Planetary Model, SPM
      5. The Standard Nuclear Model, SNM

      Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf or

      “Solar Energy for school teachers,”

      Click to access Supplement.pdf

      • UQ starts a Re-Education Camp for “Climate Deniers” https://youtu.be/Smzq4l3qsxc

        • omanuel says:

          I do not like conspiracy ideas, but frankly there is no other viable explanation for federal research agencies hiding, ignoring or altering experimental data that FALSIFY:

          1. Big Bang Cosmology, BBC
          2. The Standard Solar Model, SSM
          3. Anthropologic Global Warming, AGW
          4. The Standard Planetary Model, SPM
          5. The Standard Nuclear Model, SNM

          For example, NASA hid isotope measurements (made when the Galileo probe plunged into Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1995) until the NASA Administrator was confronted while recorded on a CSPAN video in 1998 and publicly released the Jupiter data that confirmed a 1983 finding the interior of the Sun is mostly iron (Fe) [1].

          1. O. K. Manuel & Golden Hwaung, “Solar abundances of the elements,” Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983); ISSN 0026-1114 http://tinyurl.com/224kz4 http://www.omatumr.com/archive/SolarAbundances.pdf

        • omanuel says:

          The Galileo Mission to Jupiter cost the American public at least $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) of public funds to go to Jupiter and measure isotope abundances there.

          Is there a viable explanation for hiding those data, other than purposeful deception by a tyrannical government ?

        • TYRANNY!

          The Plan To Burn Up Northern California & more bad news https://youtu.be/kb8eQGC-msc

        • The UN also manages space – space rights. And who is controlling electric resources here on earth? Rothschild Not publicly advertised.

        • omanuel says:

          He who controls space controls the planet beneath it, as the USSR realized when Sputnik was launched in Oct 1957.

          But Nixon did not get elected President in 1960. The son of Joseph Kennedy – John F. Kennedy – was instead elected President of the US in 1960 and started the Apollo program to prevent USSR domination of space.

          After Kennedy’s assassination, Nixon became President and secretly sent Henry Kissinger to China in 1971 to negotiate an end to the Apollo space program. Nixon announced that decision in early January 1972.

          The rest is history.

  2. rah says:

    Sorry Tony. It’ll take an smoking gun to convince me that George Bush would be a part of such a thing.

    • That is a classic argument to authority. I don’t let myself think like that.

      • Lance says:

        The argument of controlled demolition is patently absurd. Progressive collapse does not require conspiracy theories. See: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm and http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=694_1364314255

        Portraying a conspiracy theory does not make it science or fact any more than portraying Islam as a portent of Peace makes it such.

        Structural engineering says WTC collapse was a result of heat, load, time, and impact.

        • Did you watch the video?

        • Lance says:

          So. Other than speculation and a video, what facts do you promote that indicate something other than progressive collapse? Facts. Matter.

        • What would cause explosions to occur many floors below the collapse?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Forced spalling of concrete from bending steel reinforcing can make a pretty loud bang.
          I’ve seen a concrete reinforced beam bent to destruction in the civil eng lab. It was noisy !!

          As can the cracking because heat of large blocks of concrete. Fibro and some other constructions materials can pop and break in an explosive manner under excess heat.

          Shearing of steel beams and stretching to yield of rivets can also make an explosive sound.

          Not to mention whatever else was there in the way of canisters, tanks of gases, electrical equipment etc etc

        • Chris Barron says:

          That *could* explain WTC 1 and 2 …But it doesn’t explain WTC 7….

          The controlled demolition expert in this film was unfortunately killed not long after this interview. The details of his car accident are another cause for people declaring a further conspiracy coverup

          Nobody can deny that the fires in WTC7 were small and the building had a broad footprint, …strange that the whole thing collapsed in one go.

          Silverstein is on record as saying the fire department ‘pulled it’ ….so if they ‘pulled it’ (a controlled demolition term) when did they plant the explosives ?

        • AndyG55 says:

          The guy was a firefighter. “Pull it” means to pull the firefighters out. He had probably never heard the phrase in any other context.
          Part of the top of the building had already fallen inwards, and if everything was weakened in the lower levels due to fire damage, then yes it is quite feasible for the whole lot to go at once. Once it starts, nothing is going to stop it, because these building would have been designed as a single unit sharing and distributing the load throughout..

        • B says:

          The official government story on the collapses of WTC1,2,and 7 are like climate science, government intellectuals justifying political desires. Politics said they must have failed by fire so the intellectuals got to work to create a story where they failed by fire. They did not consider any other failure modes. Just like climate scientists do not consider anything other than CO2.

          The towers are the most obvious. The WTC towers had two structures, the core and outer shell. Between them light weight floor trusses spanned the distance. This allowed for open office spaces. The floor trusses did not support the building. They supported floor loads. They were secured to the main structures suitably for that purpose. The official story is that these light weight trusses were weakened by fire, sagged, and then pulled down the main structures. Um no. What happens in reality is that the floor trusses break or their connections to the structure fail. They didn’t have the structural strength and connections before the fire to do it.

          The floor truss failure concept looks like this in reality:

      • rah says:

        So you make no judgments of character. Got it! I’ve met the man and shook his hand. I will not say I know him. Only that I firmly believe I know the type. My judgment is not based on position or authority, it is all about the character of the individual. Who that man really is on the inside, where his soul resides if you will, and having nothing to do with the office he held or much to do with his performance in that office.

        In that context saying George Bush or several others that were high up in his administration, including the VP, to me is like saying Dwight D. Eisenhower would do such a thing or even cover it up if he knew the truth after the fact.

        There are things people learn that make their living dealing with other people. The way they carry themselves. The looks they make. What their handshake feels like and the look in their eye when they are shaking your hand and you have a few words together. Such a contact is far more persuasive to me than anything like any “evidence” I have seen for the case that bringing down the towers was a government conspiracy coordinated to fly aircraft full of passengers into those buildings. In my judgment that kind of thing is not, and never has been, in that mans heart.

        Why would a man that would be so cold have spent so much of his time with Iraq/Afghanistan war veterans? An activity, which with little notice, continues to this day?


        Former President George W. Bush (right) leads current or former military service members on the W100K mountain bike ride across his ranch in Crawford, Texas, May 1, 2015. The 17 participants on this year’s ride were all wounded while serving in the global war on terror, and were invited to participate in this three-day event that covers 100 kilometers on and around the ranch. The event is part of the Bush Institute’s Military Service Initiative and highlights the bravery and sacrifice of the warriors while also recognizing organizations that support our nation’s veterans. (U.S. Army photo by Maj. Randall Stillinger)

      • What ever credibility you had went straight out the window. good luck good bye!

    • Chris Barron says:

      If you accept that Bin Laden was responsibile for 9/11…..would it not seem odd that the Bush family, of all people, were involved in Arbusto oil with the Bin Ladens ?

    • B says:

      why would he need to be involved?

  3. annieoakley says:

    The planes were large, fully loaded with jet fuel and Architects primarily draw pretty pictures and talk in complete sentences. This was an economic attack on the US that produced the expected results. I am much more concerned with why President Bush insisted upon getting his Saudi buddies out of the US. That Kentucky Derby winner yesterday has a Saudi owner.

  4. NYC Rushed Evidence Removal of World Trade Center before FEMA BPAT https://youtu.be/klaLuk1Aq-M
    politics at play here

  5. V. Uil says:

    I know you’ll survive, but you’ve gone down ten points in my estimation. And yes I did watch the video.

    • V. Uil says:

      An addendum: did you intend to play right into the hands of those who accuse skeptics of being conspiracy theorists?

      • Winnipeg Boy says:

        V. +1.
        Hurts your message.
        I did not watch the video. If Bush is to blame, that would mean that his people had to put that together in 8 1/2 months. Utterly unbelievable. Have you seen the speed of government? Slower than the speed of smell.

    • Lance says:

      Um. Yes. Factually, you are correct regarding the instant subject. Agreed. survival doesn’t hinge on a single event unless you are the victim of it. Nice comment. I watched it as well. Nothing in the video explains anything other than progressive collapse. https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/WTC_I_Engineering_Perspective.pdf
      Maybe Purdue graduates idiots in structural engineering, but history says they don’t.

      • Pippa says:

        That’s quite a ridicolous argument to authority, and a very bad one at that, considering there’s other “graduates” who disagree with the authors and that they are, respectively:

        *Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering*
        *Professor of Computer Science*

        Not exactly two heavyweights..

      • rah says:

        Then of course there was of course Flight 93 and “Lets Roll”. What part of the conspiracy was that?

        • Chris Barron says:

          The same flight 93, the crash site of which had not single seat cushion laid about ?

          Compare that site with the recent German Wings disaster crash site, where there were bodies, seats, tail section pieces, fuselage sections

    • I analyze evidence objectively. Other people’s opinions make no difference to me, and I rarely, if ever, pay any attention to them.

      • Tim Groves says:

        This indifference to the opinions of others, I expect, is a major reason why you’ve managed to establish and present a long list of facts about climate data manipulation while so many remain mired the in consensus, refusing to acknowledge the significance of your contributions, averting their eyes, and afraid to question authority or examine evidence for fear of being labelled or excommunicated.

      • Sleepalot says:

        Except, of course, for your religious beliefs.

  6. I knew you were a bit of a conspiracy theorist regarding climate change, but felt I could discern the nuggets of truth here and there. But you believing any part of this drivel,,, I just don’t know. Bye.

    • Pippa says:

      Yes of course James.
      Because obviously everything contradicting the consensus has to be drivel and everyone looking into it is a CONSPIRACY THEORIST deserving only mockery, scorn and contempt.

  7. Pippa says:

    @Lance

    The argument of non anthropogenic GW (let alone climate cooling) is patently absurd. Anthropogenic Global Warming does not require conspiracy theories.
    See: http://theconversation.com/one-in-six-species-faces-extinction-as-a-result-of-climate-change-41018

    Portraying a conspiracy theory does not make it science or fact any more than portraying Islam as a portent of Peace makes it such.

    Climate science says changes in global temperatures were a result of heat, CO2, time, and impact.

  8. R. Shearer says:

    Government organizations spent gobs of money and came to incomplete and or misleading conclusions based on models. They ignored plenty of suspicious data and failed to address much and demonstrated a lack of integrity and incompetence. Is this really surprising?

  9. _Jim says:

    Somebody is using reason, logic, the application of science and the knowledge of physics and materials properties to address the claims if the 9/11 ‘truther squads’?

    Never gonna work .,.

    But I applaud the effort.

  10. leftinflagstaff says:

    I just knew Clinton/Gore tried to bring it down first!! It takes Repubs to do something right!

  11. Bellerophon says:

    I have read your posts since you were on WUWT. I don’t always agree, but I appreciate the work.

    I went through all this a decade ago with the “loose change” videos and assorted 9/11 conspiracies. I have waded through their ever shifting “evidence”. I understand listening to people with whom you disagree. But if you insist on going down this 9/11 conspiracy path, I will never return to this website. I simply haven’t the time or energy to go through it all again.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      I don’t think Steven is going down the “truther” road. Birtherism is one thing. I think Steven is just putting this truther video out just to pull our legs. Or something.

      Even if the evidence for Trutherism was logical, it is imperative that it be kept in a separate basket from climate skepticism, because of the way the media and establishment works today it will tarnish and probably nearly destroy the reputation and credibility of associated climate skeptics. It’s insane because a lot of us have worked really hard on this climate skepticism thing. It blows my mind. People like Drudge, that have promoted this site, and me, I start to wonder, what am I thinking? Double insane.

      Yes, I saw the “loose change” video years ago, and was at first impressed by it. But then I saw the rebuttal videos, and I realized it was a bunch of specious and superficially attractive bs. But even if what the Truthers say is true, you got to pick your battles and this battle will negatively impact the climate war that we are trying to fight. Sad but true. Because Steven Goddard is among our greatest fighters for the cause and if he goes down and is considered a total nutcase it would hurt the skeptic cause.

      A btw, in contrast, at about the same time that I saw the loose change Truther video, I saw the Great Global Warming Swindle Video (and the key part on the CO2 lag here). I remember thinking, WOW, it looks like the warmists are full of it and I was about to be changed from a believer to a skeptic… but I searched for rebuttals to the Great Global Warming Swindle, and found no effective rebuttal to the case against Al Gore’s description of CO2 in his movie (and that the IPCC had made). But for the Truther video the effective rebuttal was easily found.

      Here it is. From 2007 the same year that I saw the Loose Change video. See if you can find an effective rebuttal to this:

    • I am an engineer. I form my own opinions from looking at evidence. Those videos of the collapse show some interesting evidence.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        True. Interesting.

        But as V. Uil commented above: An addendum: did you intend to play right into the hands of those who accuse skeptics of being conspiracy theorists?

        In addition, not only does bringing up this issue in an apparently supportive way give the leftists another easy way to attack your credibility, but it could divide your own troops, pitting us against each other, because some passionately believe that Loose Change stuff.

        A lot of topics .. that are not brightly stained by having the widely accepted reputation of being pushed by nutcases … could bring argument on this site. I see your comments to other commenters are reasonable and don’t look like those of a wild-eyed loon, that you are just presenting the thought-provoking video for consideration. Nevertheless, bringing up this particular issue, putting yourself at risk of being stigmatized as a Truther, takes guts is not wise. I don’t see how in any way that it is going to help the skeptic cause. It can only hurt because you are a top leader in this fight and it can not help your reputation, it can only sully it, and so much in this climate field is based on reputation and credibility. Indeed you putting this Truther stuff out (and Truthers are held in a lot lower general esteem than Birthers lol) appears almost like an inexplicable case of self-immolation. Personally I’m hoping to quickly get over it because I already see all your great posts today on climate!

      • Bellerophon says:

        Then do me a favor and examine all the evidence off site. I agree with Eric Simpson. Part of the reason I research climate stuff is to convince others. I would never point someone to your website when 9/11 conspiracy videos will be the first thing they see. That makes all the resources of the site useless.

        But more importantly, I cannot stand the 9/11 truther people. As I said, I have been through all that before. They seem to equate inconsistencies in a chaotic situation as proof of their position, while never producing any real evidence to support their assertion that the U.S. govt. killed 2000 civilians on U.S. soil. I see Global Warming and this position as the same. You want me to believe that, you had better have an air-tight case, period.

        As I said, all this has been gone over extensively in the past. All refutations of their “evidence” is easy to find and easy to understand. So, please, don’t bring it here. As I said, I’ll leave forever rather than put myself through the headache of rehashing all those arguments again. I don’t have the time.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        I agree with Eric Simpson
        Huge! Finally someone does! But seriously it’s a testament to Steven’s otherwise great insight and ability that his reputation and this site is not sunk by this type of post that happens every once in a while.

        • As I said, I look at evidence. What other people don’t want to think about makes no difference to me.

        • Eric Simpson says:

          But note Steven that it’s not that I personally have any problem thinking about that sort of thing. In fact I watched about an hour of that video though I’d heard it all before. I am not thinking about what I don’t want to think about, but about winning what Mann and Gleick et al describe as a war that we are fighting on the climate front. Much of your and our efforts could be vitiated by moves that easily and predictably play right into the hands of the leftists. The first thing the Chicken Little Bullshit Artists try to do is dismiss us as quacks, and so get the majority of the people to not even look at the evidence we present. And their #1 tactic, if they can get away with it, is say that we are all a bunch of religious creationists. But worse than that would be for them to be able to use the smear “Truther.” That would be predictably devastating. Sure, some in the public might get past that label but not most. Oddly my impression was that Truthers were mostly from the radical left, as well as fringe Ron Paulers. If you make another great breakthrough and you get Drudge and Fox and even the mainstream MSM to cover it, the leftists could just get the bulk of the public to summarily dismiss all your work by saying the author is “a Truther.” Sad but in some cases we just have to go with the flow on the way reality is, not be too idealistic. Hopefully the damage isn’t already done. I think you can maintain that you were just presenting a video for consideration, not advocating that position. Still, it wouldn’t be good to have to present another layer of defensive explanations before you are able to interest people in the substance of your climate work. Remember, these doomsayers want to kill us so they will use whatever tactic works to try to harm or discredit us.
          “We should have war crimes trials for these bastards (global warming skeptics) — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” -David Roberts, Grist Magazine

        • gator69 says:

          I also agree with Eric. I watched the video, and am now in the middle of reviewing it against a detailed rebuttal.

          Gage is great, when he is not challenged on the facts.

        • Tim Groves says:

          But worse than that would be for them to be able to use the smear “Truther.”

          Eric, one of the most prominent “Truthers” is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology named David Ray Griffin, who has written probably half a dozen books on 9/11 beginning with “The New Pearl Harbor”. A few month’s ago I was rather surprised to learn from an Amazon email that his latest publication is entitled “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?” I dipped into this and saw that he was quoting all the usual suspects, including Gore, Mann, Pachauri, Jo Romm, and Ban Ki-Moon, as if they were climate experts. One shudders to think how this will affect his standing in the Truther community.

          http://www.amazon.com/Unprecedented-Can-Civilization-Survive-Crisis/dp/0986076902

          I suppose my point is that the “Truther” smear is an optional epithet. Nobody on the alarmist side is going to dare to employ it against a man who doubts a passenger plane hit the Pentagon or that Barbara Olson made those phone calls to Ted now that he has just written a meticulously researched work of fear porn that they hope will help bring thousands of 9/11 skeptics into the climate big tent. But they’ll happily try to roast alive a prominent AGW skeptic who posts a single video and merely says it’s “worth a watch”. However, any additional notoriety this might bring Tony Heller would be more than compensated for by the publicity for his ideas that such an attack would generate.

      • R. de Haan says:

        The word interesting evidence doesn’t cover the load. I think they have presented compelling evidence and also mention a peer reviewed scientific report. I am going to read the report now and thank you for posting this video.

        Just keep analyzing and connecting the dots.

        Another attack on our freedoms: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-04/ron-paul-warns-usa-freedom-act-just-another-name-lost-liberty

        We’re going to need “beyond American Exceptionalism” to stop the total rigging of our civilization by this pack of criminals currently ruling our nations.

        It’s time for a clean up.

      • amirlach says:

        “The planes were large, fully loaded with jet fuel.” This Fuel has been suggested as the energy source that weakened the steel, causing the eventual collapse.

        So my question is. What happened to the fuel load on Flight 93? The news clip said there was little smoke or fire. Also the “crater” looked very small for such a large plane compared to this.

        • gator69 says:

          This site has video of flight 93 aftermath. 15 miles from the site, the gentleman who shot this video said his house was shaken from the blast.

          http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_93

          In the modern world of viral crowdsourcing, video and photos of even the most mundane event are available, from every conceivable angle, with lightning speed, so it is remarkable that, ten years later, new video from 9/11 has just surfaced. On CNN Sunday night, anchor Susan Hendricks introduced a piece of video from a now-deceased witness who videotaped the aftermath of heroic Flight 93 from about 15 miles away. His family has apparently just made the video available now.
          The short clip features the anonymous videographer’s narration of the events that occurred before he turned on his camera. According to Hendricks, the tape is believed to be the first to show the immediate aftermath of the United Airlines Flight 93 crash, the fourth plane to go down on 9/11 after passengers fought back against the hijackers, preventing them from crashing it into their likely targets, the US Capitol or the White House.

  12. kuhnkat says:

    I didn’t see anything new there. I do not know whether our gubmint is far enough gone to have been involved or not.

    This site covers their questions and theories:

    http://debunking911.com/

  13. Me says:

    There’s no problem that can’t be solved by the proper application of explosives. Where have we heard that? And then think about that.

  14. freeHat says:

    Really?

    9/11 conspiracy site on my daily rotation? Nope.

    • These are engineers and architects making observations about the destruction of the World Trade Center, an event that required years of planning by many people.

      Is that a “conspiracy” ?

      • Chris Barron says:

        The problem with the word conspiracy is that it is a demonised word.

        It is never meant to be anything but negative and it is easy to attach a negative connotation to anything by using the term conspiracy to define it.

        The problem, is that if the official government line is to immediately declare there has been no conspiracy, then anyone who says otherwise has to swallow the ‘conspiracy theorist’ label

        Yet it remains a fact, that the word conspiracy was created to describe something which can and does exist. and it almost certainly conflicts with most people’s mettle to think that everything they have worked hard towards was a mere spectre, a vision of a reality which does not exist in any form but the most superficial public appearance.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Agreed.

          There have been plenty of conspiracies. The US exists because a bunch of guys conspired to throw Britain out of America.

          Most of our laws are the result of a group conspiring to get a law past that gives them some advantage. Wars are started because it is financially advantageous to some group. (Or because of some power hungry nut cases.)

          If you have a bunch of people you are going to have ‘conspiracies’ and certain groups jockeying for advantage. Most groups, from the local PTA and scout group to professional societies have had a ‘conspiracy’ to toss out the present leaders and bring to power a new group on one occasion or another. Hostile take-over and leveraged buyouts are just another name for business conspiracies where an outside group plans and executes a change in corporate leadership.

          Why anyone would not think their are ‘conspiracies’ on the national level, especially with the amount of $$$ and power involved is beyond me.

          What I find is very frustrating is how incredibly successful the ‘conspiracies’ are in fooling the public and re-writing history.

          Ignoring Elites, Historians Are Missing a Major Factor in Politics and History: Steve Fraser, Gary Gerstel (2005)
          … Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history….Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II….

  15. PJ London says:

    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.
    Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

    “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
    No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

    By Dr. Kevin Barrett

    Goebbels And The “Big Lie”
     
    Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was the master of the “big lie” tactic in which a lie, no matter how outrageous, is repeated often enough that it will eventually be accepted as truth. Goebbels explained:
     
    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy”

     “One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.” – Aldous Huxley – Brave New World

    “You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog will give you a look that says, “My God, you’re right! I never would’ve thought of that!”” – Sean Connery

  16. AndyG55 says:

    What I suspect is a cover-up of very shoddy materials and building standards in the construction of those towers.
    As a civil engineer, I can see that all the little niggles and questions about how the building collapsed etc could easily be explained by substandard building monitoring, design and materials.

    • Robertv says:

      Those Towers. WTC 1 ,WTC 2 and WTC 7.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yes.. wouldn’t it be embarrassing if it came out that they were a substandard build.
        I wonder how many of the so-called truthers have a penny or two in that pot.

  17. Robertv says:

    What I don’t understand is why such experienced pilots flew in the top part of the buildings. You would think that the lower you hit the building, the more structural damage is caused .Also most people would not have been able to leave the towers and with a little bit of luck they would have fallen like a tree causing even more damage.But then I am not a structural engineer.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The structural beams and columns down lower would have been more substantial and not as liable to damage. And what about other buildings in the vicinity.
      Maybe they had a good structural engineer who did the sums and found out that where they hit was possibly the optimum. Certainly it had the ultimate end result.

  18. David A says:

    Experienced pilots?

  19. David A says:

    To even consider such a theory requires any responsible person to put in hours of study. Here is about 10 hours of reading and watching videos, debunking all 911 conspiracy theory.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html

    In my view it is simply not supportable from many perspectives, both engineering, logistics, and human observation. From what I have learned about the character of GWB, I am convinced (despite many disagreements with his policy) he is an honorable man of sincere intent. I am convinced just the opposite about the current POTUS.

    • These are engineers and architects discussing the collapse of several buildings. They are not proposing or discussing any “conspiracy theories”

    • B says:

      In this country serious challenges to the government’s official story are buried by giving a lot of time covering the ridiculous. This way anyone who makes a serious challenge to the government story is branded as a kook and people reflexively say that was all debunked already or ridicule the person as believing it was aliens or the greatest nonsense out there.

      I don’t pretend to know what actually happened. I do know that government intellectuals fed us a bunch of bullshit. I won’t bother with conjecture. I just know enough to tell that the government stories on WTC 1,2,and 7 don’t make a lick of sense. They are the work of people struggling to find a method of collapse compatible with narrative they were told instead of doing an actual investigation to find out why the buildings failed from a blank sheet.

      Look at WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6. That’s what buildings damaged by impact, debris, and fire look like. They didn’t collapse like WTC 7. Which was a cantilevered building so it should have naturally fell over instead of going more or less straight down. Odd that random debris hits and fire so well balanced the building’s cantilevered design that way. Government stories are like people who win the powerball a half a dozen times.

  20. My question is why? If George Bush was behind 9/11 to get approval to invade Iraq, why blame Bin Laden? Why not set up Saddam as the culprit. It took two years for Bush to get approval from congress to take military action against Iraq and never got approval from the U.N. Don’t you think if Bush’s goal was to invade Iraq and then went to all the trouble of 9/11, why not set up Saddam up as the bad guy? There is no logic in developing this huge conspiracy to invade Afghanistan. We already had justification to bomb Al Qaeda. Clinton ordered a few bombings in Afghanistan during the 1990s right?

    I just don’t see the logic.

    • Scott says:

      Don’t think the video said that George Bush was behind it. That is an assumption. I doubt if the government works that way.

      • Most of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim that George Bush was behind it. If not Bush, than who and why?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Take a look at my comments on 9/11 starting HERE.

          Remember that the goal since the 1930’s has been a global government and the removal of national sovereignty per Pascal Lamy, former Director-General of the WTO. Our government has promotingthat ‘Progressive Goal’ for a hundred years otherwise the Federal government would have been held in check and the Federal Reserve Act would have been removed years ago. Contract Law would have been enforced against the banks at a minimum.

          ….The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system***, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

          All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty……

          ***the Bretton Woods system is the Central Bankers world banking system.

        • _Jim says:

          Gail Combs says May 4, 2015 at 4:26 pm
          “… Remember that the goal since the 1930’s has been a global government and the removal of …”

          Yeah yeah yeah … and the Soviet Union effing DISSOLVED during that period of time … the USSR was a large part of the driving force in that ‘threat’, and even funded operations on this continent. Are you aware of any of that or no?

          This is why I seriously challenge your perceptual and reasoning abilities, Gail. You have some HUGE blind spots in your perceptive abilities, to the degree that anything you assert must be checked and cross checked, because there is not insignificant possibility you are dead wrong.

          BTW, you guys STILL can’t offer any reason why TPTB allow such men as Drudge and Bill Gates and even Michael Dell to have prospered, and in the past such men as David Hewlett and Bill Packard to have had the ‘success’ they had … things you see and hear around you are NOT all as ‘planned’ as you seem to think believe they are.

          This blog is partial proof of that; if TPTB were really ‘in charge’ it wouldn’t be here.

        • B says:

          Jim, the financial forces behind what Gail mentions funded the soviet union as well as Hitler and much more. The idea was to merge the soviet system with the US. And if you look at what has happened here in the USA you can see exactly that.

          Also not everything goes as planned for anyone including the wealthiest people on the planet.

        • Gail Combs says:

          _Jim,

          TPTB tried two different plans. One was the Communist/Soviet Union abrupt transformation (Communism) and the other was the snail paced gradual take over via the European Union(Fabian Socialism). When it became obvious the Soviet Union style control of the peons was not working, they pulled the plug on the experiment.

          Pascal Lamy makes it clear that the EU was planned and it was all about getting rid of national sovereignty. All about implementing ‘Socialism’

          LINK

          …There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges have been made and where new forms of governance have been tested for the last 60 years: in Europe. The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now. It is the story of a desired, delineated and organized interdependence between its Member States. How has this endeavour coped with the challenges I have just outlined?

          First, on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice. It also scores highly from the point of view of redistribution policies. [aka ‘socialism’] The European structural funds and cohesion policies have overall played a key role in the development of European regions and Member States….
          LINK

          Lamy was the Director General of the World Trade Organization, which he hopes to make the European Union writ large.

          Europe and the Management of Globalization

          ABSTRACT
          European policy-makers often speak of their efforts to ‘manage globalization’. We argue that the advocacy of managed globalization is more than a rhetorical device and indeed has been a primary driver of major European Union (EU) policies over the past 25 years. We sketch the outlines of the concept of managed globalization, raise broad questions about its extent, and describe five major mechanisms through which it has been pursued:
          (1) expanding policy scope;
          (2) exercising regulatory influence;
          (3) empowering international institutions;
          (4) enlarging the territorial sphere of EU influence; and
          (5) redistributing the costs of globalization.
          These mechanisms are neither entirely novel, nor are they necessarily effective, but they provide the contours of an approach to globalization that is neither ad hoc deregulation nor old-style economic protectionism.

          …The phrase ‘managed globalization’ emerged only after a long gestation and experimentation with a basket of mechanisms discussed below…
          the concept was originally launched into the broader public debate by the Frenchman Pascal Lamy in 1999 when he was European Trade Commissioner and has been perpetuated during his tenure as head of the World Trade Organization (WTO)….

          …The most extensive EU-led redistributive management, however, takes place at the regional-European level. All there of the current Objectives of the Structural Funds serve broadly redistributive or compensatory goals, though not directly tied to economic globalization…..[pg 138]

          Turning finally to the supra-European level of the EU redistributive management, the story is much more modest, and in fact is almost an empty policy space. Even here, however, nascent EU redistributive management exists. Former EV Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy and a number of EU member states made the EU a chief supporter and architect of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ‘Aid for Trade’ program, founded in 2005. With 2006 disbursements rising to 23 billion euros (3.1 from the EU). that program co-ordinates aid efforts to help developing countries WTO members build state capacities and infrastructure, and to ease adjustment associated with traide liberalization (Garcia and Lammersen 2008). All told, the EU’s redistributive management may be said to be less substantial than the management of the terms and extent of openness but is meaningful at all levels of governance….

          Public Opinion on EU-managed Globalization
          Public opinion patterns suggest the political viability and promise of redistributive management. Surveys suggest strong support for EU management of globalization… A 2004 survey in the 27 (now) member states reveals suprisingly high levels of trust in EU-guided management of globalization’s effects…

          Both EU-15 and CEEC-12 citizens see their national governments as only the fourth most trusted globalization manager (19percent for EU-15; CEEC-12 22 percent), behind consumer rights groups and ‘citizens themselves’. In addition, they express even less trust in international organizations like the WTO and World Bank. Such results reveal strong citizen support for the EU to manage globalization’s effects….

          Bill Clinton’s mentor, honored in his inaugural address, was Carroll Quigley.

          I suggest, _Jim, you read what he wrote: excerpts from the book
          Tragedy and Hope
          A History of the World in Our Time
          by Carroll Quigley, 1966

  21. Patrick Hannon says:

    Occam’s Razer applies here:
    1) Molten Steel: It would require enormous quantities of thermite to generate the total heat seen at the base after the collapse, if that were an explanation for the collapse. We’re talking impossible amounts. The potential energy of those buildings were astronomical given the hight and mass. Could there be any wonder that there would be molten metal after the collapse? That vast potential energy had to go somewhere, and it did …. heat.
    2) Pancaking: It does not require explosive charges to explain the pancaking. The top portion of the building when it give way (and yes that top portion fell off-center initially, nothing mystical) had enormous momentum/kinetic energy buildup in that first second, just too much building above the break point. No building could withstand that kind of down pressure, and yes that would result in the building coming straight down (following the momentum).
    3) “explosive” events below the break point as building was pancaking: You don’t think that unspeakable force being generated above during the collapse didn’t have an element being physically vectored into the entire structure, of course it did. columns were stressed many times their ability to hold, and these were vertical elements where the energy of that downward pressure were being driven into. When they failed it would have looked like an explosion and sound like one.

    Come on people. The scale and timing for a conspiracy where we waited for the planes to strike and then set off exposive charges to ensure the building came down …. get real.

    Patrick Hannon, catestrophic man-made global warming skeptic, yes. Our government wanted to stage this event for a sinister plot to push the country into action for war of terror or something else corresponding crazy? I’m a skeptic, not a loon.

    • Tim Groves says:

      Occam’s razor applies to explanations of nature, where if we are presented with more than one explanation, all other things being equal we should prefer the simplest or most straightforward. Or as a line often attributed to Einstein goes, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” It was never intended to apply to human affairs, where deception is the rule. The prevalence of deceit in the worlds of crime, terrorism, security and politics essentially rules out Occam’s razor. The simplest explanation is most probably wrong.

      • Patrick Hannon says:

        Well the collapse of the buildings was a physical event. In answering the question, what physcially brought the buildings down with the symptoms observed, Occam’s razor applies here. The physics notion that only coordinated demolition activities could explain the mode of collapse is flat out wrong. Yeah I don’t trust our elected officials nor their appointees, but they can’t alter the laws of physics (nature).

    • DD More says:

      Pat, you must also remember the innovative structural elements in the WTC1 & 2. The entire support was in the ring walls, and except for the elevator towers and their minimal vertical bracing it was a completely open floor structure. There was only light joist and the actual floor slab to support each floor. In addition, the fire proofing of the steel was altered after the great asbestos scare and above a certain floor, revised to a mostly new and untried spray. The new fireproofing was also more easily knocked off in the impact.

      Not sure about architects, but most construction engineers are not truthers. Do any of these guys have any experience actually trying to take down a structure?

  22. Gail Combs says:

    Sorry I can not watch the video nor do I have the engineering background to make an informed decision but I have followed the controversy.

    To put it bluntly the whole matter stinks to high heaven. NOTHING adds up.

    This is the part that had me very very puzzled:
    The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes

    It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times…..

    The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

    * Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.

    *Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.

    *Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.

    *Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

    Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases from which to scramble planes. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters…..

    Some friends and I were out in the boonies of New York state not far from EMSnews. A meteor shower was supposed to happen so we were out on the porch star gazing. We saw a UFO (Could not be identified flying object) The Air Force jets were chasing that bogey all across the sky within a couple of minutes of it appearing. (They never did catch it since the bogie was much much faster than they were – wierd.)

    SO why in heck did it take all that time to scramble interceptors in a major metropolis like NYC?
    ……
    Lets look at the situation from a different angle. What has been the real result of 9/11?

    CONTINUED

    • Gail Combs says:

      What 9/11 Meant For Americans:
      1. Travel restrictions.
      —— No Fly lists
      —— Grope-n-fly (getting people used to the state’s invasion of you personal space without warrant)
      —— Development of invasive devices for scanning people at train depots, buses and even in private homes. (wwwDOT)usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/
      —— Technology in new cars that track where you go and allow vehicles to be shut down remotely. link

      2. The formation of the Department of Homeland Security.
      …….. Formation of Fusion Centers – A Good Analysis HERE The police are no longer just a part of the community but are moving towards being part of the federal government.

      ……. The militarization of police – my comment
      ……. Stockpiling ammo and weapons in federal agencies (Why does the Department of Ag need machine guns, why does DHS need 1.6 billion rounds of ammo?)

      …… Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security leaves the Mexican border wide open, refuses to build the promised border fence, removes border agents and instead targeting US citizens my old comment

      …… Terrorist list 72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents

      CONTINUED:

    • Gail Combs says:

      CONTINUED: – Americans

      …… Extremist list. Presidential candidate, Ben Carson placed on Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Extremist list. The Department of Defense lesson plan entiled: AFSS 0910 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT INCIDENTS (EOTI) LESSON PLAN names the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of “The following references are additional sources for current extremism information:”

      ….. People with libertarian/conservative bumper stickers like Ron Paul for president or the Gadsden flag are targeted by police and pulled over for questioning. MIAC report

      NSA Spying and data collecting on Americans
      2012 National Defense Authorization Act repeals Posse Comitatus by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement function

      National Defense Authorization Act (2011+) allows the indefinite detention of Americans
      http://rt.com/usa/160832-ndaa-gitmo-detention-approved/

      Occupy Wall Street law: …The Department of Homeland Security can designate an event as one of “national significance,” making protests or demonstrations near the event illegal… places demonstrators in small areas away from the action, in effect removing our right to redress of grievances. (We saw that at the Bundy ranch protests when a public road was declared off limits.)

      I am sure there are more losses of our rights since 9/11/

    • Gail Combs says:

      9/11 effect on Saudis:

      OIL
      ARAMCO – Rockefeller, JP Morgan Chase & The Saudi Oil
      connections.

      RELIGION
      Most of the 15 to 20 million Saudi citizens are Sunni Muslims. PEW Report: Iran and Iraq are two of only a handful of countries that have more Shias than Sunnis.

      The ongoing and intensifying conflict in Iraq has fallen – at least in part – along sectarian lines, with the Sunni Muslim militant group ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) advancing against the Shia Muslim-led Iraqi government and Shia militias. Sectarian affiliation has played a role in the politics of the region for hundreds of years.

      Interesting that Iran and Iraq are the targets of the USA when most of the hijackers were Saudis

      U.S. Grants Saudis ‘Trusted Traveler’ Privileges to Help Them Through Airport Security
      So while toddlers in wheel chairs and grannies in walkers are subject to Grope-n-fly, People from the country that supplied most of the Hijackers get a free-pass. RIIIIIiiiiight!

      According to WIKI

      The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon…. were followed by three hijacker-pilots, Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah mid-2000 to undertake flight training in south Florida.

      CONTINUED:

    • Gail Combs says:

      The newest:

      Lawyers for victims of the Sept. 11 attacks say they have new evidence that agents of Saudi Arabia “directly and knowingly” helped the hijackers, including sworn testimony from the so-called 20th hijacker and from three principals of the U.S. government’s two primary probes of the attacks.

      The Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington said in a statement Wednesday that Zacarias Moussaoui’s claims come from a “deranged criminal” and that there is no evidence…..

      The lawyers filed documents in Manhattan federal court ….

      They said an “expansive volume” of new evidence — including U.S. and foreign intelligence reports, government reports and testimony from al-Qaida members — support lawsuits seeking billions of dollars from countries, companies and organizations that aided al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

      They said evidence likely to be released soon includes a congressional report detailing evidence of Saudi 9/11 involvement and nearly 80,000 pages of material relating to an FBI probe of Saudis who supported 9/11 hijackers in Florida….
      (wwwDOT)freep.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/september-attacks-saudi-arabia/22914835/

      And speaking of FLORIDA….
      Confirmed: Saudis flown Out of US 9/13/01 Under FBI Supervision

      …authorities at Tampa International Airport confirmed that Saudis were flown in the US during the three-day travel ban immediately after 9-11. This information was provided just last week to the 9/11 commission in response to an inquiry. For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted this flight never took place…

      The Sunni-Shia Divide – Council on Foreign Relations

      JP Morgan Chase & The Saudi Oil

    • Gail Combs says:

      Islamberg, New York: “You can hear gunfire up there. I can’t understand why the FBI won’t shut it down”

      The intrepid Paul Williams has a report ….The inhabitants wouldn’t let him into the compound, but he talked to some of the locals, and found out a good deal:

      Islamberg is not as benign as a Buddhist monastery or a Carmelite convent. Nearly every weekend, neighbors hear sounds of gunfire. Some, including a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, have heard the bang of small explosives. None of the neighbors wished to be identified for fear of “retaliation.” “We don’t even dare to slow down when we drive by,” one resident said. “They own the mountain and they know it and there is nothing we can do about it but move, and we can’t even do that. Who wants to buy a property near that?”

      The complex serves to scare the bejeesus out of the local residents. “If you go there, you better wear body armor,” a customer at the Circle E Diner in Hancock said. “They have armed guards and if they shoot you, nobody will find your body.”….

      Islamberg is a branch of Muslims of the Americas Inc., a tax-exempt organization formed in 1980 by Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, who refers to himself as “the sixth Sultan Ul Faqr,” Gilani, has been directly linked by court documents to Jamaat ul-Fuqra or “community of the impoverished,” an organization that seeks to “purify” Islam through violence….

      They troll for recent prison releases to recruit members I remember reading some where. Felons are not allowed to have guns yet the FBI has no problem with that…

      MORE: http://canadafreepress.com/2007/cover052107.htm

      Seems the USA also has No-Go Muslim communities that make those in the EU look tame.

      We won’t mention having a Muslim as the occupier of the White House or those who are concerned about escalating Muslim terrorists being called Islamophobies. No matter how you slice it the actions of the US government since 9/11 has been to target it’s own citizens while giving the supposed threat (Muslim Terrorists) a free pass and as much support as possible.

      Whether 9/11 was allowed by those in the US government to promote more control of the American people or if it was a “never let a crisis go to waste” the results are the same and the US government is seriously schizophrenic.

  23. Tim Groves says:

    I remember watching the “events” of 9/11 live here in Japan, where it was late evening. A friend phoned and told me to switch on the TV as there was something going on in NY. I did so and saw the second plane hitting the South Tower “Live”. What struck me at the time was that the 9/11 coverage was broadcast on all major TV channels in Japan. They all dropped their regular programming from the get-go – before anyone officially spoke of it as terrorism – and plugged into the same pictures that the US networks were showing of what was being described then as a probable accident, and brought in simultaneous translators.

    This was very unusual. The only other time I have ever known all the Japanese TV channels to drop their regular programming was for to cover the passing and the funeral of the Showa Emperor in January 1989. To put it into context, not even the Great East Japan Earthquake with the loss of 20,000 people and the accompanying nuclear power station disaster in Fukushima had simultaneous coverage on all stations.

    So either a decision was made instantly by all networks to cut their regular programming and go live, or else the broadcasting was planned in advance. For an overseas terrorism incident to receive that honor meant that the people controlling the mass media in Japan wanted to give the events maximum exposure. Either that, or we are into the realm of coincidence theory.

    It reminds me of some of the lyrics to the Elvis Costello song “Satellite”.

    All over the world at the very same time
    All over the world
    The satellite looks down, right now and forever
    What it has pulled apart let no man tether

  24. Scott says:

    It was obviously a building demolition from the start. If you don’t know what one looks like go look at a coulple of thousand of them on the net.

  25. Scott says:

    If the twin towers were not a demolition then the biggest scam in the world is not global warming. It is these demolition companies charging high dollar and pretending that exact placement of explosives and exact timing are necessary to bring down a building when in actuality any random damage that could be accomplished with a couple of hundred pounds of dynomite placed in any random place in the building will do the same dam thing!

  26. Chris Barron says:

    I was at an engineering training centre when it happened, it was tea break and were all glued to the TV……the group of about 40 engineers from all sorts of backgrounds (civilian and ex military) were initially surprised at the first collapse, and the first comment most people made was along the lines of “They must have even been able to plant explosives too”

    Since reviewing the video of the building 7 collapse which took place a few hours later we can only imagine how terrible the condition of that building was for every vertical pillar to collapse at the same time from a few relatively small fires.

    At 45 seconds in on this video, there appears to be the creation of symmetrical failure on the outside of the building travelling vertically up the floors

    • Chris Barron says:

      They should have built building 7 using the superior Turkish building method

    • Anthony Bremner says:

      I do not see any disturbance in the smoke at the base of the building that would indicate explosives being used . It would appear that as you said the construction quality was a faulty and did not account for intense heat. Does anyone know if the sprinkler systems were functioning? Probably not with all the ruptured pipes in adjacent buildings causing a drop in water pressure? I am totally new to this subject so please forgive my ignorance on the subject.

    • Brandon C says:

      There was a huge gouge out of the side of WTC 7, from falling debris from the towers. It is clear the building was starting to sag ahead of the collapse (not clear in videos if you only start watching right when the collapse starts, but even then it has a clear sag in the middle). Being that many key columns along the front of the building at ground level were gone, it is not surprising it fell. The fire department pulled out because they felt it had become unsafe, due to sagging. All of this is available from the radio chatter and eyewitness accounts.

      • Chris Barron says:

        So no photos of a gouge, or do you actually have some you can share ?

        “It is clear the building was starting to sag ahead of the collapse” Where is it clear ?

        It is clear in the videos that the centre section falls equally throughout it’s cross section before the rest of the building. The gouge, if it is there, is presumably not in the centre section, you state it is on the side of the building

        If the gouge is not in the centre section but is located out at the edge, could it be explained in a resonable way why all 4 aspects collapse simultaneously, from the centre outwards when what you have told me is that the gouge is on the side of the building

        Does the comment by a demolition expert that it is clearly a demolition mean nothing ?

        Anthony Bremner – Why should there be a large expansive dust cloud at the base, it isn’t necessarily an indication of controlled dempolition, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Buseb-Gqyes&feature=player_embedded

        In this case, turn your speakers off and try to predict when the building is going to fall over by the timing of the appearance of dust clouds at the base

        Here’s a great one, if you wrapped the base charges with blast blankets it would be impossible to know when the collapse would occur because there is next to no dust

        I don’t see anything in the building 7 collapse videos which can be said is proof that explosives were not used. I’m not saying it is beyond doubt that explosives were used, but I’m wondering how it is the case that if setting a few small fires can bring down a building so perfectly , why pay hundreds of thousands to specialists like Controlled Demolition Inc to do exactly the same thing as they achieve….exactly the same thing ?

        • Brandon C says:

          Just because your conspiracy theory site don’t show a picture does not mean they don’t exist. It took me 20 seconds to find this, so I am pretty sure you never looked.

        • Brandon C says:

          A detailed estimate of damage that matches the photos. With more than a dozen support columns severed close to the base and fires weakening the remaining structure, it is not surprise it could collapse. No explosives needed, just simple structural engineering.

        • Robertv says:

          Brandon C says:

          May 4, 2015 at 5:29 pm

          That is fairly simple to explain since it was a top down collapse. To fall over as a building you need to remove support close to the bottom to fall over. Like the tree analogy, you chop at the base until you remove enough support that it falls over. But keep chopping a tree from the top down and it will never fall over. The towers couldn’t fall over because the structure at the base was still sound. The collapse could not vary far from the middle since it was going down the building from the top. Although the video shows the intact portion above the collapse point leaning over. Not surprising since the majority of the damage was to one side. Another good example of how it differs from a demolition.

        • Chris Barron says:

          So Brandon you have shown me evidence which says that in the red and orange areas there was confirmed structural failure……the remaining areas are likely still intact.

          It is generally accepted that the building collapse began in the central core, as is shown at 40 seconds into this video

          If the exterior damage is restricted to a few small areas amounting to what must be about 5% (maybe less) of the outer load bearing areas (and the load bearing structure within was exposed to fire in spacialy different places….I suppose what the ‘official theory’ is saying is that to bring a building down in it’s own footprint as well as a professional demolition then you just need to light a few fires which don’t need to be very hot (black/grey smoke indicates oxygen starved fires) and after knocking out just 5% of a few external beams you sit and wait for the cooling/dying fires to cause a total structural failure….beginning in the undamaged central core , propagating outwards to all sides equally

          I’ll remember that in case it comes up in Trivial Pursuit

        • Brandon C says:

          Perhaps you are just not well versed in structural loading, but that is terrible damage. A 5% lose of support columns all in one spot, is a huge weakening of the structure. Made worse by the damage being lower in the building, since they carry more weight. It may surprise you to learn that building do not put in a lot of unneeded columns, just in case they lose 5% in one spot. They make sure they have enough columns to hold the building up……that is it. They go to great efforts to protect the columns (fire protections) because they are all important. Lose 5% and also have a fire weakening the remaining structure, failure is likely. We don’t actually design buildings to have huge chunks gouged out by falling steel.

        • Chris Barron says:

          My knowledge of structures goes as far as calculating the second poilar moment of area…..where in a beam the best place to drill a hole is by removing the minimum possible strength and the finding the worst place to focus a load on an inclined column, thanks to my engineering degree….but I have not worked in construction so maybe yoiu can tell me what else I’m missing ?

          [Quote]
          Modern steel-framed buildings are engineered to assure that they don’t fall down, and none have, except on 9/11/2001. As Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, told The New York Times in a 1989 interview: ”We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors. . . .”
          It is true that WTC 7 did have an unusual design: It was an irregular trapezoid and it was built over the ConEd electrical substation. But in its final report, NIST acknowledged that “[t]he transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.” In fact, had Building 7 not provided a solid foundation, it would hardly have been chosen to house the mayor’s emergency command center.
          [Unquote]

        • gator69 says:

          Why do you lie so much? We’ve already covered this…

          “In the morning of may 13th, 2008 a fire started on the seventh floor of the faculty of architecture. The fire quickly spread out to the entire building.”

          http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903&comments=1#1J9Lhf4vbSihIRp2.99

          No 767’s slamming into it at over 400 mph and fully loaded with jet fuel.

          The WTC towers were built using a new and untested form of construction that Time Magazine hailed as “brilliant lightweight structure”. It used the longest trusses ever, at 72 feet in length.

          “It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707’s fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings’ collapse.”

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

        • Chris Barron says:

          Brandon -“A 5% lose of support columns all in one spot, is a huge weakening of the structure.”

          I agree, but that is not what i said and is not what happened, viewing your own diagram, about 5% of columns at a lower level on one side of the building sustained some form of damage, but of all columns at that level, considering the other 3 sides of the building (damage is on the shortest side) the damage is limited to no more than maybe 2%

          The buildings have to be strong enough for a listed maximum loading. If such a maximum loading limit is not reached then there is further residual redundancy, over and above that which is designed to accommodate wind loadings.

          I think what nobody can deny is just how curious it is for that one building to collapse after sustaining such a relatively small amount of damage….there was a secret service office and the mayor’s emergency office in that building, why locate such sensitive offices in such fragile buildings….

          NIST have made no substantial recommendations based on t’s analysis of the design of WTC 7, certainly as far as I’m aware there has been no wholesale examination ordered of every skyscraper to make sure that they do meet with what few recommendations NIST actually made, over and above periodic building assessment…….that must be very disconcerting for people who have to work in such buildings if they have no confidence that the building can stay intact after a few small office fires

          It has been my belief that building standards recommendations insist that there is significant fire resistance, not just in the form of the cladding of pillars with fire retardant material, but that the columns involved are over specified in the first place, in order that buildings can withstand fires, the most predictable and most common form of failure.

          The fact that the building’s owner, Larry Silverstein, said on TV that a decision was made to pull building 7, just doesn’t get the attention it might deserve. What on earth was he talking about ?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Its great how you call someone a liar when they’re quoting someone else’s comments Gator ! It wasn’t me which broke your heart fella !

          I have looked objectively at the video you posted and compared it to the film of WTC 7 fires… I don’t see the same level of devastation by fire in WTC 7 at all..

          The initial reports of the fire in your video link stated “The fire quickly spread out to the entire building”
          Fires at WTC 7 can hardly be said to have spread through the entire building.

          You state that Delft university faculty of Architecture was a ‘tall’ building. It was merely 7 floors, certainly not tall in comparison to the 47 floors of WTC and it is unlikely to have been built for the same high floor loadings as a multipurpose office block as WTC7 was, considering it’s academic building status.

          Look, I don’t believe what you believe, but I don’t say you’re full of shit. There’s a lot of unanswered questions with WTC 7…if it’s easy for you to accept ‘big fire, bit of damage, all fall down’ good on ya.

          I never brought this subject up anyway and if you’re not interested then why are you even reading it ? 🙂

        • gator69 says:

          http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

          All your BS is refuted here. You can continue to be willfully ignorant, or learn the truth.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “My knowledge of structures ”

          roflmao. yep we notice, its basically non-existent.

          I teach structural engineering. And I can tell you that if the remaining structure was subjected to fire for anything more than a short period of time (which it was) then the whole structure of the steel in the building would have been compromised. The concrete facing acts for only short term fires. Once the steel inside starts getting heated, it starts to expand and soften, and the concrete is spalled off, very often with a load bang.
          Heated steel become much more malleable and looses a very large proportion of it strength, and the longer it stays heated, the worse it gets. The whole integrity of the total structure becomes highly compromised.

          Look at what happens to the steel structure in factories that burn down, twists like pretzels with very little actual load on it. The loads on the columns and beams in WTC7 would have been very large, especially once several sections were damaged. And those loads, assuming the building was reasonably well designed, would be carried throughout the frame.

          Once that collapse started, there was basically zero solid structure left to stop it.

        • gator69 says:

          Andy, as you well know, Chris is an expert on everything until we show him he isn’t. Then he gets drunk and forgets what he learned the night before.

          This “engineer” did not know that it gets hotter than 85F under the bonnet of his car.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Notice that the collapse happens at the level of the fire.

          The fires in WTC7 were near the base.

          The whole weight of structure bearing down on a severely compromised lower structure, part missing, part weakened by hours of heat. I’m not surprised it collapsed exactly the way it did. A very dangerous structural situation. The fire chief did exactly the right thing by ‘pulling” his men out. They can be glad someone as ignorant as Chris wasn’t in charge !!

        • Chris Barron says:

          “All your BS is refuted here. You can continue to be willfully ignorant, or learn the truth.” – Gator.

          What’s wrong Gator ? You said that the steel framed building in Holland collapsed due to fire….but yet the architects who worked there make a statement that it was a concrete framed building…and therefore I am the ignorant one ?…………The truth is in the report published about the Delft university building, linked to above.

          “I teach structural engineering. And I can tell you that if the remaining structure was subjected to fire for anything more than a short period of time (which it was)” – Andy

          Andy, you’re the structural engineer who told me there was significant damage to the centre section of the building…..but cannot explain why the photographs don’t show any.

          “And I can tell you that if the remaining structure was subjected to fire for anything more than a short period of time (which it was” – The remaining 97% or 98% was subjected to fire was it ? That is not what the video and photographic evidence shows is it ?

          We ought to agree to differ on this….Gator can’t do anything except feign anger, and Andy has to keep changing the story to make it fit.

          I am not a conspiracy theorist just because I don’t believe that the only reason that building may have fallen was due to minor structural damage of maybe as much as 2% of the support columns and a few small fires on a few floors.

          Can someone give a reasonable explanation why the head of the Emergency Centre, based in WTC 7, heard many explosions within the building before WTC1 and WTC2 came down ?

          The Pentagon crash is another curious thing……

          Listen Gator, i know you’re hating the fact that people in other countries look at what happens there with a critical eye, but it isn’t a criticism of you personally, no more than your looking at the many anomalies of our own 7/7 bombings is a reflection on any Brit’s character.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes Chris, we know you are an expert on everything, like “religion”…

          stoning to death by christianity, as spelled out in the bible

          That is what intelligent people call ‘The Old Testament’, and existed before Christ, you moron.

          When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
          -John 8:7

          Come on Chris! Show us your vast knowledge! 😆

          Do I need to repeat that you were wrong, again? Yep!

          Chris the village idiot spews:

          “Islamic Law”…Nobody fears it. It doesn’t actually exist

          Why do you feel it necessary to keep proving that you are an idiot? We know already! 😆

          To Arabic-speaking people, sharia (/ʃɑːˈriːɑː/;[1] also shari’a, sharīʿah; Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], “legislation”) means the moral code and religious law of a prophetic religion.[2][3][4] The term “sharia” has been largely identified with Islam in English usage.[5]

          Sharia (Islamic law) deals with several topics including: crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting..

          Now, back to that building. The architects said it was a “reinforced concrete and steel building”…

          You are saying that is a concrete structure? 😆

          Now about those explosions. Did you know that explosions are common in office fires? Nope!

          List of things that explode in office fires:

          HVAC equipment

          Cleaning supplies

          CRT type TVs and computer monitors

          Large motors that have oil reserves

          Elevator lift motors

          Hydraulic pistons found in office chairs

          UPS battery backups

          Steam explosions

          Propane tanks

          Pressurized rubber tires

          Etc…

          None of the firefighters present that day had been trained to know the difference between an “explosion” and a “bomb”. Now all FDNY firefighters are trained to be able to discern the difference. If they had suspected “bombs” or “charges” were going off, they would have evacuated the premises.

          On top of this, seismic evidence ruled out charges.

          Instead of getting drunk last night, maybe you should have read the material I gave you.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “This “engineer” did not know that it gets hotter than 85F under the bonnet of his car.”

          Thats funny.
          What I told you was that it rarely gets to that temperature under my car’s bonnet and showed you this table in the hope you might understand why…(average maximum temperature is 66F )
          EdTemps

          And then I was waiting for the penny to drop for you…….my radiator was fully shrouded and exhausted downwards, the exhaust manifold was thermally shielded and when driving along on an average 50F day the temperature is unlikley to reach 85F under the bonnet due to the large amount of airflow.

          So you see……

        • gator69 says:

          You are so FOS! 😆

          Where do you think the heat from your motor goes know-it-all? Your radiator and exhaust are only two componenents, and most engines operate at about 200F. Care to tell us the year, make and model?

          gator69 says:
          March 26, 2015 at 9:00 pm
          So when you drive your car, it stays below 85F under the bonnet? Amazing!
          85F is a maximum, that rarely gets reached in my garage, there is no issue there.

          Chris Barron says:
          March 26, 2015 at 8:58 pm
          “Not really. I have lived here long enough, and gone through 8 vehicles, so I know what to expect.”

        • Chris Barron says:

          “gator69 says:
          March 26, 2015 at 9:00 pm
          So when you drive your car, it stays below 85F under the bonnet? Amazing!
          85F is a maximum, that rarely gets reached in my garage, there is no issue there.”

          So your car underbonnet stays below 85F in a hot climate.

          By your reckoning mine exceeds 85F in a much cooler climate.

          You state that engines run at 200F which they do, but, is your engine bay a seal box……mine has a massive air intake at the front and vents out to the wheel arches to the side as well as the underside of the car…. driving at 70mph how much airflow goes under there….imagine 40F air blasting in – is it likely to reach 85F ?

          Anyway, the whole point of the argument you got into was that you tried to assert that temperature has no effect on battery life.

        • gator69 says:

          So as soon as you start the engine, you are doing 70 mph, and never stop for traffic, speed limits, traffic signals, or anything else.

          What kind of car is this Chris? 😆

      • AndyG55 says:

        In a controlled collapse, they take out the middle columns first to make it fall inwards rather than outwards.
        When you see the pictures of massive damage right in the centre of WTC7, its not at all surprising its collapse looked somewhat controlled. The stress on the remaining side columns must have been immense and the structure would have caused those loads to be distributed essentially evenly.
        Concrete coated columns buckling, reinforcement snapping, concrete spalling off bending beams, No wonder it sounded more than a bit like explosions

        • Chris Barron says:

          “When you see the pictures of massive damage right in the centre of WTC7”

          The only pictures i can find are of a gouge, on the south face, spreading approximately 10 floors vertically and to a depth of just one truss depth. (shot by an ABC helicopter)

          WTC7 lacking damage to the central region….WTC 6 stands between WTC1,2 and WTC7 and that is also without damage to the roof area

          Where is the massive damage to the centre of WTC 7 ?

        • Chris Barron says:

          WTC 7 after the collapses
          wtc7

          Andy “When you see the pictures of massive damage right in the centre of WTC7, its not at all surprising its collapse looked somewhat controlled. ”

          This picture, above, shows no such damage…..

        • gator69 says:

          This video shows a large rip in the south side of building 7 before it collapsed. Evidence the building was far more damaged than conspiracy theorists suggest. Note the smoke coming directly from the rip and not building 6 as conspiracy theorists suggest. At 1:33 Min into the video someone says (Firefighters and police were the only ones allowed in the area so it is most likely a firefighter or policeman) “Look at the hole in that building… 7 world… that might come down”.

        • Chris Barron says:

          This video also shows a large rip………etc Considerably greater in size……..still didn’t want to go, did it.

          Okay, it’s a different building…..but, the New York WTC buildings were built to the highest standards. In the case of WTC1 and WTC2 the inner core was strong enough to support the whole weight of the building even if a large proportion of the outer columns were removed.

          The damage to the WTC7 building does not appear to be catastrophic, but that’s just my opinion. It had a fully redundant steel structure….if it were possible to bring such a building down simple by removing a few spans over a few floors then I suspect most people would be reluctant to enter it in the first place knowing that such a total ‘pancake’ type collapse is possible…..even without any damage to the central regioin

        • gator69 says:

          God you are so FOS. WTC used a never tried before construction. Time magazine called it “Brilliant lightweight structure”. It used the longest trusses in history, 72 feet in length, and 95% of the building was air.

          STFU.

        • gator69 says:

          On 5/13/08 a tall steel framed building was brought down by fire, brought straight down into its footprint, by a coffee maker fire.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “God you are so FOS. WTC used a never tried before construction. Time magazine called it “Brilliant lightweight structure”. It used the longest trusses in history, 72 feet in length, and 95% of the building was air.”

          WTC 7 was not the same construction, it was a more traditional method because of it’s reduced height.

          The owner of the building has confirmed they built significant redundancy into WTC 7

          As for STFU…….did you run out of sense again ?

        • gator69 says:

          Obviously the damage was beyond the “redundany”…

          http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

        • Chris Barron says:

          “On 5/13/08 a tall steel framed building was brought down by fire, brought straight down into its footprint, by a coffee maker fire.”

          Tall ?

          How many floors constitute ‘tall’
          Delft Uni was just 7 floors high (some floors were double height, the top tower peaked at just 13 conventional storeys)

          But that aside, the report into the fire, by the faculty of architecture and American scientists state “Fire in high-rise buildings is rare: structural collapse due to fire even more so.”

          The report notes that it was not a steel framed building (your video is wrong)
          “The FOA Building was a reinforced concrete structure that used mild (non-prestressed) steel reinforcement. ”

          One of the most likely hypothesis explaining the collapse is…
          “A review of post-fire photographs of the FOA building indicates loss of cross-sections in certain parts of the buildings. This was postulated to be due to fire induced spalling.”

          ‘Spalling’ is the loss of concrete from concrete columns due to heat

          So in short, Gator, This was not a steel framed building collapse, it was a concrete building. The fire was extensive and complete on nearly all floors so it is a vastly different fire to WTC7, and the collapse was due to concrete failure, which could not have happened at WTC7 given that the main strength bearing components were not concrete pillars or concrete girders.

          The initial report where I extracted the above comments is free to download here
          http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228587373_Fire_and_Collapse_Faculty_of_Architecture_Building_Delft_University_of_Technology_Data_Collection_and_Preliminary_Analyses

          No lies here.

          STFU ? PMSL

        • gator69 says:

          Obviously this building was reinforced concrete AND steel. And did not have near the weight of building 7, or the damage. Nice try.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Obviously the damage was beyond the “redundany”…

          http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

          Really ?
          The director of the Emergency centre discussing the explosions in WTC 7 *before* either WTC 1 or WTC2 fell

        • gator69 says:

          Wow! What a speed reader!

          Try again…

          http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

        • AndyG55 says:

          “‘Spalling’ is the loss of concrete from concrete columns due to heat ”

          Again the ignorance. Display it for all to see, child. 🙂

          Spalling is also the loss of concrete from around steel columns. The concrete sprayed onto or formed around steel beams and columns is mostly to protect them from heat in short term fires. Depending on thickness this may mean 40 mins to over an hour. A fire burning or much longer than this will penetrate to the steel causing it to expand and ‘spall’ the concrete off the steel, leaving it highly vulnerable.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Aren’t you being the childish one there Andy.

          Spalling is the loss of concrete from concrete columns in the context of the building being discussed, the Delft uni DoA building, as referenced in the report into it’s collapse….which makes no mention of loss of concrete from steel columns

          I am not saying that spalling is not an applicable term for the loss of concrete from steel columns, but as it is not relevant to the Delft uni building what was the point in mentioning it ?

          Spalling is a term used to describe the process that occurs when flakes are separated from some type of larger body of material.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Obviously this building is reinforced concrete AND steel” – Gator

          Which columns are the steel columns ? Did you even read the initiial report into the collapse which I posted for you ? It doesn’t look like it

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, I did read the info you gave, and it clearly stated the building was reinforced concrete and steel. WTC 7 hadfe both reinforced concrete and steel too.

          But here is the real red herring.

          “Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.”

          How many steel-framed high-rise buildings have been purposely hit by terrorists with 500 mph 767’s carrying a full capacity of fuel?

          How many have had one of the world’s tallest structures fall against them, catch fire and then collapse?

          How many?

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Wow! What a speed reader!
          Try again…
          http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

          I did read it and apart from wondering why it was written like a tedious English lesson which is formally defining lots of ways to use the word ‘pull’……it’s main support of the interpretation of ‘pulling’ in terms of building demolition which it says refutes the use of explosives is to show a crane jib and cable…..

          That would mean you only need to find the photos now from 9/11 showing a crane pulling over WTC 7 and we’re home and dry.

          No crane pulled building 7 though, did it.

          Tell me it fell over by itself before the crane arrived…….

        • gator69 says:

          So after reading that, all you can do is twist and critcize the words of the author? And what about the firefighters who said they heard the building creaking and groaning? Or the firefighters who determined the building was leaning?

          If you cannot reason, then we cannot have an honest discussion, but I already knew that.

          How many steel-framed high-rise buildings have been purposely hit by terrorists with 500 mph 767’s carrying a full capacity of fuel?

          How many have had one of the world’s tallest structures fall against them, catch fire and then collapse?

          How many?

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Somehow he can also see through all the smoke coming from the fires , coming out from non-exitstant damage. Amzing.. idiocy !!” – Andy

          Somehow you could see huge amounts of damage to the central section of WTC 7 which on further analysis seemed to disappear…..Idiocy indeed

          “When you see the pictures of massive damage right in the centre of WTC7, ” -Andy

          wtc7

          That’l be right……..or maybe you have some pictures of your own Andy ?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again we have the rabid green socialist being the conspiracy theorist.

          Thanks Chris for proving that Lewy was totally wrong.

          The damage is lower down. Keep searching idiot !!.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Thanks Chris for proving that Lewy was totally wrong.” – Andy

          It was you who was proved wrong againAndy.

          Or do you have a photo of the massive damage to the central region of the towers, hence why the central region collapsed first ? (like you claimed existed)

        • Chris Barron says:

          Gator – “How many steel framed buildings have been hit etc etc”

          The World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, hence, by default, they were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 767.

          THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767.

          Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

          The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
          The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

          The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
          The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

          The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
          The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

          The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
          The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

          The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
          The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

          http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
          http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

          So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

          In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

          The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
          = 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
          = 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

          The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
          = 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
          = 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

          From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

          In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

        • gator69 says:

          The designers did not figure in fuel, just a empty tanked jet.

          How many steel-framed high-rise buildings have been purposely hit by terrorists with 500 mph 767’s carrying a full capacity of fuel?

          How many have had one of the world’s tallest structures fall against them, catch fire and then collapse?

          How many?

        • Chris Barron says:

          In other words , Gator, because energy is a function of velocity squared

          American 11: (WTC North Tower) 430kts
          United 175: (WTC South Tower) 510kts

          The difference in energy between the two impacts is substantial

          430^2 = 184900
          510^2 = 260100

          (multiply by’ 0.5 x mass of plane’)

          one could be forgiven for expecting different results due to the vastly different v^2 component.

        • gator69 says:

          How many steel-framed high-rise buildings have been purposely hit by terrorists with 500 mph 767’s carrying a full capacity of fuel?

          How many have had one of the world’s tallest structures fall against them, catch fire and then collapse?

          How many? Answer the question.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “How many steel-framed high-rise buildings have been purposely hit by terrorists with 500 mph 767’s carrying a full capacity of fuel?

          How many have had one of the world’s tallest structures fall against them, catch fire and then collapse?

          How many? Answer the question.”

          Back to your reductionist technique I see.

          “”How many steel-framed high-rise buildings have been purposely hit by terrorists with 500 mph 767’s carrying a full capacity of fuel?

          The building was designed to withstand the impact

          “How many have had one of the world’s tallest structures fall against them, catch fire and then collapse?”

          It looks in pretty good shape down there in the lobby, doesn’t it

          How many? Answer the question.”
          If I guess zero would you believe me ?
          Would that be all it takes to convince you?

        • gator69 says:

          The impact of an empty 707, not the impact of a fully loaded 767, being used as a missile.

          Are you even old enough to remember the first wide body planes?

          The widebody age began in 1970 with the entry into service of the first widebody airliner, the four-engined, partial double-deck Boeing 747.

          I grew up around planes and planned to be a pilot. Dad took the family to the airport in 1970/71 to see the first wide body, and it was considerably larger than the old 707-737s.

          And no, the lobby does not look to be pretty good shape.

          I am once again confirmed you are a liar and an idiot.

        • gator69 says:

          Back to your reductionist technique I see.

          I am so very glad you brought up “reductionism”.

          Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.

          re·duc·tion·ism riˈdəkSHəˌnizəm noun, derogatory 1- the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation

          I am simlpy dishing out what truthers serve up on this same topic. Bon appetit! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          “I grew up around planes and planned to be a pilot. Dad took the family to the airport in 1970/71 to see the first wide body, and it was considerably larger than the old 707-737s.”

          Why don’t you explain the difference between a wide bodied plane and a narrower one in an impact ?

          As you start writing about it perhaps you can consider the fact that a wider body holds more air. in an impact the force would be spread not only over a wider area, but that impact area would be further spread, spatially speaking, therefore delivering less concentrated pressure than a pre- wide bodied aircraft. That means, in turn, that the wide body spreads the load over more of the structure, which is the ideal thing if you want to reduce the risk of damaging that structure.

          Contrary to what you seemed to be implying, the wider body makes for a ‘softer’ impact.. Take 1lb of lead as an example and spin it into a tube of 1ft diameter and fire it at 500kts at a building, it will damage it considerably. and possibly sustain only moderate damage to itself
          Now spin the lead into a tube with a 20ft diameter and fire that at the wall and a number of things are fundamentally different – the thinner tube walls present less pressure to the building per unit area, and also because the stength of the tube is much less than before the energy of impact is much more readily absorbed by the projectile itself.

          The wider the body, the softer the blow, and the greater the likelihood the tube will absorb more of the impact too. For every foot you add onto the diameter you add 3.14 feet onto the impact area (assumes a round fuselage and similar wall thickness and construction method) . The 767 was over 4 feet wider than standard sngle aisle jets of similar weight so the energy was spread over a further 12foot of circumferencial area.

          Now none of this proves there was a bomb anywhere in sight any more than it doesn’t proves a plane caused into the towers causing a catastrophic structural failure, I was merely pointing out that a wide bodied plane in no way represents a bigger bang just because it has a wider body.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, we noticed that the 767 barely cracked the glass. 😆

        • gator69 says:

          The wider the body, the softer the blow, and the greater the likelihood the tube will absorb more of the impact too.

          God you are an idiot.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “God you are an idiot.”

          That doesn’t disprove the physics you rejected.because you didn’t like the idea of it.

          You were the one who blathered on about the 767 being wide bodied and that somehow, that was supposed to be very important when comparing the 767 to a 707…..and you were exactly right, there is a difference, and the difference is the opposite of what you thought it would be.

        • gator69 says:

          Yeah, it was real lucky for those 2,977 dead people that the hijackers used a 767…

          Idiot.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “So no photos of a gouge, or do you actually have some you can share ?”

        So, as usual, you haven’t done your homework.

        Half cocked , though ignorance, as is your meme.

        Yes there are photos.. go and find them yourself.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’ve found a gouge photo, I was only commenting ont he fact that a post was made and it wouldn’t have taken much effort to include a photo. The gouge does not appear to be particularly catastrophic

          The absence of serious damage to the central region is pretty striking isn’t it ?

        • rah says:

          Damn you got X-ray vision even when looking at a 2D picture?

        • gator69 says:

          For Chris, x-ray vision is a matter of adaptation.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Somehow he can also see through all the smoke coming from the fires , coming out from non-exitstant damage. Amzing.. idiocy !!

          Interesting that the guy pushing the conspiracy is also the moron that thinks wind turbine are a realist alternative to dependable gas and coal. Lewy got it th wrong way around.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Damn you got X-ray vision even when looking at a 2D picture?” – Rah

          I’ve got the same vision as Andy who claimed he had access to photos showing massive damage to the centre of WTC 7…..only now he can’t find them, right…

        • gator69 says:

          None of the current FDNY firefighters believe in the “demo theory”. Not one, of 5000 members.

          FDNY member Vincent Palmieri, “If there were members of FDNY who thought there were bombs in those buildings, there would be many dozens of members standing with the ‘Firefighters for 911 Truth’. That’s how we do it, that’s how we are… brave enough to stand up for the murder of 343 of our own family…

          There were 6 demo companies on site for the cleanup, and not one gives any credence to the “demo theory”.

          Not one shred of evidence has been found that points to the “demo theory”. Not one piece.

          “Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.”

          How many steel-framed high-rise buildings have been purposely hit by terrorists with 500 mph 767’s carrying a full capacity of fuel?

          How many have had one of the world’s tallest structures fall against them, catch fire and then collapse?

          How many?

        • AndyG55 says:

          HSC can spall explosively below 400C after less than 1/2 hour, leaving the steel below dangerously exposed.

          Telling you the facts,

          I’m leaving you to do some learning on your own .. nah.. you are incapable.

          WTC7 with the damage and fire to the lower floors was a building waiting to collapse.

          Fortunately the fire chief had WAY more intelligence than Chris will ever have, and PULLED his men out.

          Knowledge and experience.. both sadly lacking in the socialist child-mind that resides in Chris’s otherwise empty cranium.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Andy – HSC can spall explosively at 400C leaving the steel dangerously exposed ?

          Constructional steel strength isn’t particularly threatened at those temperatures, there is just a slight reduction from the strength at ambient

          What temperature did you say you had measured the fires to be ?

          Barry Jennings was walking about inside that building (and hearing explosions) while the fires burned….was that the same building which you reckon was extensively damaged by fire ?

          Wait a minute…..you’re about to talk about a reduction in the size of fire…..you’re going to tell me that it was just limited to a few floors…..don’t bother

        • gator69 says:

          The reason the lobby was obliterated, was because one tower had already fallen, or did you not watch the video. And as for explosioins…

          List of things that explode in office fires:

          HVAC equipment

          Cleaning supplies

          CRT type TVs and computer monitors

          Large motors that have oil reserves

          Elevator lift motors

          Hydraulic pistons found in office chairs

          UPS battery backups

          Steam explosions

          Propane tanks

          Pressurized rubber tires

          Etc…

          How many steel-framed high-rise buildings have been purposely hit by terrorists with 500 mph 767’s carrying a full capacity of fuel?

          How many have had one of the world’s tallest structures fall against them, catch fire and then collapse?

          How many?

        • Chris Barron says:

          “None of the current FDNY firefighters believe in the “demo theory”. Not one, of 5000 members.” – Gator

          Perhaps some of the dead ones did ?

          Not a current member, but a reliable one all the same i suspect
          http://whale.to/b/szy10.html
          ” “First, many people may not recall that on February 15, 1975, there was a blaze at the World trade Center that took out six floors. In fact, the fire was much hotter than the one on 9/11 but it still didn’t take down the entire building.””

          Maybe it is too difficult for the ones who have doubts to express them without the fear of being ridiculed looming over them ?

          [Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. “My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli. “I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out. … It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don’t agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible.”

          Another firefighter said
          “‘Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors …We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse.” ”

          “None of the current firefighters believe in the demo theory” – Gator
          Are all of these fireghters who form Firefighters for 9/11 Truth ex serving then ?

          Gator…….if you don’t believe we can discuss this sensibly why are you hell bent on discussing it any other way ?

          Do you accept that there are a lot of firefighters who do not believe the ‘official theory’. What do you make of the firefighters who don’t believe the dictat ? Don’t tell me, go their Facebook and take it up with them
          https://www.facebook.com/firefightersfor911truth

        • gator69 says:

          Yep, you’ve all seen it touted before by the “Truth Movement”. It is Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. He goes step by step though the NFPA 921 guidelines and points out what NIST did wrong.

          Well, the first problem he has is that NFPA is not a law or a state code. It is a guide, a model, or a best practice, for the investigation of Fires and Explosions. Nowhere does it ever say that it is a law, or that this is the only way to do it.

          In fact, NFPA says specifically
          Originally Posted by NFPA 921
          NFPA codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides, of which the document contained herein is one, are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus
          on fire and other safety issues. While the NFPA administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the development of consensus, it does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the accuracy of any information or the soundness of any judgments contained in its codes and standards.
          It goes on to say

          Originally Posted by NFPA 921
          The NFPA has no power, nor does it undertake, to police or enforce compliance with the contents of this document… Users of this document should consult applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of this document, intend to urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and this document may not be construed as doing so.
          It is very clear that is not a law enforcement agency, and as such, cannot enforce any of the recommendations in their guides.
          So, we have determined that this is NOT a law, nor is it considered any kind of Formal guideline. So, whenever Mr. Lawyer says “They didn’t follow the guidelines” remember this.
          It is not a law.
          Now, onto the video!

          At about: 27 seconds in, he basically calls anyone who hasn’t signed the petition a coward. Way to win ‘em over Erik! Woot! (Roll eyes here)

          At: 39 seconds in, he asked for an investigation that follows the standards and has contempt and subpoena powers. The “Standards” he is referring to, is NFPA’s guidelines. Well, as we have already established, NFPA is not a law enforcement agency, and makes no laws. See above.

          At about: 40 seconds in, he says that “This should have been the most protected, preserved, over tested and thorough investigation in world history.”

          Well, you see it was. Fresh Kills rings a bell. The FDNY and NYPD could not logically say that nobody was to try to rescue anyone, or move anything, until this scene was completely documented. To ask that is asinine at best.

          :56 ” Most of the evidence was destroyed.”

          Really? Fresh Kills didn’t exist? Amazing! Tell that to the guys from Phillips and Jordan out of Zephyrhills Florida. Here is their account.

          Click to access Other…20Recovery.pdf


          Pretty cool eh?

          At 1:00 he says ” I have seen a lot of crime scenes, but I have never seen anything like it in my life.”

          No **** Sherlock! Neither had 99.9% of the world’s population. Well, except maybe those guys in Hiroshima and Nagasaki! They got us beat.

          1:22 “Evidence was being destroyed when it was being shipped off.”

          Really? Again, Fresh Kills ring a bell? Sure, some of the steel that was nowhere near the collapse initiation zone was not saved, but do I need the entire football team to undergo physical exams when one player hurts himself? Of course not.

          1:32 “NIST investigation into Tower 7 had no physical evidence. How do you investigate a crime when you have destroyed all the evidence?”

          Well, considering nobody died in 7WTC, and there was no crime committed, it was not necessary to save the physical evidence

          At 1:38”They also refused to test for explosives….or residue of thermite”

          No, they decided against it, as there was no physical evidence of any explosive, and no records of any of the recovery workers reporting any suspicious pieces in 7WTC.
          Thermite? Do I really need to discuss this?

          Here is what NFPA 921 19.2.4 says about thermite
          Originally Posted by NFPA 921 19.2.4
          19.2.4* Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers (see NFPA 430, Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers) may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.
          Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of being associated with HTAs during the 1981–1991 period revealed that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.
          Even NFPA classified thermite as an accelerant. Not explosive. It also goes on to say that you would see EXCEEDINGLY RAPID FIRE RATE (Not witnessed in 7WTC) BRILLIANT FLARES (Not witnessed in 7WTC) AND MELTED STEEL or concrete. (Also not found at 7WTC)

          No steel melted. No flares and no rapid fire growth.

          1:46 “There are standards for an investigation.”

          Yeah, too bad they are not from the NFPA. NFPA is, as we have already discussed, a guideline, a model. Not STANDARD.

          1:52 “And holds people accountable.”

          NIST nor NFPA have that type of jurisdiction, as neither of them are a law enforcement agency. That is what the FBI, and the ATF do.

          2:30 He brings up NFPA 9.3.6
          Here it is.

          Originally Posted by NFPA
          Spoliation of evidence refers to the loss, destruction, or material alteration of an object or document that is evidence or potential evidence in a legal proceeding by one who has the responsibility for its preservation. Spoliation of evidence may occur when the movement, change, or destruction of evidence, or the alteration of the scene significantly impairs the opportunity of other interested parties to obtain the same evidentiary value from the evidence, as did any prior investigator
          BUT, here is where he cherry picks the NFPA. Here is the special clause that NFPA put in, as they understand that in an imperfect world, sometimes spoliation may occur during the rescue operations, cleanup and investigation.

          Originally Posted by 9.3.6.6
          Fire investigation usually requires the movement of evidence or alteration of the scene. In and of itself, such movement of evidence or alteration of the scene should not be considered spoliation of evidence. Physical evidence may need to be moved prior to the discovery of the cause of the fire. Additionally, it is recognized that it is sometimes necessary to remove the potential causative agent from the scene and even to carry out some disassembly in order to determine whether the object did, in fact, cause the fire, and which parties may have contributed to that cause. For example, the manufacturer of an appliance may not be known until after the unit has been examined for identification. Such activities should not be considered spoliation.
          Also of note, this chapter is referenced under Legal Considerations. It even gives a nice little disclaimer
          Originally Posted by NFPA
          The legal considerations contained in this chapter and elsewhere in this guide pertain to the law in the United States. This chapter does not attempt to state the law as it is applied in each country or other jurisdiction. Such a task exceeds the scope of this guide.
          2:38 “The steel was melted down. We know this by their own admission”

          Again, I ask, what crime was suspected of happening in 7WTC? None.

          At 2:42 he brings up exotic accelerants. We have already gone over exotic accelerants.

          at 3:00 he states “Even on a routine house fire, if we suspect even the slightest use of an accelerant, we test for it.”

          Yes, where you do not know the cause of the fire, and there is physical evidence of an accelerant. None was found. Well, except for the giant diesel fuel tanks that was contained in 7WTC. But, we know they were there.

          3:17 “There is no excuse not to test for it.”

          Well, in a normal routine house fire, yes. But we knew the cause of 7WTC’s fire before lunch time. The firefighters around the scene noted no brilliant light sources, no rapid spread of fire, and no melted steel or concrete. So, tell me, why should they have tested for it? To waste time and resources? For practice?

          At 3:20, he talks about NFPA 18.15. This is a doozie! You’ll get a kick out of this!
          Here is what NFPA 921 18.15 says.

          Originally Posted by NFPA
          18.15 Analyze Fuel Source. Once the origin or epicenter of the explosion has been identified, the investigator should determine the fuel. This is done by a comparison of the nature and type of damage to the known available fuels at the scene. All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all of the physical damage criteria. For example, if the epicenter of the explosion is identified as a 6 ft (1.8 m) crater of pulverized concrete in the center of the floor, fugitive natural gas can be eliminated as the fuel, and only fuels that can create seated explosions should be considered.
          IT’S TALKING ABOUT EXPLOSIONS THAT CAUSE FIRES!!! Please learn to read the ENTIRE text Mr. Lawyer…

          At 3:32 Notice he stumbles a little and almost says craters…..Wonder why he left that out?!?!?
          He then says “If you find cra – If you find pulverized concrete, which we all know was in all 3 buildings there was pulverized concrete”

          Say it ain’t so? You mean to tell me that hundreds if not thousands of tons of building collapsing on a concrete slab will pulverize concrete? Derpa. Again, this is STILL referring to EXPLOSIONS!!

          At 3:43 or so, he says “Only fuels that create seated explosions should be considered. So they should not be considering fire, they shouldn’t be doing that, it doesn’t account for pulverized concrete” (NFPA def. of a seated explosion
          Quote:
          Only specific types or configurations of explosive fuels can produce seated explosions. These include explosives, steam boilers, tightly confined fuel gases or liquid fuel vapors, and BLEVEs occurring in relatively small containers, such as cans or barrels.
          This is VERY misleading and blatantly dishonest Mr. Lawyer. This is, again, referring to EXPLOSIONS. Of course the fire did not cause the pulverized concrete, the collapse of the enormous building caused the pulverized concrete.

          At 3:51 he says ” 19.4.8.2.6 Extremism “The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal.” We know they used them in 1993, why would we not test for them now?”

          Because the terrorists parked the fire and explosion in the side of the building at ~500 MPH. Everyone saw it, and everyone knew where the “bomb” was planted.

          At 4:06 he brings up explosives in the basements and asks “Why didn’t we test for it?”

          No evidence of an EXPLOSIVE going off in the basement, other than fuel from the elevator.

          At 4:15 he brings up 14.3 Preservation of the fire scene and physical evidence. He states “The cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation.”

          But, is that was NFPA says? NOPE!! Close, but no cigar!!
          Here is what NFPA ACTUALLY says

          Originally Posted by NFPA 14.3
          Every attempt should be made to protect and preserve the fire scene as intact and undisturbed as possible, with the structure, contents, fixtures, and furnishings remaining in their pre-fire locations. Generally, the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation.
          We know what caused the fires. In buildings 1&2, it was a huge 767 being plowed into the side of it. 7 was because parts of that huge building that collapsed caused substantial damage to it, and sending flaming debris into the building.

          Nice job quote-mining Erik! Why do you leave words out? Oh, because then it does not say what you want your audience to hear. You want them to hear what you WISH is said.

          (Christopher7, are you paying attention? Your buddy is getting his ass handed to him)

          At 4:42 he states that “NIST refused to test for explosives, as Dr. Stephen Jones did.”

          Yeah, except for the fact that there were so many methodological errors in it that it cannot be taken seriously. And, not to mention, to date, has not once submitted his results to an independent lab for analysis, not presented his paper to a respectable journal for peer-review.
          Again, NIST is not required to test for explosives by NFPA guidelines.

          At 5:15 he talks about Chapter 18 of NFPA 921. He says “Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not (in big bold letters) an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”

          Well, this is another lie. It does NOT have big bold letters at all.

          Here is the exact text.

          Originally Posted by NFPA Chap. 18
          Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.
          BUT, then it goes on to describe why a loud noise may not accompany an explosion.

          Originally Posted by NFPA
          The ignition of a flammable vapor/air mixture within a can, which bursts the can or even only pops off the lid, is considered an explosion. The ignition of the same mixture in an open field, while it is a deflagration, may not be an explosion as defined in this document, even though there may be the release of high-pressure gas, a localized increase in air pressure, and a distinct noise. The failure and bursting of a tank or vessel from hydrostatic pressure of a non compressible fluid such as water is not an explosion, because the pressure is not created by gas. Explosions are gas dynamic.
          At 5:50 “NIST has lied. And we can prove it. As soon as the new investigation happens…We have 118 first responders that reported explosions, we have the radio transmissions from the FDNY members that are still recorded today that reported explosions. We have audio recordings, we have video recordings.”

          Excellent! 188 first responders reported something that went boom. Now, that is another topic for another thread, but we can touch on it briefly.
          The 188 firefighters that reported explosions is a quote mine of all quote mines. It looks through all of the firefighters’ oral histories (found here http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package…s_full_01.html ) and looks for the word explosion. This is BLATENTLY dishonest, as many of them are describing the collapse itself, or are using simile or hyperbole.
          Also, there are many many things that go boom in a fire. Can we dismiss them in favor of the least plausible? No.

          At 6:25 “This was the most incompetent investigation of all time.”

          Really? I think you are the one that is incompetent. You have quote mined and taken out of context just about every single thing that NFPA says. You are a disgrace to firefighters everywhere, and I have shown with irrefutable facts that you are wrong, and are a liar.
          To Mr. Erik Lawyer, of the Seattle Fire Department; Please turn in your badge, as you sir, are a disgrace to the people of that department, and are not deserving of the honor, courage, and commitment that it takes to be called a true firefighter.

        • Chris Barron says:

          All of that categorically proves there is still a lack of evidence to dispute the hypothesis stating that explosives were used in the demolition of WTC 7….which if you remember is the very point you were trying to disprove.

          Did you also google the names of the other firefighters who reported explosions and find someone else’s rebuttals of those too….I’m waiting

          What are the exact credentials of the person disputing Mr Lawyers testimony ? I guess if they’re good enough for you just because it sounds good…then it’s good for me too 😉

        • gator69 says:

          I don’t need to check the firefighters’ reports of “explosions”, as there were many explosions that day, as I have already pointed out. Are you stupid?

          We keep showing that the obvious answer is correct, and that your sources are FOS, and you keep coming back for more.

          If you want to place your beliefs in liars and frauds, go for it! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Okay enough already

          There were no explosives. No firefighters have any doubts….there was also no molten steel. because those firemen didn’t actually see it, and what do firemen actually know about what goes in on building fires anyway…. mutts huh ?

        • gator69 says:

          What the firemen witnessed was likely molten aluminum, which melts at office fire temperatures, or 1220F. Molten steel, when contacting water is explosive, and would have melted through the channels. The fire did not get above 1500F, and steel melts at 2500F.

          “The photos shown to support melted steel are to me unconvincing, or show materials that appear to be other than steel… glass with rods in it…”
          -Alan Pence, University of Victoria, Prof Emeritus of Metallurgical Engineering

          Any more stupid shit you wish to share?

        • Chris Barron says:

          God you have no belief in giving the firemen any benefit of prior knowledge.

          Okay this is aluminium.

          and being that this photo was taken 6 weeks after the collapses, there is great interest from the foundry business who would like to know how you keep ANY metal in it’s molten state, buried underground in an oxygen void atmosphere.

        • gator69 says:

          Idiot, those are exactly the photos described by Alan Pence.

          The photos shown to support melted steel are to me unconvincing, or show materials that appear to be other than steel… glass with rods in it
          -Alan Pence, University of Victoria, Prof Emeritus of Metallurgical Engineering

          Any more stupid shit you want to share?

  27. Anthony Bremner says:

    It is just too hard for me to believe that so many people could be involved in such huge conspiracy to kill that many innocent people, especially GWB who may have done some dumb things but I think generally has good intentions. It is much easier to believe that so many climate scientists have altered the evidence to keep their job since it is openly said by the President that he does not want any “deniers” In his administration. A big financial incentive for each one since they would be fired if they did not cooperate with the alarmist cause. I think this 9/11 thing is going to hurt this website badly which is a shame considering all the useful work that Tony has done for us skeptics. I will still visit for all the useful research but I cannot send other people to it anymore as I fear Tony will be dismissed out of hand now as a conspiracy buff. I have been called that just for being a climate skeptic when there is huge evidence from the climate itself if people would only look.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Anthony, It does not have to be a large number of people.

      Think about the CAGW con Job. It really is not all that many people. It is just people with a lot of power and $$$ AND a compliant media.

      The compliant media is the real key. I have been in on the ground floor as an eye witness to two events that got national coverage. With both events the ‘official story’ is completely fabricated yet years later it still stands despite the fact there were hundreds of people who knew the real story.

      In one case the national media actually showed film of a riot at my university in 1970 that never happened! My parents who were over a thousand miles away saw the film on the news, panicked and called me. I was on campus all day and THERE WAS NO RIOT!

    • Robertv says:

      So you already are on the black list of those who don’t believe the government version of a story. You think they’ll send you to a different detention camp.

  28. Brandon C says:

    Again we have to go through all this BS of carefully selected information selected not to educate but to misinform. Here is a few salient points from someone working as an architectural consultant:
    – It doesn’t matter one tiny bit what caused the initial structural failure, once it has started a controlled demolition and a heat/plane failure will fall the same way. Gravity does 99.9% of the work in a controlled demolition, not explosives. So there is no reason a progressive collapse should be, on the surface, different than a collapse from a structure failure.
    – except for one key reason, that is very clear in this context. In a controlled demolition, they remove key supports throughout the building causing the structure to give way at many points. In the case of 9/11, it is clear that the section of building above the plane impact falls first. This leads to a progressive collapse in which the falling weight of the mass above almost instantly overwhelming the structure of the floors underneath. This is obvious from the videos, since the material from the collapse spreads outward from the building as each floor gives resistance. (and please no BS about freefall speed, you can clearly see ejected material falling faster than the collapse, so obviously not going at freefall). Think of it like pouring water on top of a fence post. As the water (building mass above) hits the top of the post it will spread outward from that point in an umbrella shape. This is due to the upward force of the still intact structure pushing upwards against the falling mass. This does not happen in controlled demolitions since they remove the supports at the ground ( and a few key locations for control) so that the earth is providing the upward force to demolish the building. The mushroom shape of debris flowing outward during the collapse is a clear sign that the area of demolition and collapse is moving downwards, not the building moving downwards into the area of collapse. A huge difference that cannot be overlooked by anyone who understands structures.
    – A building is a literal maze of shafts, tunnels and passages. As the building is collapsing from the top down, the air in each floor is being displaces in a fraction of a second. This will blow outward and down any internal shafts (elevators, ventilation) at supersonic speeds. It will generate forces literally in hundreds of thousands of psi. That it blows out walls on floors that have elevator lobbies (where shafts end and different ones begin), is of no surprise. The fact that the collapse does not reach the area of these “explosions” until the progressive collapse gets there is also a clear indication that they are not removing structural elements and causing the collapse.
    – A building only stays up because the sum of the upward force (structure), is greater than the downward force of gravity on the mass above that point. remove many key structural element by force (plane impact) and then it is just a matter of time until the weakening of the remaining elements will pass a point where they will start to collapse. In a controlled demolition, they remove these elements with explosives. But there is no reason the plane and fire would not remove enough strength until the mass above overcomes the remaining structure and drops. Once the mass (all the building above the point of impact) drops even one floor, it would have more than enough inertia to overcome any resistance from the remaining structure.

    I can keep going on, but this is just a case of politically motivated people hoping that people will fall for selective information coupled with an appeal to authority. It doesn’t matter if your an architect or engineer, if you are not telling the full truth about something. Throwing your reputation behind this group will only harm your reputation.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Decent explanation.

      What about the lateral (sideways) forces? With trees you intentionally remove one side of the tree to cause the tree to fall sideways and not down.

      • Brandon C says:

        That is fairly simple to explain since it was a top down collapse. To fall over as a building you need to remove support close to the bottom to fall over. Like the tree analogy, you chop at the base until you remove enough support that it falls over. But keep chopping a tree from the top down and it will never fall over. The towers couldn’t fall over because the structure at the base was still sound. The collapse could not vary far from the middle since it was going down the building from the top. Although the video shows the intact portion above the collapse point leaning over. Not surprising since the majority of the damage was to one side. Another good example of how it differs from a demolition.

        Fires and earthquakes cause them to fall over from messing with the base structure at/or near the ground. A fire will start in one point and burn that area faster than other areas, and it falls over when it fails first. An earthquake simply moves the base back and forth until the structure lets go or it leans enough that it acts as a lever and breaks free from its support.

        It is also important to remember how this building differed from standard steel construction. Most steel building have a grid of interconnected steel supports. They form squares with beams and columns around the edges of each square of the grid. The towers had a series of columns around the outside edge and a support core in the middle of the building. No columns anywhere in between, with just the floor structure connecting the two structural support areas and acting as bracing. A way different design than the buildings the video kept showing and not comparable.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Brandon C,

          Thanks makes sense.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Brandon, yoiu say “Fires and earthquakes cause them to fall over from messing with the base structure at/or near the ground. A fire will start in one point and burn that area faster than other areas, and it falls over when it fails first. ”

          Can you give some examples of concrete clad steel framed buildings falling over from fire…I am really struggling to find some examples

          The Windsor Tower in Madrid burned for 20 hours and did not collapse.

          In fact no steel framed building had fallen due to fire damage prior to 9/11, then 3 happen in one day……just like busses

          Following this inferno this building did not fall…in fact, it was signed off as being only in need of repair to some sections which may have been weakened before returning to service

        • Brandon C says:

          Again you show me interconnected grid buildings that share almost no structural similarity to the WTC, and have sustained no significant damage to the main part of it’s structure, and still has all it’s fire retarding material still in place, and none even close to half the height of the WTC, and have functioning sprinkler systems during much of the fire…….and you feel this a good comparison? I can show you a picture of a smart car crashing, and does that give you a solid position to claim what can and cannot happen when a semi crashes into a wall at twice the speed? Stop looking for outside comparisons, when the WTC was a unique case for many structural and scaling issues. We design buildings with enough redundancy that a typical fire weakening of the structure should not cause a collapse. However, remove a portion of the structure, with say a jet at speed, and the remaining structure is carrying more weight per member. All of your redundancy is being used to carry the extra weight of the missing supports, and the fire (with better access to the steel from the removal of fire retarding coatings from a jet impact) weakens the steel and there is no reserve to pick up that additional load. You have reached failure (load has exceeded the carrying capacity of the remaining members) and the building collapses.

          And the Madrid tower did see partial collapses within the framework, but the grid design structure is better suited to handle a fire of that kind. The WTC was designed for height and open space, both attributes that reduced its ability to survive an event like this.

        • Robertv says:

          “But keep chopping a tree from the top down and it will never fall over.”

          How big should be the chopped part to fall through the center of the tree and what is the height it should fall from before impacting the trunk?

        • Brandon C says:

          The tree analogy only goes so far. Steel is different than cellulose material, and a hollow frame is different from a sold structure.

    • Chris Barron says:

      I was following you until ” This will blow outward and down any internal shafts (elevators, ventilation) at supersonic speeds. ”

      What do you know can travel at supersonic speeds without creating the usual noises associated with breaking the sound barrier at about 320 m/s ?

      Are you saying that the sonic booms (one for each floor ?) were masked ?.

      • Brandon C says:

        For a thought exercise, what is the decibel rating of a collapsing building versus a sonic boom? What is louder the expelled air or millions of pounds of steel and concrete colliding and grinding to rubble? What about people saying it sounded like there were explosions as it collapsed? Could this be air being expelled? This is raw basic physics, that air doesn’t just disappear as the floors collapse you are talking millions of cubic feet of air being compressed and expelled in fractions of a second. For each floor. Not rocket science here.

        • Brandon C says:

          Well perhaps that level of air movement would be closest to rocket science now that I think of it.

        • Robertv says:

          Wouldn’t the compressed air slow down the motion ?

        • Brandon C says:

          The compressed air would have an effect but it would be small compared to the weight of the falling mass above. Plus much of the air will also be exhausted through the windows and shafts as if follows the path of least resistance. Shooting out the sides and down the shafts, is far less resistance than holding back the rubble and is millions of pound of inertia once it starts moving.

        • gator69 says:

          Freefall is about 120 mph. The towers came down at roughly two thirds that speed, partially due to the compression of half a million cubic feet of air per floor.

          In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

          Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns…

          Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

          Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That’s almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.

          http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

        • Brandon C says:

          Yes, I agree it fell well below freefall, I believe I made that point somewhere on here. I always cringe when the truthers use the freefall talking point when anyone with 2 eyes can see debris is falling faster than the collapse. How can they miss such blatantly obvious contradictory evidence?

          It is also worth noting that most implosions don’t fall at freefall either. It slows down the rate of collapse to have to overcome all the structure as it falls. In a proper implosion they remove the supports at the bottom, so that the maximum weight above is helping demolition, but there is still resistance. But it is still slower than if you dropped a bowling ball beside the building at the same time. The WTC Was even slower due to a progressive collapse. People seem to forget that one that initial floor collapsed, the entire building would have collapsed. No need for additional charges once the collapse started, it is more than self sustaining. Indeed additional charges would have caused a different collapse. But they need the additional charges to maintain their narrative, since the collapse started exactly where the planes hit and doesn’t support any kind of implosion narrative.

    • Robert of Ottawa says:

      The plane’s aluminum would have caught fire – very hot. The mechanical damage to the structure would have also been immense. The towers collapsed from the level of impact.

    • Robertv says:

      Asking for the Gestapo and the SS to take over.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Al Sharpton and his Rent-A-Thugs have been doing the bidding of Obummer’s handlers from day one.

        The death of the US and the US Constitution has been a goal of the elite/bankster/aristocracy for 200 years.

        • rah says:

          One of the very first things a Republican president should do is investigate the felon Reverends tax situation. If he is in violation and has been given special treatment the investigation should continue to find out the who, what, when, and why, and the Reverend should do the perp walk.

          Let em riot, and put them down. No person should be above the law and those that have put him there should be tracked down and prosecuted.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      I’m sure Al Sharpton wants those that are like the very thugs that burned down that CVS to take over policing across this nation. Personally, if I still lived in an urban area like center city Philadelphia I would not feel safe walking around, even during the day. The terrorists may not have won but the mugging thieving thugs have won this round, as the police are reportedly standing off from engaging criminals.

      But don’t get me wrong. I, and I know Steven is in agreement, am totally against police brutality and abuse of police power, like this from a month ago: http://www.13abc.com/home/headlines/Deputies-put-on-leave-for-violent-arrest-after-horse-chase-299424031.html. From what I’m hearing the sheriff’s have agreed pay the man they beat $650,000, but none of the deputies are going to be prosecuted, or even fired. Of course the victim was not black so there are no protests. Only black lives matter.
      Here’s a video of the police beating:

      People like me could sympathize with the supposed plight of the urban underclass if they would champion cases of police abuse that were clearcut and difficult to dispute and not subject to cogent counter-arguments that the police were not to blame, like championing the Fergusen case of the seeming thug that had just 10 minutes before robbed a convenience store with his bare hands. Or bringing to the fore the FL case of the brutish Trayvon Martin, idiotic. It becomes almost like the Al Sharptons and raving rioters are crying wolf, but honestly from what (relatively little) I’ve heard about the Baltimore case it does sound like the police may be to blame for not getting the guy medical attention sooner, but does it rise to the level of murder? Probably not. And with the rioters behavior it appears that the Baltimore mayor and prosecutor are quickly in a rush to judgement way rewarding such riotous behavior.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Two wrongs never make a right.

        I am very much against the militarization and thuggery of the police. But it is nothing new.

        My father at the age of 62 was pulled over by the cops for failure to use a turn signal when switching lanes in the middle of nowhere on I-90 between Rochester and Syracuse NY. It was 3:00 AM in the morning. They took him a hundred miles back the way he came, tore up his company car and beat the crap out of him…. For not using a turn signal in the 1960s.

        This was a white guy who never drank and never cursed. Had a completely clean drivers record and no criminal. As a salesman, Dad traveled over 100,000 miles a year and was completely bewildered by the treatment..

        We were told by a lawyer that nothing could be done. So why weren’t there riots about the beating of an old man? — I will say that one of Dad’s customers, who had connections to the Mafia, made an offer after seeing Dad’s swollen face and black eyes and asking what happened. Dad refused the offer.

        • Eric Simpson says:

          Whoa! That’s insane what happened to your Dad. I wonder what instigated the police attack, if anything. I kind of wish your Dad had taken up that offer.

          The thing is that what these riotous protestors in Baltimore etc are doing is causing most of the population to turn against their stated goal of reducing unnecessary police abuse and harassment, and most of us otherwise would be on board with efforts to to curb authoritarian police misbehavior. Maybe we need Robocops that aren’t affected by machismo or adrenaline.

          I’m waiting for the robocop technology to come of age. This would save communities a lot of dough too because the police unions are getting huge often 100k+ salaries with generous pension and benefits for their for their lightly skilled employees. Also, self-driving cars will supposedly sharply reduce the need for paid policemen, as I hear that over 50% of police hours is spent dealing with traffic infractions.

        • Gail Combs says:

          My brother of the same name lived in Syracuse and we wonder if they were looking for him, although that made no sense either since he was working at the time on a DOD contract. (Electrical Eng with secret clearance.) My maiden name is very very unusual and there are only six people of with Dad’s name in the USA. Four in New York (all family) and two in Texas.

          They had to have been following him for miles waiting for him to make some sort of traffic infraction to pull him over too if their barracks was in Syracuse and not in nearby Rochester.

        • Eric Simpson says:

          Hmm, maybe your Dad just didn’t say “yes sir” enough and kowtow good enough.

          Leads me back to the cheap Robocop idea (cheap in terms of the robocops, not the idea). We could at least say to the public union police employees that if they want to get that 100K+ salary with a 70k pension that you can get at age 50 and live off for 40 years, if you want that you at least have to control your adrenaline. Is that too much for the generous taxpayer to ask? If they can’t do that then fire them and get someone who can. Oh wait, it’s a public union, I guess they can’t fire them. My bad on that idea.

  29. TomE says:

    After WW2 were the conspiracy books about FDR moving the fleet to Pearl Harbor and knowing the Japanese would bomb it, and later that Kennedy was killed by more than one gunman, then that the moon landing was staged. For every major event someone has a conspiracy theory. This is just another one of those which will sell some books, rile up a few folks and eventually end in the dust bend of history where it belongs.

    • Robert of Ottawa says:

      I agree there was a conspiracy to kill RFK, and it was successful.

    • rah says:

      And they’re still arguing about Pearl Harbor! Even have people that still believe the British made the attack! Never mind the Japanese film. The pics of their planes and their dead or the fact that one pilot that safely landed by parachute went on a killing spree before they caught up with him. 1,000s of eye witnesses and 100s of surviving Japanese participants. None of that will convince them. And that is why I have said my piece and pretty much stayed out of this one.

  30. F says:

    There is of course all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories floating around such an event. I’ve heard of planes supposedly being holograms and what not. To me all of this is like smoke screens hiding the ever important question of who financed and trained the terrorists in what actually was a very coordinated attack where 3 out of 4 planes reached their targets. No need for fancy tricks, just old fashioned black ops.

    The most down to earth explanation about these events I’ve found was by this guy. Who inconveniently enough decided to kill himself, his children and his dog before his third book came out.

    http://topinfopost.com/2013/10/16/911-conspiracy-author-phillip-marshall-his-2-kids-found-dead-in-california

  31. OrganicFool says:

    Bob Woodward: The story is dry. All we’ve got are pieces. We can’t seem to figure out what the puzzle is supposed to look like. John Mitchell resigns as the head of CREEP, and says that he wants to spend more time with his family. I mean, it sounds like bullshit, we don’t exactly believe that…

    Deep Throat: No, heh, but it’s touching. Forget the myths the media’s created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

    Bob Woodward: Hunt’s come in from the cold. Supposedly he’s got a lawyer with $25,000 in a brown paper bag.

    Deep Throat: Follow the money.

    Bob Woodward: What do you mean? Where?

    Deep Throat: Oh, I can’t tell you that.

    Bob Woodward: But you could tell me that.

    Deep Throat: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, and I’ll confirm. I’ll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that’s all. Just… follow the money.

    (All the President’s Men, 1976)

  32. Rick Fischer says:

    This board just lost a lot of credibility with me. For this conspiracy to remotely be true, first, a lot of people would have to spend a lot of time implanting all of these devices; second, four separate groups of people (Arabs who hate America) would have to be convinced to hijack four passenger planes on the appointed day; Third, two of them would have to crash their planes into the WTC towers to provide cover for the explosives to bring down the towers; Four, all these things would have to be planned, prepared, people recruited, and events coordinated, by a great many Americans, who remarkably have said nothing whatever about it for 13 years.

    For StevenGoddard to present this, and even defend it, as plausible is contemptible. And I suspect he actually believes it, which makes him not credible in my eyes.

  33. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Utter BS. Stick to your regular patch. I cannot believe architects can fall for the BS. My theory as to why people do not believe what happened on 9/11 was what happened on 9/11 is that it was just incredible, shocking, unimaginable.

    These people are in denial, in a psychological state of shock.

    Yes, it did happen, and a wealthy little muslim sh!t was responsible.

    • B says:

      The government story is unbelievable. The number of perfect alignments is simply incredible. If it didn’t come from the government it would be a ridiculed tin foil hat conspiracy theory of the kookiest order. Just look at it objectively. It’s not objectively believable by the standards to which theories not from government are held to.

  34. Gail Combs says:

    Hey, Gator!

    Here is the newest Conspiracy Theroy straight from the French (who hate our guts.) MH370 was ‘shot down by US military’, claims former French airline boss

    …A former French airline CEO Marc Dugain claims that the US may have shot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 and then covered it up, adding to a rash of conflicting theories about the missing plane.

    In a six-page article published by French weekly Paris Match, Dugain claims that the Boeing 777 may have got into trouble and as it was approaching the US military base on the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, it was shot down. US forces may have feared the plane was attempting a 9/11 style attack on the base, Dugain said.

    “It’s an extremely powerful military base. It’s surprising that the Americans have lost all trace of this aircraft. Without getting into conspiracy theories, it is a possibility that the Americans stopped this plane,” Dugain said…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s