Live Webcast of Steven Jones' UC Berkeley Conference is going to host a live webcast of Dr. Jones and (by video) David Ray Griffin's presentations at UC Berkeley this Saturday. Here's the info:

"Presenters: Steven Jones with David Ray Griffin on video

"Analysis of the World Trade Center Destruction"

What can be learned from analysis of the physical features of the total destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7? Are there natural processes that could explain these features?

WEBCAST TIME: (Jones' session only)
1:30 - 3:00 PM PST
2:30 – 4:00 PM MST
3:30 – 5:00 PM CST
4:30 – 6:00 PM EST
Video production by

Link for live webcast on Saturday:

Link to test your Real Player on Berkeley webcasts beforehand: "

News you can use, 11/08/2006:

Sibel Edmonds, war games,

Sibel Edmonds, war games, Pakistani ISI/General Ahmad, Mineta testimony, Able Danger, eat a dick.

Jon, you don\'t hide very well

You leave a scent we can smell a mile away.

Not me...

Dumb ass.

"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 on discussing stupid

keep on discussing stupid details about 9/11 while they are stealing your country " you ppl have no guts"

"Ernie"'s, back, everyone.

"Ernie"'s, back, everyone. Got a crush on Jon, that one does.

A question for all Truthers

You folks claim the evidence of an inside job on 9/11 is overwhelming.

If that's the case then why can't you people agree on a story?

Flight 93 - shot down / landed in Cleveland

Pentagon - 757 / remote controle / A3 / missile

WTC - basement bombs blow out the core / C4 / thermite / bombs on every floor (LOL!) / 757 / cargo planes / no planes

You guys don't argue over technicalities. You actually argue about things like: "where there actually planes?" and "did flight 93 crash or land?"

Surely you twoofers must realize that you wouldn't be having these disagreements if your proof was strong...


It's overwhelming because buildings don't collapse onto themselves at freefall speeds (impossible without demo) or collapse from fires--let alone 3 on the same day.


the towers didn't fall at free fall speed (debris clearly falls faster than the collapses themselves) and what does that have to do with the failure of the truth movement to agree on anything?

You poeple can't agree on whether flight 93 crashed or landed. Wake up son - you people are just making crap up.

Present your theories to some structural engineers and see if they agree.

Free fall speed

Even NIST admits the buildings fell at free fall speed. From NIST's own FAQ:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

Everyone agrees with this point. Even NIST’s 20 million dollar report admits this fact. This is overwhelming proof of demolition. See conservation of momentum. NIST can't ignore it because it's inconvenient to their theory.


the floors of the WTC were NOT designed to hold up hundreds of thousands of tons falling down on it.

According to twoofers, each floor should have momentality held up the mass as it came down - something it could not do. It was designed to hold a STATIC load - not one in motion.

Not much disagreement

amongst 9/11 truthers.

Flight 93 was shot down because what little evidence there is points to this being correct, eye witnesses plus wreckage scattered over 6 miles.

Pentagon nobody really knows because there is little to no evidence.
So all that can be done is make rational assumptions.
as in it is highly unlikely a 757 hit it, hole not big enough, unlikely to have been able to control a 757 so far just 20' off the ground traveling 500mph after hitting 5 light poles, and the damage is not consistent with what a 757 would do, etc..

WTC had explosives in the basement.
This was seen in video, eyewitnesses heard it, and at least one man was severely injured from that explosion and is alive today saying so.
Thermate was most likely used as testing of the steel shows signs of it, plus signs of it in video, and there is little else that could have super heated the steel in such a manner.
Explosives were not likely on "every floor" didn't need to be, however clear photographic evidence shows that indeed explosives were on MANY floors, they can be seen, heard, felt, and evidence of multi ton steel beams plus hundreds of body parts, tiny bone fragments hundreds of feet away across the street CONFIRM this FACT.

There are a tiny fraction of people like probably 1/4 of 1% that tout the utterly insane "No plane BS" these people are likely disinfo agents, plants or just outright nuts.

98% of 9/11 truthers are in very close agreement on the facts.
Some things are up in the air of course because so much is being hidden, covered up, lied about.

You obviously dont have a clue what you are talking about.


lots of "most likely," and "probably" in that response.

Why? Cuz you have no proof and are basically guessing. Good luck taking that to court.

The funny thing is that Rumsfeld

says that flight 93 was shot down. I guess he is a crazy conspiracy theorist too!

Watch him say it here:

“I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.” Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense.

Sure you can deny that’s what he meant that but that’s like saying:

I shot my cat—oops!!–I meant to say I was just petting my cat. Uh… I misspoke… oops almost went back to reality for a second… how embarrassing!”.

How could anyone make a mistake like that? On top of that he gets his press secretary to say he made a mistake a day or so later. I guess he didn’t notice he made a mistake when he said it. The pathological liars are starting to forget all of their lies.

The more logical explanation

is that he misspoke.

If it was shot down THEN WHY COVER IT UP? They'd have nothing to appologize for plus it would have saved them all the flack for not intercepting the planes.

And if it was shot down it would have broke apart and witnesses would have seen multiple smoke trails leading down.

it's more logical

if you think like the president—because he makes no sense at all.

To "shoot” is a pretty powerful verb. You don't say it by accident. Do you go around saying something was “shot” by accident? If you do, I would direct you to get some professional help; you must be losing your mind. Even more incriminating is the fact that he didn’t correct himself—he (or someone else) had his secretary correct him later. It is pretty obvious given the physical evidence and his statement, that he spoke the truth when he said it was shot down. There was almost nothing left of the plane. The debris was spread over for miles. Eyewitnesses heard a missile sound including a Vietnam veteran. The evidence all combines to reveal the true story.


Why cover it up? That is speculation. We need an investigation to find out why it was covered up. My guess is that Americans wouldn't be happy to know that their own military shot down a commercial plane. Why would they want to bring negative attention to the military? Wouldn't it be better if it was some "heroic" story where they fought back and "saved the day"? Only speculation--but it is logical speculation.

"Do you go around saying

"Do you go around saying something was “shot” by accident? If you do, I would direct you to get some professional help; you must be losing your mind."



I suspect an excellent reason why the shoot down of flight 93 was covered up was that if it was revealed that one plane was shot down--people would start to ask why others were not shot down.

In other words why was there a stand down from NORAD? I think this is a good motive to cover it up.


We can put it this way then if it makes you feel better.

There is ZERO possibility that what the Government says happened actually happened because it goes against the Laws of Physics.

There is your proof positive.

Now as far as proving controlled demolition considering all the evidence of the crime scene was removed "illegally" and only small bits and pieces remain of which no one is allowed to test then what we have to go by is the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and EVERY SINGLE SHRED of that agrees 100% with the Controlled Demolition Theory.

Nothing supports the Official Government Conspiracy Hypothesis.


I agree completely. You only have to watch to tape to see that towers aren't collapsing—they are blowing up from the top down. It is truly amazing how anyone (including myself) could not have questioned this when we first saw it. It brings up interesting psychological questions.

I fully support the findings of Steven Jones, but there must have been some pretty heavy duty explosives used to hammer the towers. I am very interested to see where the research goes on this subject. Those towers were after all, extremely durable and a testament to the architects. They were designed to survive extreme events.

Based on eyewitness testimony, there was basically nothing left of the towers excluding steel. Next to no office building materials survived. Almost no bodies were recovered.

Eventually, the explosives issue must be resolved. I’m not sure that Steven Jones has completely answered the question, but at least he has opened a window into fully answering it. I am convinced that thermate or other variants of it were used, but the question is what else was used.

What in the world is capable of leveling 110 story office buildings to dust? The official theory is a joke.

"Interesting psychological questions"

That's what I keep coming back to these days. You are absolutely correct that it should be possible to see that the towers are exploding -- and in fact it is impossible for me to see anything else in 2006. What was different in 2001-2005 for me? Why is it still impossible for many otherwise critically-thinking people to see that, regardless of the particular method employed, there was just obviously much, much more energy involved in what we saw than in an act of "falling down"?

Incidentally, Steven Jones did point out that thermate, as opposed to thermite, is explosive rather than merely incendiary. He also made it clear, though, that he is focused on his part of the puzzle and in pursuing it with the care and scientific rigor he has applied to other areas in his career as a scientist. My impression is that he would be open to hypotheses regarding what pulverized the buildings beyond the use of thermate, if they are supported by evidence. Judy Wood, however, needs WAY more evidence to back her claims before Steven Jones wastes his time thinking about space-based beam weapons, as he made clear (although his language managed to be more polite than mine.)

The official story is something much worse than a joke.

space-based beam weapons

I'm a little skeptical about the Starship Enterprise being responsible for the collapse of the twin towers.

space-based beam weapons

The last thing I want to hear is that the Klingons were involved.

Hey, if you won't admit it might have been Klingons

then you're obviously a cover-up perp who wants to quash free speech here at 911blogger. We shouldn't be afraid of any ideas! We should have many threads about all of them, so that they are the first thing people see when they visit this site!

My own theory is that it was the Borg, however -- I just don't think the Klingons have the motivation.

star trek

I was just making a joke. I hope you didn't seriously think I'm a perp just because I mentioned Star Trek. Doesn't that sound a little too paranoid? (;

I'm open to any ideas as long as there is some evidence.

I just think that if there was a beam from outer space why would it not destroy the top of the tower first—not where the plane damage was approximated.


No, I was joking, too -- sometimes I like to riff on certain other posters' rhetorical style.

i wonder if talking heads

i wonder if talking heads like keith o will continue to appear so enraged by things regarding loss of liberties or lies that start wars...will any real investigations be initiated by the new congress?...probably not...What chance does 911 truth being addressed by the new congress....probably none.

it seems like america

it seems like america doesn't want the is too busy being comfortable.

Yes it will be interesting

Yes it will be interesting to see whether Keith Olbermann is pacified now with the Democratic victory, or if his Constitutionalism was more than just opportunistic partisanship.


I hope Olbermann doesn't stop being critical.

It's a breath of fresh air to actually see someone in the MSM who is not a professional propaganda artist. I have fully wakened up to the MSM after seeing the truth about 9/11 and find myself disgusted at the inane level of dialogue and debate that passes for journalism. It's a bloody, mindless disgrace, and I hope that when this farce ends (assuming we can end this nightmare), these "pundits" are mercifully “retired” from the public view or held on charges of treason against the American public for their complete and utter betrayal of their duty to report all of the facts in a “fair and balanced” manner. I truly long for this day to pass.

If Olbermann stops being critical it will be from pressure from his bosses (with threats to his job); not from himself. We already know he's gotten fake anthrax sent to intimidate him. Gee, I wonder which "terrorists" sent him that stuff!

That’s another interesting thing about those anthrax letters shortly after 9/11. Why were they only sent to democrats and the media? I guess the terrorists were too stupid to think of actually trying to send it to Bush or Cheney.

and not just any democrats,

and not just any democrats, but Leahy and Daschle, both of which would have been tough road blocks for passing the Patriot Act and other affronts to our country/constitution.

Stupid WingTV punks.

Now that Ruppert and FTW are a mess, somebody hacked FTW's system so that if you run a search, you get WingTV stuff. Lame.

Wing TV

I'm just listening to Victor Thorn of Wing TV. I guess Lisa Guliani isn't on the show no more. No explaination was given. While I can't agree with everything they say on that site, I agree with a lot of it and a lot of it I'm just agnostic about. I don't believe anything nowdays without a lot of corroboration. Also they like to snipe to much at other people in the movement..

Michael Ruppert, is a bloody

Michael Ruppert, is a bloody hero--and they drove him out of the country. Yeah, it sometimes makes you wonder whether the world wants saving.

That's just heart-ache and depression. 'Course it wants saving--actually we'd be happy to save ourselves if the bastards would just stop getting in the way.

Ruppert never had a chance. That's the thing--as soon as it was clear his experience and approach made him a danger to those it power, he was a marked man. Only his experience and friends have kept him alive this long.

They don't want heros--they want slaves.

Read "Crossing the Rubicon". It's not the detailed veiw of 9/11--it's the big picture. It's how everything fits together. The frame. Understand the frame, and you undrestand how much(or little) progress is being made, and where the next battle is likely to be.

Oh, and do you want to be a hero--or at least help one out? Ruppert's hurting. Visit "From the Wilderness"(if you can); they'll have suggestions there.

They don't want heros--they want slaves:

Bugger this--I want a better world.

WING TV is the voice of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Don\'t disparage your leaders like that.

Steven Jones on KPFA for all of S.F. Bay Area

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Steven Jones being interviewed yesterday afternoon on KPFA's program "Guns and Butter"

At least 5 million plus people in the Bay Area were within reach of that radio signal. Surely a good number of people got a fresh introduction to the subject and the supporting science.

Here's a link to the program archive:

cynical comments today

Wow. It looks like I'm not the only one feeling quite cynical about 9/11 truth these days and the future of this movement and country. What do we really have to look forward to but more of the same?

It seems hard to believe though that anyone still thinks 9/11 was done by 19 mythical men. Apparently some people must, and of course the MSM does along with wikipedia. But whoever said wikipedia or the MSM represented truthful interpretations of these events.

One thing to realize is that the 9/11 movement has cemented itself a territory of a "small group of individuals who thinks the government did 9/11". And it's treated like any other small group with wacky views. Fact is it's not mainstream nor a part of the social consensus because here we go marching on in this mindless 'as if' world - as if our elections are legitimate, and as if Al-Qaeda did 9/11.

This is the fault of the 9/11 movement in numerous ways for relying too much on rhetoric and go watch this film or go read this book. It hasn't put together a scientific proof of anything. Sure in this movement it's widely accepted that "Those towers could not have collapsed that fast without a CD". But no effort which has been all that serious has attempted prove that. Sure Jones has written a valid paper offering an alternative, but it's treated as revisionism still left to be an interpretive work rather than scientific.

Sadly too much of all this is conspiracy, and interpretation and who you believe about what. Not that there isn't ample evidence to question the government's story or to make a film like loose change, or 9/11 mysteries, it just doesn't sufficiently prove anything. Problem is 9/11 has been left to being this whole "radical Political activism thing" like PETA or marijuana legalization movements. We need something definitive and scientific to point to besides saying "The way building 7 came down proves it had to be an inside job"

It does, but IFF building 7 was a CD which apparently no one has proved yet. And sure yes there are papers that refute it. But it's just not enough. I hope you get what I'm saying that this movement needs to take itself a lot more seriously and stop being an activism movement and start being in the realm of serious scientific inquiry and investigation.

I'll admit my own cyncism about the issue and I believe the crime of 9/11 was more or less gotten away with within the first year. The subset of people willing to accept alternative views is also limited. If I know anything about political and social forces it won't be revealed anytime soon or ever barring conclusive proof such as a full simulation of the WTC towers that proves such collapses cannot occur under any fire or plane conditions. As well as a serious public reaction and backlash and bombshell like public upheaval.

cynical comments today

What in the hell you talking about. Some polls show at least 1/3 of the people believe that the government is lieing about 9/11. Roughly a hundred million people in the U.S. That aint a small group. And virtually all of the scientific evidence {wich there is plenty of} also the laws of physics point to controlled demolition of the trade centers. Then the destruction of the crime scene. Then the foot dragging on an investigation. Then the fraudulent investigations {done by compromised people that had conflicts of interest} that never even considered controlled demolition. It goes on and on.
Man you got a lot of homework to do.

Anybody going to try watching this?



Watching right now.

It just started!

Check it out.

Packed house at Lifting the Fog conference

Standing room only for the Steven Jones presentation. This was an excellent event - the scientific method was applied to the WTC disaster all day long in an open academic setting. This needs to happen at universities all over the country. I'm too exhausted to say anything else but massive props to the presenters and organizers! Cheers!

Thanks YT. for some images

Thanks YT.

for some images and write-ups see -

I wish we could have pulled off the media that the Colorado folks did, but the Bay Area is just extremely difficult to get to cover anything about 9/11. So we have to rely on indymedia .. . . at least there's that!

Thanks for the webcast link on here.