Stories From Firemen Who Survived North Tower Collapse Suggest Demolition

Survival of Firemen in North Tower Collapse Corroborates Use of Demolition Charges -

A dozen firemen, a civilian, and a police officer, who were on Stairway B between floors 1 and 6, survived the collapse of the 110-floor north World Trade Center tower on September 11, 2001.

Their story is documented in the book Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center by Dennis Smith, which contains testimonies of several of the survivors from this pocket of life in a tower that plummeted to destruction.
The particular point of interest in this case is the report of a very strong wind going through the stairwell. Though there are a few contradictions among the individuals’ accounts, a careful review of their statements explains these differences and creates a cohesive conclusion: a powerful wind was going up the stairs as the building was collapsing down.

This would seem to refute the official pancake theory of collapse in which one floor after another fails as the mass from above comes down. That would have created a downward wind due to the air being expulsed as the floors pancaked together, creating a piston-like effect.
In Dennis Smith's book, the first account from this group of survivors is the most compelling. Lieutenant Mickey Croft of Engine Company Sixteen was somewhere around the second floor in Stairway B when the building began to collapse. He described the wind as being "fierce" and that it almost lifted his body. He notes that he had to hold on to his helmet so it wouldn't blow off. As an instructor to new fireman, he routinely drilled into them the importance of snapping their helmets in place, and yet here he was, without his helmet snapped on, so that he was having to hold it by hand to keep it on. That particular comment lends high credibility to him as a witness. It involves being truthful enough to admit to having broken his own rules. And the wind was strong enough to demand his full attention and action. A downward wind would not have caused this risk of helmet loss, nor coaxed him to reveal his non-compliance with safety rules.

Jim McLean from Engine 39 was between the 1st and 2nd floors when the building began to fall. He also described a "rush of air going up".

Officer Dave Lim of the Port Authority's Police K-9 unit said that when building began to collapse, he was on the 4th floor, where he had stopped to help Josephine. He used the expression "huge windstorm" but the report of his experience in this book does not mention a direction of up or down.
These are not the only evidences for demolition, but are submitted as additional evidences in an already lengthy list of evidences that point to demolition from pre-positioned explosives, which point to this having been an inside job being covered up by the present administration.

Additional evidences are presented amply elsewhere. In brief, a summary is as follows:

  • The engineers who designed the building designed it to withstand impact by planes and fire.
  • Building 7, which was not structurally damaged by aircraft, came down in a manner that matches the signature demolition model, complete with triggering squibs (outward explosions of support structures preceding the falling mass), and falling into its footprint. Slow motion video footage highlights these features.
  • Towers 1 and 2 also fell in a manner consistent with demolition, and had numerous visible squibs preceding the falling mass. Bear in mind that a "tidy" and "safe" fall would not necessarily be the objective of individuals pulling off such a thing.
  • Rate of speed of the fall is near that of free-fall, which contradicts the pancake model in which a delay must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics.
  • The fine powder into which the building was converted during the collapse is consistent with the demolition model and its associated explosives. There would have been some pulverization in the pancake model, but not to the extent seen in this case.
  • Molten iron in the wreckage, weeks after the collapse, is consistent with military-grade demolition charges, which chemicals continue to react with the metal long after the initial implosion event.
  • Numerous eyewitnesses described hearing explosions not associated with the planes hitting the buildings.
  • The wreckage from the towers was quickly shipped off for scrap, contrary to laws governing removal of items from a crime scene.
  • WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 had undergone unannounced security evacuations in the days prior to Sept. 11. A concurrent power outage disabled security cameras. Explosives-sniffing dogs were called off as part of that evacuation procedure. Martin Bush, brother to the President, was involved with the security company involved in this process.
  • It would take 10 men ten trips to place the necessary explosives to bring the towers down by demolition.
  • The 911 Commission report says that there were no central support columns, which is a lie. The WTC had the most robust central support columns in the world at the time it was built, and was designed to be centrally supported.

Thanks FHB!

Hey, this is big news!!

Hey, this is big news!!

Could someone please tell me

Could someone please tell me what's happened to Ruppert and why he won't play with the team? Thanks

Ruppert appears to be

Ruppert appears to be singing only from the peak oil songsheet these days. More money there I guess.

I just re-read "Report from

I just re-read "Report from Ground Zero" and there are several points that don't square with what is known about 9/11. The most obvious is where one of the fire fighters says that all 47 stories of WTC7 were in flames at the time of its collapse. This is manifestly not the case, as we know from video and still photos. It's an interesting read and Dennis Smith's personal closeness to the fire fighters is really quite moving. Having said that, I'd like to know what those same men say today.

There are a ton of

There are a ton of firefighter and police reports here, including more upward drafts:

I just listened to the

I just listened to the GunsandButter Griffin MP3 posted further down the main page... good interview.

He goes over the Oral Testimonies of Firemen, etc., fairly extensively.

Incredible, suppressed information. If you are new to all of this, I highly recommend it.

Specifically, check these

Specifically, check these out:

Firefighter states "this, huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground"

Similarly, employee of an insurance company in south tower heard an explosion from BELOW the impact of the airplane, an "exploding sound" shook the building, a tornado of hot air, smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying UP the stairwell, and the wall split from the bottom UP

I'm no physics major but

I'm no physics major but didnt the WTC essencially have a hollowed type center?so if a plane slammed into the building and went in and there was the enivetable explosion I imagine that would send a blast of air and what have you DOWN the center where I am sure it would then spead out up..sideways..

besides,you guys seem to imagine a big plane crash into a building would be minor.

I'm no physics major but

I'm no physics major but didnt the WTC essencially have a hollowed type center?so if a plane slammed into the building and went in and there was the enivetable explosion I imagine that would send a blast of air and what have you DOWN the center where I am sure it would then spead out up..sideways..

besides,you guys seem to imagine a big plane crash into a building would be minor.
Glenn | 03.30.06 - 8:03 pm | #

And what plane was it that crashed into building 7 again? Thanks...

It takes weeks to wire a

It takes weeks to wire a building to blow. You'd figure at least a couple of the 50000 people working at the WTC were not part of the Eeeeevil Jewish-Neocon cabal and would have blown the wistle on the whole thing....

A President can't even keep secret a BJ in his office and you guys expect us to beleive this sort of conspiracy?

Glenn: There were dozens of


There were dozens of steel columns in the center of the towers. The project manager described the construction of the towers as a "grid-like building, able to withstand multiple 707 impacts" with the analogy of sticking a pencil through a mosquito net, poking a hole in the net but not really doing much to the overall structure.

Those who believe in the controlled demolition will point out a few things to you, Glenn.

1) much of the jet fuel exploded outside the building in a massive fireball

2) Major damage was to one side of the building, not directly slicing through all of it

3) The concrete was left to pulverized particles and the debri resembled a "pyroclastic flow" that wouldn't have the energy on its own unless something caused that energy rush.

4) The steel was destroyed into small pieces, meaning all the columns for support in this building had to have broken in different places in order for everything to come down.

5) Not only would they have to break, but they'd have to break at nearly the same time in order for the floors below to collapse without much resistance.


This 'hollowed center'

This 'hollowed center' actually consisted of 47 steel core columns, no government coverup propaganda is gonna fly here.

Additionally, all the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed to prevent any "chimney" affect in the event of a fire.

Seeing how the fire did not spread from the initial impact location, I'd say this design did its job.

Flanstein: Try to move away


Try to move away from the speculative aspects, and try not to stereotype everyone here as a "NWO/JEWISH/BOHEMIAN GROVE" believer.

Ask questions. That's what this comment board is all about.

THATS a great point

THATS a great point Flanstein. also,
there is no way a conspiracy of this size and the number of people involved wouldnt have fallen apart what with all the technology and normal secutity measures that exist as normal operations of american life.

no way any american high level group could have pulled this off what with all the prep and computer networking needed to stage and align everything and leave no trace.

radar controllers,demolition people going into buildings,the brainwashing aspect. it makes sense why in the news they only want to talk about the WTC.

they know what would happen if they started in with the brainwashing angles.

Glenn, I have been asking


I have been asking people on this board for some time to estimate how many people they think are involved in this conspiracy. The answer has to be hundreds of course (police, firemen, guv officials, media, etc.) But not surprisingly, not ONE single "truth seeker" has had the courage to estimate who and how many.

Odd that, don't you think?

Venezuelan Government To

Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation

Unless of course it's a

Unless of course it's a truth-seeker conspiracy to keep the REAL story from the masses...giggle...

Glenn: Sibel Edwards tried


Sibel Edwards tried to talk...

In this country in this day and age, it is considered "Anti-American" to question, or dissent.

Flanstein: I think it would


I think it would take at most 30 people in the highest offices of administration and military.

I would look at who was promoted and who gained the most from this event.

Remember Flainstein:
All that would've had to happen would be to allow the events to unfold, not to actually plan them.
Many believe in the "LIHOP" Let It Happen On Purpose theory.

This theory states the gov't and military had ample warning and foreknowledge regarding KSM/OBL's "plan" for this event and failed to act accordingly in order to justify the actions that have been playing out since 9/11/2001, actions that are eerily similar to the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by the Project for a New American Century

And as far as the explosives, keep in mind that there was an attack on WTC in 1993 in which FBI agents were taped pushing the fallguy to use real explosives and "let the bombing go through". Many believe that explosives could've been placed in these buildings after the first attack, to "guarantee" success next time. Others believe that high-tech explosives (not standard demolition stuff) were used during the "shutdowns" that occured weeks before 9/11/2001, in which power (including security surveillance) was shut off and the people evacuated, giving whoever was in that area free reign.

I am just providing you with information, I am not trying to tell you what the TRUTH is.

I'm glad at least you are asking some valid questions now, and not resorting to insults.

Seems like the 9/11 Truth

Seems like the 9/11 Truth Movement lost Mike Ruppert. Or maybe, he lost the movement. Either way, it's a real shame.

Glenn: WTC 1 and 2 had 47


WTC 1 and 2 had 47 core columns. The "hollow center" idea came out of the 9/11 (C)omission report. Search for "47" in this article:

Normal security measures would have prevented it? What if you shut off the power in the top floors, remove bomb sniffing dogs the week before 9/11, have your brother Marvin Bush running the building security, order that plane intercept orders have to come from the vice president, run several war games on the day of the attack involving injecting fake aircraft into air traffic control screens and sending several F-16s up to Canada, and then scramble F-16s to intercept from bases miles away (traveling at 1/3 top speed) instead of the closest airbases that were ~10 miles away?

Does that sound like "normal security measures?"

(BTW, this is all documented. None of it is hypothesizing.)

has anyone seen

has anyone seen this???

Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
Truth crusaders Walter and Rodriguez to appear on Hugo Chavez's weekly TV broadcast

All it would take to pull it

All it would take to pull it off is Dick Cheney (who ordered NORAD to stand down and potentially organized the war games), some security guys at the WTC, a couple pilots (or real hijackings with real hijackers), a team of (military?) engineers specializing in explosives, and a task force from the CIA or other covert organization.

That's not infeasible to accomplish without anyone talking.

benthere: nice post.


nice post.

I dont know much about

I dont know much about Ruppert but didn't a friend recently die from 2 self-inflicted gun shot wounds to the head? Perhaps he had a change of heart.

anon: This link is Michael


This link is Michael Ruppert's 2 hour presentation on gov't and 911 and other things: november 2001

This one is the 18 minutes that cover the Timeline of 911

DHS, regarding


regarding 911hijacker:

that's a nice film you put together.

I'd like to get video clips of Bush Sr and Gary Hart's NWO comments individually. Did you download them from a site somewhere?

Flanstein, I posted this in

Flanstein, I posted this in the last thread to another person who thought the crimes would have to involve thousands.. read over it:


you may be interested in reading Ruppert's book on 9/11.. in his book he points the finger at just a few public officials.. a basic synopsis for his simple explanation is that in May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney was handed direct control of all wargame and drill operations.. there were 6 wargames on the morning of 9/11, some of them live fly excercises which mobilized jets to canada, and inserted false blips into norad radar as part of the coinciding wargames.. these wargames included hijackings, and planes crashing into buildings, a huge coincidence, and a big confusion for those at NORAD, etc.

another simple example is the military administrative order of June 1, 2001, which formally included the Secretary of Defense in any decision to authorize the interception of errant civilian planes by military jets.. this removed the abilities for local norad officials to scramble jets (which were done successfully 67 times in the year before 9/11) and put the sole control into Rumsfeld's hands, who stayed in a meeting throughout the attacks.. the process of scramble orders was then changed back to previous standards after 9/11.

not everyone believes in a massive conspiracy involving 100s or 1000s of people, some do, but others dont. it is quite easy to point out scenarios in which fewer than 5-10 key political or military figures facilitated the events of 9/11 happening.. i just want to make sure that you arent assuming that everyone believes in a massive conspiracy..

DHS, thanks for hunting up


thanks for hunting up that info on Flight 93 (SS death records, date of the webpage creation, etc)! It's amazing how much info is out there

I see that there are a few

I see that there are a few people wondering about Michael Ruppert, so I took a look at his website: and found this :


There Are Good Reasons Why 9/11 is Having Its 15 Minutes of Fame Now – Look at Who’s In the Spotlight

Michael C. Ruppert

© Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

March 30, 2006 1300 PST (FTW) - ASHLAND - Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Mike Ruppert, Dan Hopsicker; these are the people who were front and center with credible, original, and groundbreaking research and investigation in the months following the attacks of September 11th. For the next three years, almost every major, incontrovertible piece of evidence showing government complicity in the attacks originated from this group. Add to this list David Ray Griffin, the late-comer author of two excellent books deconstructing the US government’s “explanation” of the attacks, and you have encompassed five of the best-selling books about 9/11—books which thoroughly and reliably discredit the US government. It is also from these scholars, investigative journalists, and researchers that almost every now-standard, unanswered issue debunking the government’s position originated.

There are other writers and researchers who made serious contributions to our knowledge of 9/11, but these five were there “firstest with the mostest.”

It is also no coincidence that these are the journalists and authors who have been universally ignored by the mainstream media. Why? Because their research doesnÂ’t fall over with the first puff of opposing wind. ThatÂ’s a lesson that the latest flock of 9/11 celebrities needs to be prepared for.

So before getting all excited about Charlie SheenÂ’s recent CNN appearance expressing doubts about the official version, followed by Ed AsnerÂ’s attempt to back Sheen up, it might be wise to ask why none of the pioneers made it to CNNÂ’s airwaves over this last week. The immediate follow-up question is why CNN would suddenly grant airplay to a new host of characters when their studios have been off-limits to credible 9/11 research for four years.

Watching all the recent hullabaloo about Alex Jones interviewing Charlie Sheen and then both making the “big time” on CNN, you’d think that questions about the attacks, now four-and-a-half years old, were new news. In this latest media “frenzy” (yawn) which has Alex Jones parading like a puffed-up superstar version of Edward R. Murrow and a slightly-deranged, multi-pierced, obviously unstable, researcher named Nico Haupt wrapping himself in an ill-fitting label as the new “avant garde” of the 9/11 movement, 9/11 truth has sadly and predictably rounded a corner from Solid Avenue onto Surreal Boulevard. Add to this list of movement “leaders” Webster Tarpley, a former senior researcher for Lyndon LaRouche—whose intellectual capacity far exceeds his street smarts—and you have what the world now “sees” as the only real threats to the US version of events.

If the Charlie Sheen episode gets any more traction, the American public and the world will soon see these “public threats” conveniently, ruthlessly, and easily dismissed, discarded, and disgraced. Sheen may get a little adverse publicity or may lose a juicy part, but his future is not threatened. He’s a talented actor who will always find work in Hollywood. He risks nothing.

But I think I can safely speak for Chossudovsky, Thompson, Ahmed, and even Hopsicker when I say that all of us are glad not to be involved in this farce that is now posing as the only solid reason to disbelieve the US government and the so-called Independent Commission on 9/11.

This was all predictable. This has all happened before. The pattern hasnÂ’t changed much in 40 years.

yes, that's why I question

yes, that's why I question his intentions.

You guys use too many words.

You guys use too many words. Someone just tell me how WTC7 fell straight done into a neat little pile. The official 911 report doesn't mention it.

WTC towers had 44ft of steel in the core and was built to withstand the Cat 5 hurricane that hits the area every hundred years.

Does anyone know if salt water is good for the transit system?

Apart from the building's

Apart from the building's core not being hollow, wasn't the core extra-super-reinforced up to about the 80th floor? Read that somewhere, but can't remember where. Maybe Flanstein and Glenn could do a little research, they seem to excel in getting to the core of things (Ehm yes, pun intended).

CB: I didn't make that


I didn't make that video, if I did it would've had better spelling and grammar.

The video's author is unknown, I got it from plaguepuppy's site and it is available at

ok, thanks

ok, thanks

Flanstein, Flanstein. > The

Flanstein, Flanstein.

> The answer has to be hundreds of course (police, firemen, guv officials, media, etc.)

What makes you think you need to include police, firemen, government officials and media people in planning 911? You only need to threaten THEM with destroyed carreers, smearing campaigns, family intimidation and even death, AFTER you executed your plans. Remember how police, firemen, government officials and media people and many more ALL spoke out on and shortly after 911 (see Loose Change 2nd Edition), but weeks after almost all of them suddenly changed their views or refused to talk about it?

Now be a good boy and reply to benthere's and dz's answers to your question.

So you're saying that

So you're saying that police, firemen, government officials and media people have been threatned or otherwise coerced into silence. How many do you think that might be?

Flan To be heard is to


To be heard is to exist.

One person can talk to a few people
but what media outlet is going to pursue them?

You are provided examples of just that, eyewitness testimony that is disregarded with an avoidance of engagement in serious, factual debate.

I feel like talking to the ignorant is useless and that if I wanted a conversation to go nowhere I'd write my congressman.


What more do you want? What more can you give? Your assumptions are of no substance and I am trying to be polite. Where's the discussion?

Flan, maybe no one ever

Flan, maybe no one ever tricked you into thinking one thing happened, while something different was reality.

Like if your friend crashed his car because he was intoxicated, but he tells you it was a deer that made him swerve.

You are none the wiser.

In turn, since you never truly learned of his intoxication, your thoughts on his driving ability does not change, and you allow him to drive one night after going out and you crash and die.

It's kinda like that.

Only for me, I'm not letting him drive.

Flanstein, again you're

Flanstein, again you're avoiding the issue. The issue here is your question of how many people it would take to undertake an event like 911. DZ and benthere both gave you a decent answer to that question. It would be nice of you to properly reply to that.

After you do that, I might waste some more of my time looking up several examples of what I suggested. But again, that's not the point. You don't need to say "Hey, the government engineered 911, so shut up or we will kill your pet bunny". It merely has to be something along the line of "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists".

OT: have the new blog

OT: have the new blog readers signed the Scholars for 9/11 Truth petition to Congress?

# Signatures: 6,527
# Goal: 10,000


hey I answered him first,

hey I answered him first, I'm like the Rodney Dangerfield of I get no respect.

Oops sawry, overlooked that

Oops sawry, overlooked that one. Well ehm, mad props to you, DHS :) Hope you look a little better than him tho..

It would be very easy for

It would be very easy for undercover agents holding legitimate contractor, police, security, mechanical, maintenance, custodial, etc. jobs (especially late-night shift) to plant explosives in any building over a period of weeks or months.

Furthermore, modern

Furthermore, modern buildings like the WTC have miles of ductworks, vents, conduits, ceiling & wall access panels, shafts, electrical & plumbing closets, etc. where all sorts of explosives could be hidden.

Sounds mostly like sour

Sounds mostly like sour grapes from Rupport's ego again. Once again he treats everyone else as idiots in this movement. Obviously the facts of 911 are not new, the recent coverage is superficial,(as long as we let it remain that way), The are big questions about Alex, Tarpley and Nico Haupt's representation and presentation of the 911 movement's facts and questions, and maybe this is a set up to attack and then ignore the truth by a a very limited exposure of the facts by less than the perfect experts.....But who cares.....We have been debating these very questions on this blog for over a week.. ..We're not naive (have a field day flanstein) ...we are working honestly with what has recently happened to get the most of the situation and push it in the most productive direction.....Whats wrong with that? Our eyes are wide open! And if CNN , because of our efforts, ever did call Rupport or any of the other experts, I doubt they would decline.

Not only Ruppert attacks

Not only Ruppert attacks Sheen, Michael B. Haupt from threeworldwars does it, too. Besides Smith and Hufschmid.

Not it seems clearly who is on "our" side.

Get over them. We don't need naysayers or "other truth finder" attackers.

I wonder if David Ray

I wonder if David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, etc. have signed that petition.

Why no responses, minus zuco

Why no responses, minus zuco

RP--That Hugo Chavez angle

RP--That Hugo Chavez angle could become absolutely enormous!!!!! Amazing potential there!!!! Everyone should follow this very closely!!!!

RP--Your posts are superb!!!

RP--Your posts are superb!!! Keep up the great work!!!

Thanks Anonymous

Thanks Anonymous

A stunning silence from

A stunning silence from regulars at this blog.
Maybe this is a disinfo site. Thats why they don't respond to any real issues and print my name for all to see. Maybe...Maybe...I won't past judgement just yet.

As Jon said, I will base my trust on their actions.

I think he didn't say

I think he didn't say anything new.

rad i posted that chavez

rad i posted that chavez thing earlier today. no developments yet

Flan, as far as the


as far as the explosives being wired, there were originaly reports of workers throughout the buildings. they said sections of the buildings were shut down for short times for "securiy concerns, drills, etc"...something to that effect. There is also testimony from workers saying power to the towers was even shut down for a short while, while new "network cables" were installed. hmmm....detonation wires??

and as far as keeping people

and as far as keeping people quite, like someone said, "you're either with us or them." under the newly enacted patriot act, dissenters could now just vanish from thin air forever.




"Firefighter states "this,

"Firefighter states "this, huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground"

There's nothing unusual about this. Air will go in the direction of least resistance. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, remember that the windows were sealed, there were three stairwells and numerous elevator shafts.

The air being forced downwards has to go *somewhere*, doesn't it? In some cases the force was great enough to blow out the sealed windows resulting in the puffs of smoke shooting out and falsely claimed as "squibs".

The air in the closed environement of the lower floors was being forced in whatever direction it could go, doen, sideways and up. So this is another case where observed effects have a perfectly natural cause.

zuco said, "What makes you

zuco said,

"What makes you think you need to include police, firemen, government officials and media people in planning 911?"

What makes you think you can claim a conspiracy without providing physical evidence?

It is easy to explain upward rushing air because yopu all lack the expertise to understand physical causes and just think, without evidence, that becuase the air rushing is strange to you that it is proof of a conspiracy.

You don't know what you don't know so don't make claims you cannot support with evidence.

That goes for all of you.

"as far as the explosives

"as far as the explosives being wired."

Yet there is no evidence of explosives.

anonymous, have you watched


have you watched the 9/11 Revisited movie linked at the top of the site?

anonymous: Have you not

anonymous: Have you not heard of "circumstantial" evidence?

Hate to do this, and with

Hate to do this, and with all respect for Sterling D. Allen's work in writing this, but his conclusions about which way the wind blew on Sept. 11th are very flimsy.

The book, Report from Ground Zero, includes stories of firefighters who survived the North Tower collapse in a stairwell left standing after the building fell. Allen's book review advances the conclusion that the firefighters felt a "mighty upward rush of wind" in this stairwell.

Since you would expect the collapsing building to produce a downward wind in the stairwell, the author argues that the upward wind suggests there must have been explosions in the basement that forced the air up. This does not automatically follow; the wind would swirl within the narrow space. The force impelling the air could be coming from either cardinal direction, and yet still produce upward and downward swirls.

More importantly, the firefighters quoted in the book do not speak of a "mighty upward wind." Rather, this is the reviewer's deduction based on their quoted statements.

However, only one of the four statements cited in Allen's review claims the wind was blowing up, while another speaks of a downward wind, and the other two are inconclusive.

Here is the evidence as Allen presents it:

"Lieutenant Mickey Croft of Engine Company Sixteen was somewhere around the second floor in Stairway B when the building began to collapse. He described the wind as being 'fierce' and that it almost lifted his body. He notes that he had to hold on to his helmet so it wouldn't blow off. ... A downward wind would not have caused this risk of helmet loss, nor coaxed him to reveal his non-compliance with safety rules."

COMMENT: Now remember, the stairs are at a 45-degree angle. Of course a wind coming down the stairs could blow off the man's helmet, and lift his body off the stairs, just as easily as a wind coming up the stairs! It is the reviewer who infers the necessity of a downward wind. (The use of illogical reasoning so as to derive a desired conclusion tends to discredit the article as a whole.)

Furthermore, Mickey Croft's mentioning that he forgot to strap on his helmet does not entail the risk to him that the review implies. Here Allen engages in rhetoric, trying to create the impression that the firefighters are speaking reluctantly and encoding their messages to avoid persecution for the presumed contradiction to the official story. (Of course, since Allen did not actually speak with the firefighters himself, he has no way of judging how they said what they said.)

Although the second of four statements is cursory, Allen builds his entire case on it:

"Jim McLean from Engine 39 was between the 1st and 2nd floors when the building began to fall. He also described a 'rush of air going up'."

COMMENT: The word "also" is disingenuous; Croft did not describe a "rush of air going up," that was merely Allen's deduction. McLean is the only one saying this.

The third statement tells us nothing:

"Officer Dave Lim of the Port Authority's Police K-9 unit said that when building began to collapse, he was on the 4th floor, where he had stopped to help Josephine. He used the expression 'huge windstorm' but the report of his experience in this book does not mention a direction of up or down."

Finally – and should have quoted this passage, too - a fourth account claims a "downward" wind:

"Captain Jay Jones of Ladder 6 had broken into the 4th floor to try to find a chair on which to carry Josephine, when the building began to collapse. He said he was about six to seven feet from the staircase and that he ran to the stair door. He described the wind as 'a gust of strong wind coming down the stairs.' His direction of 'down' contradicts that given by Mickey Croft and Jim McLean…"

COMMENT: Allen goes on to rationalize why Jay Jones's account is less reliable than Jim McLean's. But again, Allen bases this on his own reading of the book, rather than an attempt to reach the men himself, which is what a real journalist (mainstream or otherwise) would try to do.

And that's it. One guy out of four says "up," apparently without emphasizing it. No attempt is made to reach the firefighters for clarification. This is insufficient to make Allen's claim.

The desire to find conclusive evidence is understandable. But does Allen make an airtight case for an "upward wind"? Not at all. Does that mean it was a "downward wind"? Also not the case. It just means that Allen doesn't know. Perhaps he pretends he does because it fits his preconceived conclusion.

NL, Good job. It should be


Good job.

It should be clear that 9/11 Blogger's objective is not the "truth" but assuring that it finds all it can to fit it's pre-determined conclusions.

It also doesn't matter if it's already been debunked or not.

anonymous: Thanks for the


Thanks for the praise.

I'm not making a general statement about 911blogger, however. I take each piece one at a time. I think this site does a very good job of summarizing the 9/11 news, just a bit too ready to celebrate everything that comes down the pike.

NL, When and if 9/11 Blogger


When and if 9/11 Blogger gets to the point when it decides not to be one-sided, and will start to post headlines that reflect the other side, like:

"Scientific Paper Shows Doubt About Claims of Government 9/11 Responsibility," then it could gain credibility as not just another 9/11 conspiracy site.

But it has a long way to go.

NL... You seem to be looking


You seem to be looking at 911 with a an open and skeptical mind, and I applaude that.
But it shouldn't be the Governments job to honestly investigate this and supply answers to our questions?
The government has not done this!!!!!! Why??????
I don't see a lot of quoting of the offical 911 commision report to dicredit the skeptics.
It is a sad statement about the state of our country and Government that an honest look at the 911, has to happen on a blog.
We are asking informed questions, it is their job, not ours, to answer these questions, with verifiable evidence to support their conclusions.
If you agree that the Government has not done this , after more than four years after a 911, than you should support the not so 'radical' request of most 911 skeptics for a new independant investigation of 911.
I also hope you have signed the petition at, which simply asks for the release of more evidence related to 911.

Why not?

What do they have to hide, if it all happened like they claim?

What do you have to fear from the release of this evidence and a new investigation?

intended to say," It should

intended to say," It should be the Governments job........"(my mind works faster than my fingers)

RP wrote, "What do you have

RP wrote,

"What do you have to fear from the release of this evidence and a new investigation?"

The famous question you guys never ask yourselves or want to reveal is: another investigation by whom?

anonymous, > zuco said, > >


> zuco said,
> "What makes you think you need to include police, firemen,
> government officials and media people in planning 911?"
> What makes you think you can claim a conspiracy without
> providing physical evidence?

What makes you think I'm doing so?

I don't know why you quoted what you quoted and addressed me on a topic I haven't commented on, but you will never hear me talking about 'upward rushing winds' as an argument, let alone as factual evidence, for a coverup of the events of september 11th.

I am aware, and agree with you and NL, that there are a lot of people in the '911 truth movement' that are way too eager to grasp just about anything that they stumble upon, no matter what the source or its credentials. That's why I myself am always open to criticism and skepticism, and I hope 911blogger is too.


In one of your posts in this particular thread, regarding controlled demolition, you say "Yet there is no evidence of explosives." Reading through other comment threads, the alleged lack of evidence seems to be one of you're biggest arguments, if not the only one. Well, let me tell you a couple of things.

There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden and said 19 hijackers pulled this whole thing off, whether they pulled it off unaided, or pulled it off altogether. You may think there is, because of the official report, but when you look at the facts (passengers lists, hijackers' identities, Osama's repeated denial) AND the circumstancial evidence (a list of the alleged perpetraters after only two days, Osama's alleged confession tape that holds no credibility (not because the guy merely just doesn't look like him, and the quality of the tape is so poor you cannot even see his lips saying what he allegedly says, but the fact that the arab-english translation is faulty, and the complete lack of logic for it - were it indeed Osama he would've surely been proud of his acts and taken complete responsability directly after 911)), you might conclude the whole thing is an unsubstantiated claim from the Pentagon.

There is no evidence that building 7 came down from damage caused by tower 1's collapse and the fires on several floors. You might think there is, because of official reports, but the way it collapsed (symetrically, totally, leaving only a footprint of crumbles dust) and the lack of support for that claim (no mention in the offical 911 report, not a word from NIST) along with yet again circumstancial evidence (a building with such powerful, and in terms of national security crucial tenants, collapsing on the day of the attacks would surely deserve more attention from any research commision) makes it yet another unsupported one.

There is no evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. You might think there is, you know, the official story and all that, but when you look at all the -contradictory- facts (the plane allegedly vaporized yet 98% of passengers DNA has been recovered, the contradicting eye witness reports) along with the circumstancial evidence (the flight path being completely illogical and physically improbable, resulting in a minimal amount of casualties and structural damage), and take into account that possible evidence (security camera footage from different angles) is being withheld to this very day, there is simple no strong case for it.

If you, anonymous, think that my assumptions are incorrect, or think that you have strong, convincing evidence that counters my above claims, please enlighten me. I think you will a have a hard time at it though, as several governmental institutes with multi-million and even multi-billion budgets have yet failed to do so. And don't worry, I checked with, which -surprisingly- is just as sloppy, suggestive, incomplete and inadequate on these points as some advocates of the more outlandish 911 theories out there are on their subjects.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no solid evidence to support the official explanation of what exactly happened on september 11th. Yet I don't ever hear you complain about that. A lot of people do, but all you can say is "there is no evidence". You seem to portray the entire discussion as irrelevant, for its lack of hard, cold facts. And while I disagree, let me present you some facts you might want to respond to.

It is a fact attacks took place on september 11th. We've all seen it on TV, and a lot of people have witnessed it in person.
It is a fact these events have brought forth a cultural, political and social change throughout the entire world, but most notably in the US.
It is a fact these events happened to fit several political agendas, most notably those of the PNAC.
It is a fact these events is what allowed the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is a fact these events allowed the Patriot Act to pass.
It is a fact the physics of the collapses of the three WTC towers and the impact of flight 77 have never before been seen, and cannot be recreated in scientific computer simulations.
It is a fact NORAD ran several exercises that day, leaving the US exceptionally vulnerable, in spite of several high level security warnings weeks and months before september 11th.
It is a fact Condolleezza Rice and others lied about knowledge of the possibility of such an event taking place (i.e. crashing passenger aircraft into buildings).
It is a fact George W Bush was not immediately rushed into security when one of the hijacked planes was still in the air.
It is a fact George W Bush opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the attacks.
It is a fact George W Bush refused to publicly testify to that commission, and refused to take an oath.
It is a fact Cheney's Halliburton has been awarded roughly 50% (about 13 billion dollars) of all Iraqi contractor deals.
It is a fact both investigations on the insider trading on put options as well as the anthrax attacks have never been completed.

I could go on quite some time, because there is so much more, but I'll leave it here. I just wrote down some points that came to mind, but if you're interested, there are litteraly hundreds of people who have published more thorough and extensive reports on this, supported with facts, theories and/or media references. Besides, I'm not even American, which makes it quite a task for me to elaborate like this in a language that is not my native tongue. Also, I have other things to do than to discuss the fairly obvious with narrowminded people like yourself, who fail to respond to more or less valid points made on this board with something other than stating it is not factual, or ignoring it altogether.

Still, there's one last this I'd like you to ask. Say all of this arab boxcutter wielding flight simulator enthousiasts bypassing the worlds biggest military authority in spite of several high level advance warnings is true. Say, the official story is, however improbable, true. Osama and his trigger happy boyscout cubs attacked the US and managed to hit three out of four targets. Three steel skyscrapers collapsed to nothing but rubble and dust, with one of the buildings not even being hit by aircraft. Why on earth would you not investigate the possibility of explosives? Surely arab terrorist have much more experience in that field, compared to operating passenger aircraft, so why not investigate? It would be something you would like to know, wouldn't it?
I guess for some it would not.

> The famous question you

> The famous question you guys never ask yourselves
> or want to reveal is: another investigation by whom?

Well, not by a bunch of corporate and political friends of the current US government. See, that's not what people call 'independent'. What were your thoughts, anonymous, when they proposed Kissinger to lead the investigation?

Nicely stated Zuco ( both

Nicely stated Zuco ( both above posts)!

Once again, we do not have to decide right now who could truly independently investigate this. But we do know a lot of people and organizations that could not.

But even before any investigation, why not release the evidence requested in the petition? That was the second part of my question which you have failed to answer or resond to.

Give me a good reason and I'll consider it.

zuco wrote, "Well, not by a

zuco wrote,

"Well, not by a bunch of corporate and political friends of the current US government. See, that's not what people call 'independent'. What were your thoughts, anonymous, when they proposed Kissinger to lead the investigation?"

Don't dodge the question, zuco.

WHO is going to do another physical and scientific investigation of the tower collapses and the Pentagon - on which the WHOLE 9/11 conspiracy theory depends - if NOT independent physicists, sctructural engineers, and foresinc scientists - the very ones who have already done so?

You can't do it backwards, zuco. You have to justify another investigation and you're going nowhere until you demonstrate scientifically that the conclusions of NIST and the many other investigations are wrong.

Unless you and your fellow 9/11 conspiracy buddies does this, you'll continue to live in a fantasy world.

Honestly, anonymous, you

Honestly, anonymous, you want me to say who should be on a new investigative commission? You do know I'm not american, don't you?

I am willing to still answer your question though, albeit in part. I think you should have 5 (international?) universities that should investigate the collapse of the three WTC buildings and the impacts of flights 77 and 93. They should at least provide scientific computer simulations of what technically happened on all those occasions, and a seperate scientific (international?) committee should evaluate those reports.

I agree such an investigation should on forehand be justified by scientific reports and not by mere hypothesises, but I understand people are working on that. I do want to remind you though that the technical aspects aren't the only issues that deserve more attention.