New: Excellent video on WTC7!

This is new and I'm surprised it hasn’t been on the blogger yet, people are sleeping on wicked videos like this!

Direct link available here:
Spread it!


S M O K I N G - G U N ! ! !

Why have we never heard the following question asked at a White House Press Corp Briefing?

"Excuse me Mr. Press Secretary, on September 11, 2001, a third 47 story steel and concrete building collapsed into it's own footprint in less than 7 seconds, despite not having been hit by an airplane. This building was WTC #7. There was no mention whatsoever of the collapse of WTC #7 in the 9/11 Commission Report. My question is, do we have an official answer as to A) why this building collapsed, and B) why was it omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report?"

The mere fact that this question has never been asked by a member of the White house press corps is proof that the media is complicit in the cover-up of 9/11.

We the people need to wake up and take back our country.

Lee Hamilton Takes questions

Lee Hamilton Takes questions about 9/11 (CSPAN 5/26/05)

A caller asks why WTC 7 was not mentioned in the official report and Lee answers...


That one makes my blood boil.

Fa-reak-in A M A Z I N G !!!

"We on the 9/11 Commission took our best crack at it..."
-Lee Hamilton

Fa-reak-in A M A Z I N G !!!

What was the Commission's mandate?

The Commission's mandate is to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.

Specifically, Section 604 of Public Law 107-306 requires the Commission to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001," including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry.

So... if the 9/11 Commission's mandate was to get a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, then why were certain things omitted? If certain things were omitted, does that not make the 9/11 Commission's findings null and void?

Here is an excerpt from a show called the "Washington Journal". On this particular show, Lee Hamilton, the co-chair for the 9/11 Commission was on the program discussing the "9/11 Public Discourse Project". This is a supposed "watchdog" group that makes sure the Government is doing everything they can to prevent the next terrorist attack, and to make sure the recommendations put forth by the Commission are implemented.

Click Here

As you can see, when Mr. Hamilton was confronted about Building 7, he stated that, "some things were left out of the report."

By his own admission, the 9/11 Commission did not give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks on September 11th, 2001.

Therefore, the findings of the 9/11 Commission are NULL & VOID.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Wow, Lee Hamilton is a balfaced liar & accessory-after-the-fact!

That video made my week! The part about Cheney & the "young man" was beyond abusrd!!!

lee hamilton interview

this is the transcript from the an interview with hamilton by the CBC. many good questions were asked, but not really answered.

it's pretty long... nothing espeically glaring at first look, but here's a section of it:... (Solomon is the interviewer for CBC)

Solomon: Questions about foreknowledge, especially as to when Vice President Dick Cheney knew when he went down to the protective bunker: there was some suggestion that the Secretary of Transport Mineta testified in front of the Commission that he in fact talked to Dick Cheney at 9:20 am. Cheney claims he hadn’t been there.. gotten down there until close to 10 am. That was eventually omitted from the final report,. Can you tell us a bit about about what Secretary of Transport Mineta told the Commission about where Dick Cheney was prior to 10 am?

Hamilton: I do not recall.

Solomon: And we don’t know exactly where that..

Hamilton: Well, we think that Vice President Cheney entered the bunker shortly before 10 o’clock. And there is a gap of several minutes there, where we do not really know what the Vice President really did. There is the famous phone call between the President and the Vice President. We could find no documentary evidence of that phone call. Both the President and the Vice President said that the phone call was made, and in that phone call, the order was supposedly was given, allegedly given, to shoot down an airliner - if necessary

Now, there are a lot of things not answered about that period of time. The order never got to the pilots and when it did get to the pilots, it didn't get to them in time, and when it did get to them, they claimed it was not an order to shoot it down, but to identify and track an airliner, not to shoot it down.

What you had on this day, of course, was a lot of confusion, and a lot of confusion in communications, at the very highest levels. When the President went from the school in Sarasota to Air Force One, he was trying to get communications with the White House, he used a cell phone, in part. When he got to Air Force One, the communications didn’t work all that well. Well, this is all very disturbing, and I'm told has now been corrected.

Solomon: Disturbing in what way?

Hamilton: Well, disturbing that, at this particular time, the Commander in Chief lost communications with the White House, and with his chief aides there, right in the middle of a crisis - that's very disturbing. I hope that’s been corrected, I’ve been told that it has been. But the fact of the matter is, if you look at 9/11, all the way through, FAA communications, NORAD communications, White House communications, there was just a lot of confusion, and a lot of gaps.

Solomon: So, just in terms of Mineta, just because I think that's sort of interesting, when Secretary Mineta made at your Commission hearing, I think he did this May 23rd, that he arrived and talked to Dick Cheney at 9:20 - that would show that Mr. Cheney had had some earlier knowledge that planes had been hijacked and they wanted to take action. That was not -

Hamilton: What did the Secretary say at that time to the Vice President?

Solomon: They talked about a plane being hijacked, according to the testimony that I’ve seen, according to the Mineta report. But there’s another one, in Richard Clarke’s book, "Against All Enemies", and I know Richard Clarke took the stand very famously - not the stand, but testified before the Commission very famously - he says he received authorization from Dick Cheney to shoot down Flight 93 at about 9:50 am. In the Commission's Report, it said the authorization didn't come from Dick Cheney until 10:25, and Richard Clarke’s testimony that he and his book, isn’t mentioned in the Commission’s .. Why didn't you mention that?

Hamilton: Look, you’ve obviously gone through the report with a fine-toothed comb, you're raising a lot of questions - I can do the same thing...

Solomon: Yeah..

Hamilton: ..all I want from you is evidence. You’re just citing a lot of things, without any evidence to back them up, as far as I can see.

Solomon: No, I'm just asking why they weren't -

Hamilton: I don’t know the answer to your question.

Solomon: I guess part of the reason is..

Hamilton: I cannot answer every question with regard to 9/11. I can answer a good many of them, but I can't answer them all.

Solomon: I guess, Mr. Hamilton, I don’t think anyone expects you to have all the answers...

Hamilton: Well, you apparently do, because you have asked me questions of enormous detail from a great variety of sources. You want me to answer them all - I can’t do it (laughs)

Thanks for this...

I had never seen it before.

I added my "analysis" here.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You could have seen it here

You could have seen it here:

Yes, there are a lot of videos left to come out.

Here's what Bob and Bri saw. An interesting quote after the south tower was hit, "It was a military plane." If this video doesn't give you chills, you have no heart.

oops, here it is

What We Saw video

High quality version available at, search on "What We Saw" or use link:

new 7 WTC video

Excellently put Chris!

suspicious silence

The same suspicious silence exists with Silverstein
about WTC7: it was his building, worth halve a billion
dollars, so why is there not a single word from him
about why it collapsed - impossible!
Plus, Bush seeing the first plane hit in his limousine
on the way to Brooker elementary school: he told the
story even months later. Why not a single answer from
Bush about what kind of video that was? It sure wasn't
a live television broadcast from the Naudet brothers!

They're all PRETENDING not to have been asked these questions, when we all know how well they are aware of it!

Awesome vid, good find!!!

Awesome vid, good find!!!

Source of first clip

For reference, the first clip is from BBC Newsnight, normally shown on BBC2 in the UK at 10.30 pm every night.

Some have said that Lee likes little boys

I think what history will prove is that the spokes people for the so-called (self described) New World order all are compromised in some horrific dark way.

Then there's the question of the matching DNA . . .

Yes, that is a great Charles Goyette link:

..."Enter Charles Goyette who asks a simple question. Listen to Davin's tell tale nervous laugh when he realizes that Mr. Goyette has just declared, "check-mate".
Charles Goyette
I want to know where if if even if we presume you're correct that the recovered the DNA from the 19 hijackers from the rubble . . where did they get their original DNA against which to match it.


Of course they're all compromised

You couldn't get the avergage good natured person to become part of a criminal syndacate. Crime syndacites are always made up with compromised individuals, degenerates like perverts, gamblers, greedy, violent types. It's good for the dons to maintain control when they know their underlings are addicted to things which they can use for or against them if they need to put some of them in line. Basically it gives the don leverage. One of their guys likes little boys, they can provide them, or, use it as blackmail against them. I would guess that the present situation in DC is made up with mostly compromised politicians. This is a positive thing for those looking to change the situation in DC. Compromised individuals usually lack loyalty and can turn into a rat quickly. That's why the highest ranks are always filled with loyalists.

Other Boldfaced Liar, Thomas Kean, Confronted on WTC-7!

Here's the other boldfaced liar, Thomas Kean, being asked about WTC-7, the "perpetraitors funds" & other 9/11 questions by Alex Jonses's team!!!

Show "The myth of controlled demolition is still a myth" by Anonymous (not verified)

The 2nd sentence of that piece of shit paper you linked to...

has the audacity to state that the Firefighters were somehow complicit in "abandoning their brothers" is absolutely repulsive (much like yourself for having posted it)!!!

When that shyster Silverstein got confronted on that PBS documentary, he didn't know what to say, so he spoke out his ass claiming that he & the fire chief "pulled-it." This bullshit was yet another smokescreen to try & conceal the fact that Bush/Cheney, PNAC NeoCons & other criminals within our gov't perpetrated 9/11!!!

That piss was written by "Mark Roberts" in NYC...???

You, "Mark Roberts", will find yourself in very deep trouble for propagating outrageous, despicable lies such as truthers: "blame firemen for killing people for profit on 9/11"!!!

Show "You have that much trouble reading?" by Anonymous (not verified)

You double-talking phony!

Your b.s. paper LIES that truthers claim Firefighters were involved in perpetrating 9/11. That is vile & disgusting libel!

Evidence is everywhere that demolitions occurred at the WTC. Videos demonstrate that the towers erupted & exploded upwards & sideways and fell into their footprints at virtually free-fall speed. WTC-7 depicts a classic controlled implosion! Loads of eyewitness report seeing & hearing numerous additional explosions, including many firefighters, cops, EMS, etc.

Don't try to double-talk us like you did with Alex Jones at the WTC on 9/11/06!!! You are a fraud!!!

Show "Of course you do" by Anonymous (not verified)

sorry dude, its not worth

sorry dude, its not worth debating with someone who doesnt know the facts and attacks 'theories' by adding a lie to it.
"No physical evidence of explosives has ever been found."
This statement clearly implies youre either totally ignorant and have never heard the complete story or youre on an aggressive disinfo mission.
Either way, good bye.

Show "I know the facts. You can't provide physical evidence." by Anonymous (not verified)

a classic case of a WTC7

a classic case of a WTC7 denier. Or maybe, youre one of those dudes whos even ahead of NIST. Amazing. I see youre right on top there with those incredible scientists from PM.
We are delighted to have such an advanced mind among us. He is prepared to share some of his time, to enlight us stupid nuts. Very generous.

Show "Still can't provide evidence, I see." by Anonymous (not verified)

did you hear someone

did you hear someone whining, genious?
if youre so interested in evidence for explosives, how come you never wondered about any evidence whatsoever that brought down the towers cause there is none?
youre the one who claims to have physical evidence but has exactly nothing. except for a phantasy story from PM. period.

You're still whining

There is plenty of evidence of how the towers came down. You just can't admit that it exists and is overwhelming. Yet you claim that is was brought down with explosives for which NO physical evidence.

That is the essence of your 9/11 denial, em7.

Stop whining and start THINKING.

hey guys, did you hear this?

hey guys, did you hear this? there is plenty of evidence how all the towers came down, . Wow. Great. So we can all go to sleep then now. Maybe someday somebody will show us that evidence, but who cares, i mean, if our anonymous genious sais so it must be true.
good bye then, and thanks.

9/11 Denial on display

It's rather amazing that you would deny the evidence presented by NIST, ASCE, FEMA, thousands of eyewitnesses, hundreds of qualified structural engineers and forensic scientists.

Yours is a great example of 9/11 denial in action, the denial of existing evidence that you haven't begun to refute, and your complete inability to bring any physical evidence of explosives.

You must be very proud to have your head in the sand with your eyes blindfolded, your ears plugged, and your mind on vacation.

dont you just

Love the way idiots like this try in desperation to change history?
The videos and the eyewitness accounts are strong evidence, the science behind what happened to the 3 buildings all collapsing at virtually freefall speed is rock solid and irrefutable.

The evidence is presented all over this website every where you look, yet this disinfo freak of nature sits here an denies it, yet has nothing but bald faced lies and fairytales to spew.

I mean really all we can do is laugh at such stupidity.

Too bad you STILL refuse to give us evidence

Just a reminder: no physical evidence of explosives has EVER been produced.

That leaves you blowing against the wind.


There exists tonnes of evidence, if explosives were used to bring down the towers, its residue is in the rubble of the buildings. All you have to do is sift through that rubble and you will either find the evidence or you will not. All you have to do is get permission to analyze the rubble. Case closed, checkmate, one way or the other.


If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility. ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

You make no sense

The debris and dust was analyzed in dozens of independent studies from October 2001 onward. Not one found ANY evidence of "explosive residues".

It is time to stop making excuses and acknowledge that the evidence refutes your phony theories.

Ninja #2

> a classic case of a WTC7 denier.

indeed, indeed

> Or maybe, youre one of those dudes

Not me, but "Johnny Bravo"

> whos even ahead of NIST. Amazing.

It would be, wouldn't it.

> I see youre right on top there with those incredible scientists from PM.


> We are delighted to have such an advanced mind among us.
> He is prepared to share some of his time, to enlight us stupid nuts. Very generous.

I think he would be a tough nut to crack.. but worthwhile.

His ninja argument is soooo lame...
as if WTC7 did not have an underground truck-loading port or some other way to get the explosives in...

In any case... it may be worthwhile to follow the usenet discussion. (link via see above)

To those of you who don't know usenet: NNTP/port 119/usenet ... is older than the web!!!
Google swalloed DEJANEWS and has a record of all newsgroup postings going back to the early nineties.

Whats idiotic is morons suh

Whats idiotic is morons suh as yourself that can watch a steel framed building collapse at freefall speeds , into its own footprint, all floors falling at the same time, ignore witness account of explosion, ignore audio evidence of explosions and then come to a website and tell everyone that what was obviosly a demolition was really a "collapse".
Thats the same as walking into a blue room and telling everyone in that blue room that they are all wrong and in fact the room is red....and wondering why you cant get people to believe you.

Why can't you provide any physical evidence of explosives?

If you believe something you need to provide evidence. Just because a building falls and "looks like" explosive demolition is not evidence.

Since you can't provide any physical evidence of explosives, you're argument doesn't carry any weight whatsoever. We've been waiting for years for your physical evidence of explosives and you never give any. That's just plain dumb.

In any case, you need to educate yourselves in the process of thinking logically to see how silly you all are to believe your nonsnense. Here's a good starting place:

A guide to examining the premises and logic of arguments - including a list of logical fallacies.

At the risk of feeding/educating a troll...

"Just because a building falls and "looks like" explosive demolition is not evidence."

I wonder what qualifies as evidence. The video of that punk throwing a brick at the unassuming truck driver in downtown LA only "looks like" an assault. I think he must have been trying to swat a fly...yes, a big, dangerous fly, but a fly none the less.

Please change your statement to something a bit more reasonable. Here, I can do it for you:

"Just because a building falls and "looks like" explosive demolition is not PROOF."

evidence != proof != evidence....get it?, good.

How dense can you be?

You're can provide physical evidence that the video demonstrates explosives, right?

We're still waiting, bumpkins.

go claim the 1 million

go claim the 1 million someone else below links to.
1 million , man! that should be enough to keep you busy so u no longer have to kill time on 911 boards.
have fun.

You have no time for the truth

You even believe that the $1 million prize is legitimate.

Go away and learn to think rationally.

hey, let me ask you this:

hey, let me ask you this: why do you even care to post things on a 911 board like this when its all just laughable bullshit?
Im quite curious.
Why waste your time , making yourself laughable too?

I know, the truth is laughable to you guys.

I love it when you admit openly that you are in denial.

oh and i forgot to say, that

oh and i forgot to say, that 'firefighters were complicit' crap youre telling is indeed very suspicious. *Why* do you have to make up such bullshit?

Equal Myth Rights for All

And you would rather believe in your own utopian myth? Which is more prudent: trust but verify or trust implicitly?

Official conspiracy supports typify the trust implicitly crowd. Doing so endangers all of us, not just you. Don't be surprised to eventually discover that the constitution and bill of rights are no longer enforceable.

LOL is this the guy who got

LOL is this the guy who got butt hurt by AJ at Ground Zero?




One Nation, Under Siege

Excellent new(ish) videos, please spread far and wide (email contacts, messageboards)

"One Nation, Under Siege" w/Dave Von Kleist, Jim Marrs, more. 1 hour 21 mins

"The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror", narrated by Ed Asner, features Michael Ruppert & a cast of other notable characters. 90 mins

I think 911B already featured this one, but here it is again, Oil, Smoke, and Mirrors (50 minute documentary on peak oil, 9/11 and the war on terror):

This free online e-book offers more Red Pill than any Blue Pill Sheeple should consume in a short time, "The Police State Road Map":

2 minutes 25 seconds into this google video.

the guard/policeman warned people near the wtc 7 "That building is about to blow up." (2:25 minutes into the video).
I think there is even a picture of the guy who said it.
We need an investigation on this guy on how he came to know that the wtc 7 was about to explode.
Wow, I had never heard this before. This was the biggest new point I saw in this video.

No steel building has ever collapsed because of fire.
And if one did collapse how could someone know exactly when its going to collapsed.

Two very improbable events when their odds are multiplied together give an impossible occurrence without someone telling the guard.

This is irrefutable proof that wtc 7 did not collapse because of gravity only but because of precisely timed explosions, for those who need more than the actual visual proof of controlled demolition.

How did this guard/policeman come to know precisely when the explosion would occur that brought down WTC 7.
Probably he was told by his superiors who were told by Ghouliani who was told by ...

Also, Guiliani knew that WTC 1 and 2 were going to collapse before they did. This is recorded by the big networks because the Ghoul told them. This recording is public.
If we had a real investigation, which we have not, this would be one the main things to investigate "How did Gouhliani know before it happened".

And Silverstein saying to pull it and then it happening a short time later.
It is impossible for Silverstein to have known when the gravity would have brought the building down.
But it would have been very possible to know this if he had know about the building being wired for demolition.

And why is the EU commission in this last week desperately trying to pass legislation to prevent downloading videos on the internet.

Show "Ignorance is alive and well here" by Anonymous (not verified)

Listen meatball!

What about the numerous of demolition-experts who say WTC7 is without a doubt a controlled demolition? Think they know more about this than you? You're ridiculous and it's beacuse of people like you that the government can do whatever they want and still being believed. Use your head and not your heart and you will realize who really was behind the attacks

Show "No one believes that" by Anonymous (not verified)

Anymous (naturally), you are

Anymous (naturally), you are a spineless, bootlicking, traitor. You're a disgrace to your family, your country and humanity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself in the most painful manner possible.

it was posted here on

it was posted here on 911blogger a dutch (if I believe) demolition expert, when he saw the footage said it was a controled demolition. The proof? The footage is enough proof, if the building had fell because of the damage and fires sustained, the probability of that fall being simetrical would be infinitelly small.

Controlled Demolition Expert

Controlled Demolition Expert Says WTC7 is Controlled Demolition

Structural Experts think Building 7 was a "Controlled Demolition"

Interview with NYC Police Officer and 9/11 rescue worker Craig Bartmer who was standing next to Building 7 when it was demolished. He explains that the government's story about damage to Building 7's South facade is a lie. He also explains that he heard explosions while it was falling down.
Forward to 55:00 and 1:03:33.

Video clips of World Trade Center Building 7 being demolished using explosives on 9/11/01 :

Building 7 Demolition Quotes:

-Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."

Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 28:25)


-Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around -- we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock."

Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)


-Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)

Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Bonnie: Did they actually use the word brought down and who was it that was telling you this?

Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Excerpt from above is heard approximately ten minutes into the interview.


-Columbia Journalism Review – May/June 2003, by Thomas Franklin

Excerpt from an article written by award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the world famous photo of firemen raising the American flag at ground zero. In the article Franklin explains that all of ground zero was evacuated less than an hour before WTC 7 was demolished at approximately 5:20 pm on 9/11:

"Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. I had only a few frames left, and an entire day's worth of pictures to develop, so I prepared to head back to New Jersey."


- CBS News Anchor, Dan Rather, makes comments after Building 7 falls down:

“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.


-WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein's comments about Building 7 in the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds (2002):

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6: (Use of the word “pull” as slang for “demolish”)

Unidentified Construction Worker: "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”

Larry Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges: Says "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but there were no firefighters in the building:

Phone call from's "Jeff" to Controlled Demolitions Inc. asking "What does 'pull it' mean?"

More information concerning the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 can be found on Jim Hoffman's website:

Explosive progress! An admission by a 9/11 denier!

"Controlled Demolition Expert Says WTC7 is Controlled Demolition"

Well, this is truly progress. We now have an anonymous 9/11 denier who ADMITS that WTC 1 and 2 could NOT have been blown up with explosives!

Our "guy" has revealed his dependence on the testimony of foremost Dutch demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, who quite explicity ruled out demolition of WTC 1 and 2:

Now, all you 9/11 "Truthers", how are you all going to reconcile this amazing turn of events with your assertions that 9/11 was an inside job

The world is waiting for your answer with baited breath!

Danny Jowenko

Danny Jowenko isn't qualified to give an expert opinion to the demolitions of the twin towers, since the towers weren't conventional controlled demolitions. They were top down demolitions, which are rare in the world of controlled demolition. The top down method was used to fool idiots like yourself into thinking that planes caused the buildings to fall. But this thread isn't about the towers...

So back on topic: Do you now admit you are wrong and acknowledge that Building 7 fell as a result of controlled demolition?

That's funny, Eisnstein.

So you admit you have no qualified expert in so-called "top down demolitions."

Which means you can't even claim they were demolitions.

Need some help getting your foot out of your mouth?

and neither

Do you since it is basically UNcontrolled Demolition and made to look like a top down implosion.

The base of the towers were blown out first, explosions were heard and people were killed and injured BEFORE any plane hit.
and the demolition of the building was totally unconventional using far more explosives, plus Thermate, and from the top down plus without the usual pre set up of normal CD such as taking out windows, wiring, walls, etc.

So there aren't any "experts" on something like this, and it is also what has confused some that are familiar with CD.

This wasn't normal CD in the towers, however in WTC7 it was much closer to normal CD.
Everything the same except for some prep like taking windows out etc, but those are mostly just safety measures which obviously were of zero importance on 9/11.

That's VERY funny.

So now you've invented a fantasy of a "top-down demolition" which no demolition company has ever used nor would they since GRAVITY is the main force behind controlled demolitions and saves LOTS of money

I mean you REALLY have to be desperate to invent that fantasy, Nunyabiz! Such is the nature of 9/11 Deniers

And how about the evidence

And how about the evidence Steven Jones presented? Evidence of thermite or thermate doesn't magically appear.

This dude is simply brainwashed and reluctant to accept the truth, so let's forget about him.

There are multiple causes

If you had bothered reading something other than 9/11 conspiracy comic books, you'd have long since known that there are multiple possibilities for the existence of thermite or thermate.

You might even have the capacity to find the papers on these on the internet all by yourself.

You'd also know that Steven Jones has not bothered to change any of his paper where he has been thoroughly debunked. You'd also like to know that Jones has descended into the abyss of claiming there were other chemcials as componenst of thermite and thermate to support his claim, but that these chemicals are also components of computer cases of which there were thousands in the tower.

In sum, you believe only what you want to believe, not what the evidence REALLY is. Such is the nature of 9/11 denial.

give me a

"multiple cause" for this dumbass.

Explain how 1150 bodies get completely vaporized, 1700+ others are blown into tiny fragments collected in test tubes (20,000 collected ), or how 760 tiny bone fragments end up blown all the way across the street several hundred feet away?
Explain how a 40' long column weighing several tons gets blown way across West 57th street and sticks into the side of WFC3 some 400-500 feet away?

There is only ONE explanation and it is high explosives.

Anyone that is delusional enough to swallow that a simple building collapse could do that is a delusional psychotic suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.

It's up to you.

Certainly you realize by now that you CANNOT dodge your reponsibility to provide evidence that explosives and ONLY explosives could be responsible for what was observed.

Perhaps you didn't realize that evidence is necessary.

Perhaps you doidn't trealize that you HAVE to debunk all the evidence against you.

But then you are a very immature 9/11 Denier.

The evidence is being cover-up, you shill!

And you know it. You are either a Raytheon perpetraitor or an accessory after-the-fact.

Hey mr Anonymous

How come the guy behind 9/11 myths won't reveal who he is????

How come you can't read, Max?


What the hell is a "9/11 Denier"?

9/11 Deniers

A 9/11 Denier is one who believes for political ends that anything is possible about what happened on 9/11 other than what actually happened. A 9/11 denier rejects all evidence he does not like, embraces debunked nonsense as truth, and follows unqualified fruitcases who believe like him. The skill of logical and critical thinking is notably absent amongst 9/11 deniers which prevents them from analyzing properly the claims of notable 9/11 deniers.

Some notable 9/11 Deniers:

Prof. Steven Jones
James Fetzer
Webster Tarpley
Robert M. Bowman
Alex Jones
A. K. Dewdney
David Ray Griffin
Morgan Reynolds
Judy Wood, Ph.D.
Nila Sagadevan
Dylan Avery
Korey Rowe
Jason Bermas
Kevin Barrett
Jim Hoffman
Kevin Ryan
Thierry Meyssan
Jon Gold
Nico Haupt
The Webfairy
Peter Meyer

9/11 deniers come from all over the political spectrum but are disproportionally represented by the fringe Right and fringe Left.

Other notable 9/11 deniers...

Just a few... there are SEVERAL more...

Lorie Van Auken
The time has come for us to know the truth

Mindy Kleinberg
We can't fix what we don't know. Release the documents now. 

Monica Gabrielle
It is high time this information was shared with the American public!

Patricia Casazza
We intend to take back the Constitution one document at a time...

Mary Palmer-Murphy
In memory of my brother, Deputy Chief Orio J. Palmer

Barry Zelman
To deny the release of already known transcripts of pre 9/11 infromation denies our families due process . If our elected officials believe that knowing how our country was not protected is somehow better than knowing , then all their words of wanting an investagation of the worst attack on our nations soil is just another lie.

Sue Mladenik
Forever Wife of Jeff A/A Flt. 11

Valerie Lucznikowska
for my nephew Adam Arias WTC #2, 9/11

Conor Nee
Uncle George, you rock!! love and miss you always....C

Meaghan Nee
For the best Uncle in the world, Uncle Georgie!!

Terry Nee
For my brother in law, FF George Cain and all the victims!!

Kathleen Haberman
My daughter ,Andrea, was murdered at the WTC . I want to know who is responsible for this egregious act. All docouments NEED to be released

Daryl J Meehan
For Colleen

Cathie Ong
In memory of my sister Betty Ong and all September 11 victims, it is time to take back our rights and learn the truth.

Linda S. Leblanc

Judith Jackson Reiss
I lost my 23 year old son, I have the righht to the truth. And why is James Bker working in Wahington again? He works for the Daudi Royal Family. Is that not a conflict of interests? I know it is not ethical or moral, but is it legal?

Kevin Shea
FDNY Victim seeking information

Paula Minara
Widow of FDNY Firefighter murdered at WTC on 9/11

Kathy Maher
Loving wife of Daniel L. Maher

Joseph Maurer
Father of Jill Campbell 78th floor tower 2

Jeanne Maurer
In memory of my daughter Jill Campbell Tower 2

Teresa Traina
Mother of a son killed on 9/11

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You must have forgotten...

About those members of the 9/11 Denial Movement.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Another irrelevant emotional appeals

This time Jon resorts to the Appeal to Pity.

Jon Gold's evasions are well known

Dear Mr. Anonymous, Thank

Dear Mr. Anonymous,
Thank you for defending my lies on this board.
Always remember, a salary increase is a possibility.
We will evaluate your work after the next polls.


Jon pointed out that the so-called 9/11 Denial Movement is filled with those affected by the tragedy of 9/11. It always has been.

Or, didn't you know?

In other words, everytime you insult those of us that have supported them for as long as they have been fighting, you're also insulting those affected by the tragedy of 9/11.

In regards to your accusations of "evasion."

S. King Vs. Jon Gold
Debunking The Debunkers
I Have Challenged The Owner Of To An Online Debate

Anyway, I was saving this for a surprise until all of the rules were established, but now is as good a time as any.

Michael Wolsey has asked me to find someone who doesn't think the Government was complicit in attacks to debate me on his show, Visibility 9-11.

Any takers?

If you're interested, email Michael at

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

More evasions

Jon Gold knows that exactly what 9/11 Deniers are and his Appeal to Pity does not work nor is relevant. Jon Gold knows that those affected by the tradgey do not deliberately lie for political reasons.

Jon Gold also knows that debates do NOT establish facts. Jon Gold knows that he cannot support his claim that "9/11 was an inside job." Jon Gold knows, as do Holocaust Deniers and Jim Fetzer, that his calls for debates are evasions.

Lets refer him to the post I linked to above and remind him:

Jon can't refute facts of 9/11 Myths, PM, or anything else. Instead, Jon Gold wants people to "debate" him on his own turf, and on his turf only. The "debate" tactic is a well-worn one, on old tactic of Holocuast deniers. But those of who learned about the use of the tactic by Holocaust deniers during the last 40 years understand the reason for the tactic: the known weakness of the 9/11 Denier's position. Jon, and lately, Jim Fetzer, are resorting to this tactic.

Why do they resort to the tactic of challenging people to debate? There are three primary reasons. One reason is to generate the appearance and perception of legitimacy. If Fetzer can get someone to debate, particularly an expert on the subject, that very fact lends perceptual legitimacy to Fetzer's claims, i.e., that there IS, in fact, something legitimate to debate. We know that the whole 9/11 Denial Movement is desperate for legitimacy. We also know that legitimacy has to be earned, that it cannot just be claimed. A theory or hypothesis has to be backed up with suffcient evidence to even make it to the table. Fetzer et al claim they are "scholars" and then try to foist on unsuspecting souls "theories" and try to legitimize their "theories" by claiming they are "legitimate" debaters in subjects for which they have actually no expertise. Neither do they have factual evidence, only claims and assertions, and noting to refute all the conclusive evidence that exists.

A second reason is that, to the 9/11 and Holocaust denier, "debates" provide a better opportunity to attempt to "control" the conversation. As many of us have seen with Jon Gold's tactics, the denier will try to "load" the debate with "questions" and lead the conversation in the direction the denier wants to go. Jon Gold learned this tactic well from Holocaust deniers and practices it routinely. Rather than directly answering questions and, say, provide concrete, physical evidence that WTC 7 was blown up with pre-planted explosives, Jon will reply with, "How do you explain....?", and ignore the question all together. Jon only responds to questions with questions - no answers, facts, or evidence. The 9/11 denier and Holocaust denier all practice this form of deceit.

Thirdly, no scientist or rational person would "debate" anyone who did not have a solid basis behind the claims they are making, just as no rational person "debates" Holocaust deniers. "Debates" are not the medium by which factual evidence is determined or challenged. The scientific method does not work through debates to establish the validity of a theory. It works through presenting a testable hypothesis, the evidence for it, and why it explains events or observations better than another hypotheisis. The hypotheisis is open to all to test, challenge, affirm, or refute. A theory becomes established as the best possible explanation or is rejected. Newton was able to explain the observation of the behavior of planets to give us a mathematical formula for the influence of gravity sufficient for us to navigate satellites to precise orbits and planetary rockets to precise landings on planets millions of miles away. His "theory" is workable - but not at different scales subsequently observed. It was Einstein who solved that. Science necessarily includes the tension of competing theories. They are hashed out over time in peer-reviewed papers - not "debates."

This is exactly what the formal scientific investigations - NIST, FEMA, ASCE - did. The evidence, theories, methodolgy, and conclusions are out in the open, including the names and signatures of the hundreds of engineers and forensic scientists who stake their reputations on their work, for all to challenge, debunk, or affirm. What do we get from our friends in the 9/11 Denial Movement that actually respects and adheres to the scientific method and merits are considered attention? Nothing.

Fetzer knows that; so does Steven Jones. And both know they can't make a case for their claims. So Fetzer wants a debate and Jones won't acknowledge what he has been debunked on in his paper. (Imagine having the gall to leave in his paper a picture of concrete with mangled metal rebar coming out of it and calling it "resolidified melted metal?!!") We know why Fetzer and Jones do it - they have a lot of "believers" to take advantage of, the "sanction of the victim" as Ayn Rand called it. We also know that is why Fetzer and Jones are immoral liars, the scum of humanity, with Jon Gold close on their heels, willing to do anything to promote the lies and dishonesty of immoral punks.

To be valid, a "theory" must be able to first explain all the observed evidence - or refute it. As we all know here, 9/11 Deniers have been able to do neither. We have all listened for years to the endless repetiton of debunked claims, deliberate obfuscation of known evidence, reliance on innuendo, and deliberate trashing of the scientific method. 9/11 Deniers are irrational, illogical, and easily manipulated by those they worship. Those that are smarter are frauds and chartlatans.

Oh yes, last but not least, let's not forget the favorite tactic against those who will not lower themselves to debate with 9/11 Deniers and Holocaust deniers, the response to the refusal to debate. As Jon Gold likes to claim, "Let's see... I've challenged the owner of, and he's nowhere to be found. I've challenged Ronald Wieck, and he's shown how afraid he really is," as if the refusal to debate is evidence of something in Jon's favor. We've challenged Jon to provide evidence for his claim that "9/11 was an inside job" the correct and established way: with facts and evidence, in writing. Jon Gold won't and knows he can't.

Sorry, Jon, your evasions are transparent.

I guess...

You haven't browsed through my blogs.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Still can't answer the question

The question remains on the table, Jon, after months of you refusing to answer it.

No denying that.

You're asking for...

"facts and evidence, in writing", and I'm telling you that you need to browse through my blogs, pick one, and debunk it "with facts and evidence, in writing."

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Keep dodging the question

You've been dodging the question for months now, Jon.

Oh I see

The deal now, this complete lunatic has been completely OWNED by Jon Gold over & over and coming here making a fool out of himself is all he's got.

Wow how pathetic.

Meanwhile Jon just gave you a venue to debate him in public and from what I can tell the idiot refuses to even acknowledge it.

That is what I call OWNED!

Brrrcokkk brroockk brookk bok- bok- bok

Jon keeps dodging

I know you have difficulty understanding the written word, Nunaybiz.

It doesn't matter. For months I have demonstrated that Jon refuses to come here and demonstrate with factual evidence that "9/11 was an inside job."

Jon refuses. Jon wants a debate but facts aren't debatable. He either has the evidence or he doesn't. He either can produce it here or he can't.

He can't as the evidence once again shows.

To date, he has provided nothing qualifying as evidence, just assertions and claims the he, and apparently he alone, "...knows 9/11 weas an inside job."

The record shows that Jon has nothing to offer and that we who are on the real side of 9/11 Truth know we own him, you, and all of you 9/11 Deniers who live in a your fantasy world of denying evidence.

Oh, yes, Jon owns someone here: YOU, Nunyabaiz. Look how easily you fall for nonsense.

a new record in holocaust-link-stupidity-density

Dude, congrats. you managed to write the most desperate 'debunker' text i read so far. Amazing how many times you sneaked the Holocaust comparison in. You really like that one, dont you. Desperately trying to establish it as 'the same thing'. How clever and creative is that.
I'm curious what youre motivation is to bring us such a 'detailed analysis' of Jon G. ?
Amazing how you explain us that asking for a debate clearly shows a dodgy intention. Just like the Holocaust deniers, of course. Yes, thats obviously a clear sign. People who ask to debate obviously only want to distract. That makes perfect sense, ey?
Amazing how anonymous people redefine logic.

You need to get out in the real world.

Denial is denial is denial. Facts are facts.

9/11 Denial is no different that Holocaust denial. ONLY the subject matter is different.

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.

I noticed that, too

Very interesting choice of words, as he could just as easily have said "collapse" or "come down." Actually, right before that another guy does say "come down." The guy in question, though, says "blow up" and he says it twice.

Show "invisible ninja engineers brought WTC 7 down" by ___u2r2h_BANNED_see_node_3918___ (not verified)

The post above is proof positive...

that u2r2h is a shill and is only posting here to spread lies such as no planes to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Anyone who has sympathy for this shill because s/he was banned needs to have their head examined.

Every single one of your points has

been well-debunked. Go do the research if your are simply ignorant. However. what I suspect you are is a troll. Usually there are two trolls.... one to present the idiocy, another anonymous poster to attempt rebuttal. And it sucks in the unwary. Diverts the point, subject of the thread, wastes everybody's time. Do not pay attention to trolls.

The more subtle trolls, disinfo folks I like to call mockingbirds.... in honor of the famous CIA infiltration of the media in the past. These are just trolls here.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.


I think that Al Quada sprinkled fairy dust on WTC 7 and then it collapsed, thats the only logical explanation ROFL

Hey, it's better than what

Hey, it's better than what the commission came up with...wait the commission didn't come up with anything.

Think about It,

Doesn't anyone think anymore? A controlled Demo takes weeks to prep in a building that is empty and in the process of being demolished. These guys are trying to say that our government, that can barely run it's self, can pull of something like this? Demo charges CANNOT stand up to heat that was generated by the fires in these buildings, even if they where there. As to molten metals being found at the base of WTC-7, think about it!, there is no way to do a controlled demo by "melting" supports, a controlled demo is done with explosive charges at strategic points, and the debris is cool minutes after the controlled collapse, ask anyone in the business. It's so funny to hear people say how dumb bush is, then say he could have put something like this together in 6 months of being in office? I'm not a republican or democrat, I can think. Even if there was controlled charges set up on the 70+ floors of the WTC towers, there is no way to calculate the effects of a plane hitting the towers and how the fires would effect them. As to this guy professor Steven Jones, he must have gotten his degree out of a cracker jack box, cause anyone know's that explosives do not handle heat well, let alone 1000+ degree heat.

Just my two cents,


Something happened there other than fire

To Me it doesn't matter if I am an expert or not. I've seen enough videos of controlled demolition to be convinced that WTC 7 came down just like it was demolished with explosives.
Funny how the government does not say how much explosives it would take to bring down those structures just to debunk for debunkings sake, it's usually the lapdog media who does that.
What is so unique about Towers 1 & 2 is they looked so much like a Mount St. Helens eruption in a downward path. And all 3 came down at free fall speed.
But look at the LIES We had been fed since that day; The 19 hijackers, the WMD, The falsifying of information, The increased surveilance of Americans, Torture as a policy, refusal of a 9/11 investigation...why would this government refuse to investigate such a heinous crime? Why?....If there was not much to hide, then why refuse?
We are owed a thorough investigation, not a half-assed, Politicly biased one with many ommissions; What a slap in the face to the victims families, let alone all Americans.
What a criminal act to also send our troops in Iraq to die for a lie, and they will keep on being killed, while We are being lied to (again) about how well progress is going.
If dying is progress, then mission accomplished.

Evidence doesn't matter?

Why do you not think logically and critically about all that would be necessary to happen to bring down a building with explosives? Your claim makes no more sense than the claim that you've seen enough sunrises and sunsets to know that the sun orbits the earth.


Please explain the seismograph data from Columbia University's Earth Observatory (and others) that show 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes just prior to the collapse of EACH building. And please don't attempt to change the actual times to coincide with the time the buildings were fully collapsed. Let’s stick to real time here and be truthful. Your official government explanation please? Also, please compare the seismograph data from the planes hitting the building versus the huge leap on the Richter scale prior to each building's collapse. Something catastrophic occurred prior to each collapse, so I would like to hear your scientific analysis of this, which of course should match the government’s version of the seismograph analysis. Go for it...

Let's see your sources

First, there is no "official governmnet explanation." You must know where the data came from after all these years, no?

Second, you have just made claims without sources for those claims.

Let's see if you can provide any sources whatsoever for your claims. That way will be able to analyze the validity of your claims. Surely, you will have no problem providing your sources for inspection.

Common Sense

This disinfo stuff is so dumb. All you have to do is look at the video's. Historically, there's only one way buildings have fallen into their own footprints, you shill's will get me to believe you when you can cite some historical evidence that matches up with your can't. You keep asking for evidence, how about providing some evidence yourself! CD has all sorts of historical refercences to compare to the videos of the collapses of the towers, what historical evidence can you cite that matches up with your version of the collapses? Your own "Conspiracy theory" is the one that is lacking in evidence and isn't supported by the physical laws of motion. Buildings do not behave in this manner without assistance, please use your common sense.

"All you have to do is look at the videos"

So this guy has succeeded in throwing out all science, including structural engineering.

What anonymous is saying is that there is no need for any investigations - the videos have all the evidence one needs. So, 911 Truthers, abandon the call for a new investigation.

Too bad photos don't count since they show the towers did not collapse fully into their own footprints. We even have one guy here (who since ran away) who claimed the videos showed the towers exploding UPWARDS! That is the funniest one I've heard yet!

Isn't it great having videos. I have one proving the sun orbits the earth which anyone can see every day with their own eyes.

I have one proving the Sun orbits the earth

Is the sky red in that video? By the way, your the one throwing out science - the earth orbits the sun, but I doubt anyone will be able to convince you of that. Instead of moaning about us not having evidence and doing your name calling how about providing some evidence yourself! Your not going to pay any attention to the facts we bring up, so provide some evidence to support your bald-face lies, and don't just give a vague reference to some propaganda. Use your interpretation of what you've read. Show us you understand the truth of what your pushing...again you can't. This gives you away.

Explanation please

Data is on page six. Explain please. There is a serious problem with the seismic you see it?

P.S. Why the hell did American tax-paying citizens pay millions of dollars for a complete and thorough investigation of 9/11 if you claim there is no "official government explanation". You are seriously deranged.

You think that is an "official government explanation?"

Apparently, you didn't even bother reading the paper whose authors are listed quite clearly:

Won-Young Kim, L. R. Sykes1, J.H.Armitage, J. K.Xie, K.H. Jacob, P.G.Richards1, M. West1,
F. Waldhauser, J. Armbruster, L. Seeber, W. X. Du1 and A. Lerner-Lam1, Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, N.Y. 10964, USA; 1also Dept. Earth and Environmental
Sciences, Columbia University."

So Columbia University is now an "official government agency" according to Anon.

No wonder yopu are having such difficulty refuting the paper, Anon, leaving you helpless to explain any problems with the seismic record.

I knew you wouldn't be able to.

Still seriously deranged

Can't answer the question so you use avoidance tactics? This is a scientific paper put out by a university that is skilled in recording and analyzing seismic data. It obviously is not a government agency, nor did I say it was. I simply asked you not to use government data because it will be false. You are full of bullshit by the way and I suspect you will dally on to some other blog site after this because you can't answer my question out of pure stupidity. I GAVE YOU A DOCUMENT THAT IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR SEISMIC DATA ON 9/11 RECORDED AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY'S EARTH OBSERVATORY...READ IT AND DISCUSS IT ASSHOLE.

You can't think straight

"I simply asked you not to use government data because it will be false."

Apparently, you are so incredibly dense that you don't even realize that YOU made that assertion.

You can't even support your claim that any sesimic data comes from the government. Instead, you present the data from Columbia Univesity but CAN"T EVEN explain what is wrong with it!

There is nothing to discuss until you make a VALID, SUPPORTED CLAIM. Get going, buddy.

So, I have to point out ONCE AGAIN that YOU have to support YOUR OWN FRIGGIN ASSERTIONS, NITWIT.

Once again, are you going to keep dodging answering the friggin question or keep making an idiot of yourself?

Amazing how incredibly dense you guys are.

Hey Idiot...



How long do we have to wait, Anon

It's been several days since I asked you to support your claim. You've dance all around the issue claiming you that there is somethin wrong with the seismic data.

Remember, YOU claimed that, not me, nitwit.

Days later, you STILL haven't provided a single bit of data to support YOUR very own claim. Tell us, Anon, HOW BIZARRE is that!

Then, after claiming that no one can use governemnt data, you go off the deep end and claim that the governmnet data is FALSE! SO you produce a non-government document which MUST be the data you referred to since you DID NOT produce any other data that is supposedly false.

Then when I remind you that the paper is from Columbia University, which is NOT a government entitiy, you get all embarrassed for goofing SO badly and defensive and claim you knew that (sure!).

This gets more bizarre! You insist no one can use governmnet data since it is FALSE. But you can't even produce any government DATA to support your assertion!

Then you say there is something wrong with your-formerly claimed "government paper", actually written by scientists at Columbia University, and sya there is something wroing with it.

But when I ask you what's wrong with it, YOU CAN'T EVEN SAY!!

You're getting really bizarre dancing around like this, Anon!

I can assume safely that yuou thought you could bluff your way through this and nobody would catch on. That might work with your fellow 9/11 Deniers, but not with rational people, Anon.

Still waiting

You wanted to analyze the scientific data, I gave it to you, so, analyze it and tell me why it appears the way it does. This is the scientific proof you asked for, now lets see if you are bright enough to analyze it. I highly doubt it. But go ahead, give it a shot so I can laugh at you!

Here, let me start the sentence for you..."the seismic data from Columbia University's Earth Observatory clearly shows....." now you finish the sentence. Moron.

You can't even read

You are getting really desperate, Anon. Can't your comprehend the English language AT ALL.

Where is your evidence that you CLAIM you have? Where? Why are you REFUSING to back up YOUR claims?

I'm waiting...

YOU: "Let's see if you can provide any sources whatsoever for your claims. That way will be able to analyze the validity of your claims. Surely, you will have no problem providing your sources for inspection".


That's funny

I jusdt showed how bizarre you've been. You can't produce any evidence for your claims that there is governmentt data that is false or that there is something wrong with the seismic in the data from the paper from Columbia University which you thought was a government agency.

Maybe this will help you: The Jon Gold Woo-Woo Credo.


A child has more brains than you. The evidence is it and weep.

Anon is running away.

Anon made the following claims:

"There is a serious problem with the seismic you see it?"

"I simply asked you not to use government data because it will be false."

I have asked Anon many times to back up these assertions with evidence. He CATEGORICALLY REFUSES to do so.

Any questions?


You have the scientific evidence you asked for. You said you wanted to analyze it. Do that and get back to me. The scientific method is not very difficult. You must have at least learned that in third grade. Read the data I gave you, interpret and analyze, draw conclusions. I will patiently wait for your conclusion based on the scientific data provided by Columbia University. So I can laugh at you. Moron.

P.S. Nobody is listening to your rantings. It is just you and me. I am a "she" by the way, and a scientist. And I am waiting.

Still waiting

How long are you going to keep us waiting, Anon, before you support your claims with evidence?

It's pretty silly for you to keep running away from these claims you made:

"There is a serious problem with the seismic you see it?"

"I simply asked you not to use government data because it will be false."

What's you problem, Anon.? Everyone here can see you refuse to support them.

Dementia setting in?

Forget that easily? Okay, I'll link again to the scientific evidence you asked for. Data is on page 6:

Now, YOU stated that YOU wanted to analyze the scientific analyze it and tell me what you see. It really is a no-brainer...I know you can do it! Tell me what you see my little MORON!

What part is so difficult for you?

Why are you so scared?

It's pretty silly for you to keep running away from these claims you made:

"There is a serious problem with the seismic you see it?"

"I simply asked you not to use government data because it will be false."

Imagine making the claims but not wanting to support them with evidence. It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.

So obvious you can't interpret scientific data....

Here is the scientific evidence you asked for. Data is on page 6:

Now, YOU stated that YOU wanted to analyze the scientific analyze it and tell me what you see. It really is a no-brainer...I know you can do it! Tell me what you see my little MORON! you need a little handholding because you are so inept? Ride the short bus did we?

Abandoned the topic?

Please go to:
To find who you are up against. No, I’m not in this incredible list of people who refuse to give up the fight, but you must understand that as far as intelligence level....this is what you’re dealing with. Are you ready for this “anonymous”? Can you fight MIT? Can you fight BYU? Can you fight Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer and William Rodriguez? Can you fight senators and congressmen? Can you fight first responders with eyewitness accounts? Victim’s families who know they have been lied to? No, I didn't think so. Your lack of response to my simple question is obvious. You don't get it and you don't have the mental capacity to get it. Ciao.

You Explain it

"There is a serious problem with the seismic you see it?"

NO. How about explaining what YOU see instead of jumping into insults.

Still waiting

Hmmm....too confusing for you?

Backed yourself into a corner.

We're still waiting for you to get the nerve up to support your claims, Anon:

"There is a serious problem with the seismic you see it?"

"I simply asked you not to use government data because it will be false."

Still scared to do so, I see.

The Lack of Official Evidence

First as Retrograde pointed out, evidence does not equal proof. Proof is decided in a court of law by a jury, while evidence is presented to a jury in order to convince them of the existence of proof (either innocent or guilty). Thus at best what anyone can present is at best evidence. Now, the evidence that WTC7 was not in significant probability a collapse due to fire and damage can be derived from multiple lines of inquiry:

a) Videographic Evidence
- The time from the roofline's initial acceleration to complete collapse is at most 6.6 seconds, according to various estimations made from the videos. The penthouse falls on the east side of the building followed 2 seconds later by the entire building. The building does not fall over, topple, or display any assymetry that would be expected from assymetrical damage, followed by assymetrical fire heating, and laterally progressive collapse. Indeed, even the initial FEMA report admits this and labels the building's collapse behaviour as an "implosion", with little damage to the surrounding structures. The video evidence also shows large production of dust from the base and perhaps some concrete streamers from the front and side of the building.

b) Seismic Evidence
Seismic readings show that the collapse is much longer (47 seconds according to FEMA report) but FEMA offered no explanation of these readings and merely presented the times without analysis (see Chapter 5). It is doubtful that a progression of minor, internal failure of the transfer trusses would register as an observable seismic event, but this is at best speculation. NIST of course has yet to produce its report and thus we are merely left with no official explanation as of yet for these readings.

c) Eyewitness Testimony
Many eyewitnesses reported sounds of explosions both before and during WTC7's collapse. I would recommend the comment posted by Anonymous above (titled "Controlled Demolition Expert") for an excellent run down of this info. The Demolition World paper briefly mentions these but then explains that other demo experts were in the vinicinty of WTC7 and did not hear anything abnormal. However, the paper fails to identify these "experts" and thus this testimony can not be further investigated.

d) Hotspots
Thermal imaging done in the weeks after 9/11 show incredibly hot temperatures at ground zero in both towers and WTC7. This intense heat is corroborated by multiple testimonies by cleanup workers and other people who were directly onsite, including Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction. Some have attempted to minimize this heat data by first denying its existence and then trying to explain the heat through normal fire progression( However the testimony is varied and specific as to the amount of heat under the piles and even photographic evidence is clear on this. Thermal imaging measures surface temperatures (contrary to attempt to obfuscate this matter) as the sensors measure the visible infrared light given off by "surface matter", i.e. they cannot see through matter. Thus the thermal images give a lower bound on the maximum temperatures and these show then that temperatures were in excess of 800C.

e) Destruction of Evidence
The steel from WTC7 was lumped in with WTC1 and 2 and removed as quickly as possible, even though no one was thought to be trapped in the rubble. Proponents of the official theory have always questioned this and claim that to the contrary there was ample time for inspection of the steel by the initial FEMA BPAT team. However, the fruits of the official investigation would suggest otherwise. Firstly, only 236 steel samples were saved so that they could later be analysed by NIST. Of these samples, only 2% showed signs of heating to 250C as evidenced by a paint deformation test. The paint test could only be performed on samples having enough paint, so NIST also tested the metallic structure of the samples, which allowed one to see if the piece reached 600C (however the test is one sided so that the temperature could be anywhere in the range of 21 - 600C). Of all the samples, none had reached the half strength of 600C. Thus it would appear that the fires were not hot enough as NIST claims and their hypothetical computer models are in error. While NIST initially stated the metalurgical tests would show what temperatures the steel structure of the buildings saw, they backtracked as soon as the results were in and stated that the pieces did not come from areas predicated to have high heating. Supporters of the official story also decry that "only" 236 samples were saved and thus the sample is too small to generalize the result. Unfortunately, NIST also mentioned that the pieces were explicitly chosen because they showed signs of fire damage. Thus we can be sure that these pieces are in fact the ones with highest heating that were available to the offical investigations. Thus, we arrive at a conundrum. Either:

1) The initial metallurgical teams were given enough time and access to the steel but were incompetent in selecting the right pieces, in which case grave doubt is cast on the validity of the investigations

2) The initial metallurgical teams were given enough time and access to the steel and were competent in selecting the right pieces, in which case the steel samples are representative and thus the fire temperatures were too low, casting grave doubt on the validity of the investigations

3) The initial metallurgical teams were not given enough time and access to the steel and were competent in selecting the right pieces in the time they had, in which case the evidence was destroyed rapidly and grave doubt is cast on the validity of the official investigations

4) The initial metallurgical teams were not given enough time and access to the steel and were incompetent in selecting the right pieces in the time they had, in which case the evidence was destroyed rapidly and VERY grave doubt is cast on the validity of the official investigations

In other words, grave doubt is cast on the investigations regardless of the rapid destruction of steel or not.

f) The Evaporation and Sulfidation of Steel
In spite of the previous issue with the steel handling, one particulary important piece of analysis was performed by the inital FEMA investigation. Pieces of steel were found in WTC7 (and the towers) that were partly evaporated (2000C +). A high temperature eutectic had formed within the steel by sulfur attack and had turned the girder into "swiss cheese". This magnituide of heat cannot be explained by any open air fire theory or gravity driven collapse. Claiming that the steel saw these temperatures in the pile is ridiculous since even in a perfect burn there is simply not enough heat energy to melt or evaporate steel. High pressure, pre heating, and enclosed furnaces are neccesary to achieve this. The FEMA report cautions that no clear source for this event can be determined and that further, detailed investigation is fully warranted. NIST, however, elected to ignore this data, most likely under the absurb rubric of "The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing." (NIST FAQ, Aug 2006) For NIST to conclude this, however, it must first examine the evidence to determine if it is conclusive.

g) FEMA Can't Explain WTC7
FEMA themselves admit that they cannot really explain how the building collapsed and that their theory only has a low probability of occurence. Their theory requires that:

1) WTC1 collapses and debris rains down on WTC7
2) Debris penetrates WTC7's exterior facade, continues on and penetrates a dividing concrete wall, and then proceeds to penetrate a protected diesel fuel line and sever it
3) The fuel pump was online and pumping at the time
4) The sensor, which would normally detect the leak somehow malfunctions
5) A fire gets started and ignites the fuel
6) The diesel fuel somehow migrates to the east section of the building (which requires that the doors to this area be left open) and starts heavy heating on this main truss support
7) The heating is so great that the truss fails, causing the east penthouse to fall
8) That this local collapse somehow progresses to complete lateral failure of the transfer truss simultaneously in order to cause "implosion"

Supporters of the official theory claim the building was unusual and that the loads on the trusses were very high. This is true, as the building was designed to straddle to Con-Ed station. However, as a result of this, like any well engineered structure the design capacity of the structure was also increased to match this greater loading. Instead of hollow box columns, solid steel beams were used and the structure was a latticework of support. This makes high temperatures of the beams even harder to achieve, and the prescence of fireproofing would retard this even further (no doubt NIST are hard at work trying to blow off all the fireproofing, similiar to their treatment of fireproofing in WTC1 & 2 where even in areas where their own impact models showed fully intact fireproofing, they removed it because they couldn't even achieve their pitiful 1/9 success rate without it! - see NIST 1-6D pg 38) Thus, as FEMA properly states, their theory has a low probability of occurence and other, more probable theories (demolition) should be methodically pursued.

Which brings us to

h) Explosives Residue Not Tested For and NIST's Foregone Investigation

NIST has finally been forced to admit, contrary to their own fire investigation standards (NFPA 921) which states that "unusual residues... could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials" (Section 12-4) and that they indeed did NOT bother to test for explosives or thermite residue on the steel. So in addition to ignoring the extreme temperatures and state of the metal in the piles, NIST also blatantly ignores even the possibility of arson. Note that NIST did not even check for residue, which certainly runs counter to providing an accurate account of why and how the buildings fell. NIST might as well have forgone metallurical and physical experiments and concentrated solely on concoting better computer models, which contrary to many official supporters, do NOT predict bowed columns and do NOT predict collapse. Read the report (section 1-6D pg 40) where they can't get pull in with the results of their computer floor tests and instead substitute direct point forces on the exterior walls to match results. Thus instead of using a stationary process to predict bowing from an inital condition, they turned the model around and used bowed columns to predict high floor forces without any computational or physical evidence to back it up.

I could go on but my fingers are getting tired :). The common theme of all this is that the validity of the official investigations is thrown into doubt. Either they didn't have the resources (streel, time, money), competence, political freedom to conduct an independent investigation, or worse. The demolition hypothesis has yet to be ruled out (except by bare assertion) by the official reports who do not investigate the most imporant observations and downplay any evidence to the contrary of their stated hypothesis. While it would be great if independent investigators could get access to the samples and perform proper metallugical tests, it is doubtful. NIST has shown no willingness to debate their report, even with those whom they refer to a flat earth fools. We shall see what they say about WTC7, but it is likely that this one will also be filled with the same deceptive methods and pervasive handwaving that featured promenently in their towers report.

Why repeat debunked nonsense?

It is fascinating how 9/11 Deniers are so mesmorized by debunked data that they repeat it over and over and over knowing full well it has been debunked.

Take this claim: "- The time from the roofline's initial acceleration to complete collapse is at most 6.6 seconds, according to various estimations made from the videos."

Anyone can watch the videos of the entire collapse of WTC 7 and they can count also. Anyone that learned how to count KNOWS that WTC 7 took OVER 13 seconds to collapse. So what is it with 9/11 deniers that to make their despearte conspiracy theories stick that they have to pretend that nobody can count?

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.

You're confusing the time

When column 80 was blown, it caused the penthouse to drop approximately 6 seconds before the building fell. Stop wasting out time, because it's obvious to anyone with a brain in their skull that Building 7 fell as a result of controlled demolition. Structural experts agree: