Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007

#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story

Source: Project Censored

Research into the events of September 11 by Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, concludes that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings is implausible according to laws of physics. Jones is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation “guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.”

In debunking the official explanation of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, Jones cites the complete, rapid, and symmetrical collapse of the buildings; the horizontal explosions (squibs) evidenced in films of the collapses; the fact that the antenna dropped first in the North Tower, suggesting the use of explosives in the core columns; and the large pools of molten metal observed in the basement areas of both towers.

Jones also investigated the collapse of WTC 7, a forty-seven-story building that was not hit by planes, yet dropped in its own “footprint,” in the same manner as a controlled demolition. WTC 7 housed the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Many of the records from the Enron accounting scandal were destroyed when the building came down.

Jones claims that the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) ignored the physics and chemistry of what happened on September 11 and even manipulated its testing in order to get a computer-generated hypothesis that fit the end result of collapse, and did not even attempt to investigate the possibility of controlled demolition. He also questions the investigations conducted by FEMA and the 9/11 Commission.

Among the report’s other findings:

* No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.

* WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. “Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?” Jones asks. “That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors—and intact steel support columns—the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.

* How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?” The paradox, he says, “is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.” These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission.

* With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattered concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling. “How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing—and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

* Steel supports were “partly evaporated,” but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel—and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about twenty minutes in any given location.

* Molten metal found in the debris of the WTC may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite. Buildings not felled by explosives “have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal,” Jones says.

* Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck.

In January 2006 Jones, along with a group calling themselves “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” called for an international investigation into the attacks and are going so far as to accuse the U.S. government of a massive cover-up.

“We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on September 11,” the group said in a statement. “We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad.”

The group is headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, and is made up of fifty academicians and experts including Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush’s first term.

Dude, you should be banned just for your obscene

formatting. It's a crime against nature. OTOH, as someone said, it does make it really easy just to hit the down arrow and sail right past your posts.


Trippin! What, G-man? --Better than sodium pentathol?--Yeah, I'll tell you anything you want to know....

CB you must be a colorful person..

...all color little knowledge

Show "So are you saying Dr. Jones" by TwoEyesReading (not verified)
Show "Hell freezes over! CB and I" by Mark Roberts

Ground Zero Guy???

Could this be the fellow that gets sent to try to "debunk" the New Yorkers who hold their Saturday morning vigils each weekend? Folks, you could go there and ask him "What's up wit that?" yourself!

Show "Who "sends' me, lakezoarian?" by Mark Roberts

So many non-sequiturs within

So many non-sequiturs within individual paragraphs...and what an ugly little toss-in lie about the firefighters.

You dishonor your gender and species by placing your carcas at Ground Zero. How dare you talk about hallowed ground?

Jones a fraud.

Ok Mark. let's assume Jones is a fraud and his science is anything but. Yet you have to agree he and the hundreds of millions of 9/11 skeptics have legitimate questions. You have to admit there are a lot of inconsisitencies in the official story. Especially WTC7. I don't know how any reasonable person can watch the video of that collapse and not conclude it was a controlled demolition, regardless of how you or anyone spins or twists it. If we can agree on that and if you and everyone who buy the official story are so convinced that you are right and your version is defensible in an unbiased court of law, then I believe the one thing we can all agree on is that there should be an independent investigation. Everyone put your best evidence out on the table and let it be judged in the court of world opinion. As opposed to the court of insiders and conflicted players. I believe that's all anyone wants and if nobody has any thing to hide then everyone should be eager to present their case.
I realise this is too simple a concept in such a complex world but in simplicity is truth.

Show "Sheer ignorance. Phaedrus," by Mark Roberts

Sheer ignorance (Yoink)

I confess I didn't know demolition experts were on the scene. That's strange.
I don't think my point was that I know better than any professionals or people who were there. I'm sure there would be plenty of professionals and people who were there who would dispute your claims. No, my point was that there are many indescrepancies and millions of skeptics and that it would be in everyones best interests to have an investigation like the one "Wisdom" suggests in a later post. Since you didn't adress that point I will assume you don't agree with me. By the way your insults have no effect on me. I realize they are a projection of your bitter reality. I am sorry for you in that respect.

Mark Roberts please explain this away...

Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."


"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Speaking Out: An interview with Craig Bartmer


-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:


"Of course in some circles of the controlled demolition industry 'Pull' is used to mean that you actually demolish a building."

-Benjamin Chertoff, Researcher for Popular Mechanics, on Coast to Coast AM - March 5, 2005



"This is work of man. This is a hired job. [Larry Silverstein] said it himself. You hear him saying 'Pull it' down."

-Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko


Danny Jowenko owns a demolition firm called "Jowenko Exposieve Demolitie B.V.". Information about his company's qualifications can be found posted on their website:

He's also listed on's website as being one of their licensed blasters and associates":

Controlled Demo Expert Danny Jowenko confirms that Building 7 was brought down on purpose:


Structural Experts Say:
"WTC-7 was with the greatest probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts."


Video clips of World Trade Center Building 7 being "pulled" on 9/11:

7 minute video presentation on the destruction of Building 7 on 9/11...

Hey Roberts, they made Tuesday a federal holiday for Ford, &

COINTELPRO agents like yourself may take the day off to brush-up on your b.s. tactics.

Show "Name one fact I've gotten" by Mark Roberts

Roberts, why don't you just go "pull-it" & watch WTC-7 collapse!


Demolition experts

Love the way you make it sound like ALL demolition experts agree,or at least the ones you speak of.
It seems we have another ten page three hundred comment plus blog of name calling ,and profanity.
There was a question asked of Jason ,and Dylan.
What would it take to appease you?
The word is transparent. Honestly Mark ,what would you say to the saying .Ask me no questions ,and ill tell you know lies.I find it funny how people seem to think our goverment is run by saints,and questioning them is deemed unpatriotic.
Remember Mark there not above the law,and they always seem to forget we put them there.
Mr Wieck said that you,and himself would be in on the muckracker national 9/11 debate.The one organized by Ed Haas.Kudos to the both of you.
So if i was asked what it would take to appease me it would be this.
#1 A two day event,covered by ALL the major media networks.
#2 All involved would be under oath(From Bush on down)
#3 All evidence made public
# 4 All questions answered.
Iam sure your going to reply that all the questions have been answered,and to that i will only reply like they have been answered by the Warren Commissions
JFK investagation.
Iam curious as to what your reply is to William Rodiguez testamony. Norman Mineta's as well.And last of all.Why is it that the apprehension of Osama seems to have been put on the back burner?


"Name one fact I've gotten wrong here"

Most of them?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


Dear Mark-
It's not about you- Please go home and chill... Fellow truthers can debate him on his own website, but I suggest we ignore him for 2007.

I don't agree...

With their choice for 9/11 related material.

With NO offense to Prof. Jones...

He managed to get local and national television coverage. He has been mentioned several times by several newspapers. Regardless of whether or not it was negative or positive coverage, he has been covered.

Even some of my friends have heard of the "Physics Professor."

NONE of my friends would have heard about the family members calling for a new investigation had I not told them. NONE of my friends would have heard about 9/11: Press For Truth if I didn't tell them about it. I mean, that's ONLY a documentary that is endorsed by the family members that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, and calls into question everything about said Commission.

To me, either of those stories would have been "bigger" than Prof. Jones. Again, no offense to Prof. Jones.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

There you go Mark

Would love to hear your answers to Jon Golds questions as well.So what is your rebuttle to video of 9/11 press for truth?
And seriously.One more question from me.
Nothing strikes you as odd in the events of 9/11?

I believe someone

I believe someone else--e-something(sorry I forgot your handle!)--keeps asking him to debunk "911Press for Truth". Mark always scarpers after that.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

And yet...

There are some people out there who refuse to promote it.

For instance...

I challenge you to find 9/11: PFT anywhere on

When I posted, "The Film American Networks DARE Not Show", I never thought I would have to include in the title, "Members Of The 9/11 Truth Movement" along with "American Networks".

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

What's up with that, Jon?

What's up with that, Jon? Who could take issue with PFT, the agony and fury of the families, or the tremendous work of Paul Thompson?

When one is building a legal case for trial, one brings in people who can speak to different aspects of the case. Each person doesn't have to maintain the entire narrative, or necessarily agree about things the others testify to.

PFT is prima facie evidence for cover-up -- massive, unconscionable cover-up. As many have said, if there's nothing to cover up, why are they covering up everything?

Proof of cover-up can crack open the door for many who would otherwise remain "three monkeyed."

Gettin' ready for the evening now. You have a wonderful New Year, Jon!

Someone not interested...

In winning this fight maybe?

You have a good New Year's as well.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

One Word