Support 911Blogger

George Galloway, MP: Building 7 collapse "practically impossible"

George Galloway MP had a New Yorker called Tom Kiley on his Talksport radio show friday and saturday night talking about 9/11 and with particular focus on the destruction of the Twin Towers and World Trade Centre Building 7. George Galloway opens the first show explaining that he still holds Islamic extremists responsible but a recent chance meeting with Tom in New York has planted seeds of doubt in his mind. Soon into the second show George Galloway admits "it's hard to see scientifically why both of the Towers fell down in the way that they did and it's practically impossible for me to see how Building 7 could have fallen in the way it did"

33 minutes - 15mb

38 minutes - 18mb

See also:
George Galloway barred entry to Canada
George Galloway on CBC's "The Hour" - 3.30.2009

(blog originally titled: "George Galloway: New doubts about official 9/11 conspiracy theory" - updated 4.19.2009)

This is good.

Thanks for informing us of this interesting development. To date, Galloway has been vocal in his opposition to the demolition hypothesis, despite attempts by his talk show radio listeners to get him to look at the evidence.

The Progressive Collapse Challenge

How Much Jet Fuel Was In The Twin Towers?

Great news. George Galloway is a hero of mine.

It's not the first time that George has questioned 9/11, though. He has always vigorously dismissed the most ludicrous theories (why do people keep trying to convince him with hoaxes??), but he has also acknowledged that he doesn't accept the official version either, whatever he means by that.

I have subtitled the crucial part of his interview with William Rodriguez:

It was my first video and there are some minor problems. I've been meaning to upload a better version, but haven't had the time yet.
Spuren von Sprengstoff im Staub des World Trade Centers gefunden

Sorry but this is not good enough

Truth rising


Weak 9/11 argumentation - a recurring problem

There are a lot of problems with parroting in 9/11 researcher - debunker discussions. 9/11 researchers parrot 9/11 research websites, and even more so debunkers parrot debunker websites. In a majority of cases I get the feeling neither actually knows what they are talking about. Let me show some examples gathered from this broadcast, especially from 'Fred the cab driver', who was totally full of shit most if not all of the time:

*** Abnormal temperatures ***
If I'm not mistaken, Fred claims in a roundabout way that the temperatures in the World Trade Center far exceeded the melting point of steel. (By the way, Tom, Galloway's guest seems to be talking in fahrenheit and Fred in celsius) This is ofcourse incorrect. First of all, a hydrocarbon/office fire has a theoretical maximum of somewhere around 1000 degrees celsius. But this is only under ideal conditions: the combustables to oxygen ratio should be ideal, which would produce blue flames (think furnace/torch) and definitely no darkish, billowing smoke as seen on 9/11. Since there were no such ideal conditions, this maximum could not have been accomplished. BUT, even if this maximum *had* been reached, it would thus not have been able to produce molten steel, or molten steel particles, such as iron-rich microspheres which form due to surface tension when the iron is in liquid form. So in other words, if the official story is true, molten steel is patently impossible. NIST knows this, which is why they try to cover it up (The well known John+Gross+incident ) They also tried to say the metal seen pouring from the South Tower before collapse was 'molten aluminium', a lie which ofcourse was proven false in all its possible incarnations by Steven Jones' experiments with molten aluminium and molten aluminium contaminated with combustables. It would have looked silvery, not bright white orange. So where does this claim come from and why is the discussion even continued until this cabby is asked to cite a source for his claim? He's not citing from the NIST report, that's for damn sure.

*** Buildings not designed for airplane impacts ***
Say what?!
Frank DeMartini died inside the WTC on 9/11 trying to assist rescue efforts, expecting that the towers should have held up: he obviously staked his LIFE on it.
Compilation of statements from WTC designers

What debunker site is this cabby reading? Why isn't his argument subsequently destroyed by Galloway's guest?

*** You have all this fuel dumping in the building ***
While this was thoroughly considered by the designers (see 'Compilation of statements' above) a lot of fuel was consumed in the fireball, and what remained quickly burned up afterwards. Kerosine is not that special: it does not generate any sorts of abnormally high temperatures, in fact, some people use a kerosine-powered steel stove today. Does it melt? No. Lots more can be said about wether or not the fireproofing could have been completely knocked off by the plane impact (it could not have), but lets keep this out of the argument for brevity's sake.

So much for Fred. What a crock.

*** The erroneous notion of 'freefall speed' ***
As for Tom:
Why do he and so many other people insist on the term 'freefall speed'? 'Freefall speed' does not exist. Freefall accelleration does. If it was really speed we were worried about, we would measure fall time for 1, 2 and 7, and divide the building height by it. If the average speed then approaches freefall, we have a problem. Many people go about it this way, and insist on using this term 'freefall speed' often citing "10 seconds" for WTC 1 & 2 while this is absolutely incorrect! Again, 'freefall speed' does not exist. You may be referring to something like 'terminal velocity', but that is not what matters here. What matters here is if at any point in time these buildings exhibited FREEFALL ACCELLERATION. This not the same as AVERAGE SPEED. NIST tried to use average speed to try to cover up the fact that WTC 7 was in freefall accelleration for about 2.5 seconds! The go-to source for measurements and explanation in this department is David Chandler, his (perhaps not well-known enough?) Youtube videos are absolutely brilliant. I recommend you at least watch:

* Downward+Accelleration+Of+The+North+Tower
Note the word: 'accelleration'.

* WTC7:+NIST+Finally+Admits+Freefall+(Part+I)
* WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
* WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

*** The pentagon ***
This I can keep short: after studying the pentagon for about five years, I can say I still know absolutely nothing. This is a story riddled with contradictions. One thing is certain:
a large plane consistent with a 757 was seen by a very large group of witnesses. Some witness accounts suffer from deduction and embellishment, but by large the consensus is clear. The only recommendation I have is that you visit The PentaCon, and while I don't necessarily subscribe to Bernanke's conclusions, at least he went out there and interviewed the witnesses themselves. The results are absolutely astounding, and this is an understatement. However, whenever I hear somebody bring up the pentagon in a media discussion about '9/11 conspiracy theories' I see and/or hear the same idiotic nonsense parroted over and over again. If you are going to say something about the pentagon, you'd better be really thorough. It's a mine field.

I still hope the level of 9/11 discussion on talk radio and tv improves, because there isn't much sense in promoting 9/11 truth carelessly. We have an obligation to those affected by 9/11 to be careful, realistic, and that we do not inadvertantly put strawmen out there, inviting takedown by Mark Roberts, Pat Robertson and others of their ilk. In other words my point is: always, always try to be a perfectionist when being a truth advocate. Study both sides of the argument. If your enemies are a bunch of spin doctors who specialize in character assassination, phallacious arguments, rethoric, demagoguery and distortion of context, then know your enemy. Know that they will quote you, and spin your words with the intention to destroy you. Now don't let me hear that 'freefall speed' nonsense again.

Two additional WTC designers

I forgot to mention two additional people involved with the design of the World Trade Center, who are skeptical of the official story:
Electrical engineer Richard Humenn, who recently joined Architects & Engineers for 911 truth
Architect Aaron Swirsky, whose opinion is featured in Michael Berger's documentary Improbable Collapse


SnowCrash --- your spelling is atrocious

There is only one "l" in "acceleration"

"rethoric" is not a word. You probably mean "rhetoric"

"phallacious" is either a snotty pun - an unconcious Freudian slip - or another example of your inability to spell.

Anyway - none of this takes away from your main point, which is that we should be as precise as possible. But none of us are purphect ;) I think you were overly harsh on Tom Feeley, who, overall, did an excellent job. For one thing, he got the board all lit up. For another, he got invited back for another interview.

Anyway - your points are good. I respect your admonition that we do our best to get our facts straight.

But do remember - none of us are purphect ;)


Thanks for pointing those errors out. I'm not a native speaker, but this is ofcourse no excuse ;-)

I'm not perfect either. I left the nose out of the ;-)

My point in posting this (which may seem like nonsense) is that it is important that when we criticize one another, we do it with humor and respect.

We do not want to pick away at one another ---- and when and if we do --- it is a good idea to lighten things up for a moment. :-) This is a very dark, very unhappy and very serious world problem we are trying to set right. In general, I find the people on this site very mutually respectful.

In case of misunderstanding

I'd like to re-emphasize that even though my last sentence reads: "Now don't let me hear that 'freefall speed' nonsense again.", what I intend to say there is:
If you want to make scientifically accurate statements, then use the term "freefall acceleration" and refer, for example, to the measurements with the Physics Toolkit done by David Chandler. His work is undebunkable, which is why some of it even made it into NIST's final report on WTC 7. (You could view NIST's actions there as a form of damage control)

bad advice

If you're recommending the pentacon, I wouldn't be giving any advice if I were you.


I should quote myself then:
"and while I don't necessarily subscribe to Bernanke's (error: this should be Ranke) conclusions, at least he went out there and interviewed the witnesses themselves."

This means: look at the witness statements and draw your own conclusions. Or do you think these witnesses are all liars? They describe a flight path that deviates from the official narrative, which is supported by evidence gathered by pilotsfor911truth. I don't need Ranke's conclusions, I'm interested in the witness statements he gathered.


You ask..."Or do you think these witnesses are all liars?"

Actually I think they are all telling the truth. And I think it's great that they would be willing to invite so called "truthers" into their homes and be recorded to tell their story. You seem to be confused. The accusations of lieing are from the CIT sherlocks. But they go beyond accusations of lieing. Anyone that says anything that goes against their silly flyover fantasy is not just labled a lier, but an accomplice to mass murder and directly linked to the perps of 9/11.
This preposterous pentacon disinfo has so far accused Wheelhouse of being a lier, Father Mcgraw of being a lier, Mike Walter of being a lier and mass murderer, and Lloyd England of being "in on it" as well. Why? Because it ruins the flyover fantasy. These are ordinary citizens who gained nothing from 9/11 and in some instances were nearly killed that day.

This is a direct quote from the incredibly stupid pentacon site that you evidently think helps the truth movement.."Lloyde's account is a complete fabrication . This means that Lloyde England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder. The importance of this information is critical to uncovering the crimes of 9/11. Lloyde is not to blame for an operation of this size and magnitude but he is most definitely a direct link to the perpetrators. It's imperative that we focus serious attention on Lloyde and the light poles when exposing the details of how this crime was carried out."

Perhaps you feel that accusing people who help "truthers" of being lieing mass murderers is a good thing for the truth movement? I frankly find it more disgusting than the stupid no plane theory. BTW take a guess where the no plane theory started? I'll give you a hint>>there are elements in the truth movement who have a self serving interest in keeping the no plane at the pentagon BS alive, in order to keep themselves from being obsolete. The mystery of the pentagon isn't what hit. On 9/11 planes flew into buildings. It's 2009 now, it's about time to wise up to that fact. The mystery at the pentagon is why it was hit in the first place almost an hour after the first hijacking. And how it was hit, a horrible pilot turning into an expert to slide into the first floor of the least populated just refurbished part that would cause the least damage.

Perhaps you are in favor of the truth movement harrassing ordinary citizens that were willing to help us. I'm not. Here is an example of how the "no planers" and that includes pentagon no planers, "helping" the truth movement......

"Helpfull" Pentagon no planers and their wonderfull Missile witness....

When it comes out that he says it was a plane, he is accused of "changing his story, by these "helpfull" pentagon no planers....

Now if you are actually interested in the truth, the truth is he never changed his story. He's just been harrased for years by pentagon no planers who refuse to face reality...

Now, I am supposed to go along with this pentacon BS and accuse him of being a Gov operative, in order to fullfill a fantasy of an invisible flyover no one saw? No I'm going to say enough is enough. Stop harrasing these people and accusing them of being murderers. Why don't you explain to us how this is helpfull? Maybe you didn't notice, but everyone in these pentacon movies say they saw a passenger jet fly into the pentagon. And this proves a passenger jet didn't fly into the pentagon?

It's time to wise up and stop listening to BS artists and look at the work of a real 9/11 researcher like Jim Hoffman....

Lloyd's changing locations

But what about this?

Photos clearly show that England's taxi cab was in one place (=where it was according to the official story), whereas he now insists that it was elsewhere (=where the flight path was according to the CIT witnesses).

Watch the video if you haven't. It's really quite surreal.


A summary: Even though I clearly said I do not necessarily subscribe to Ranke's conclusions, you imply I do. My recommendation of these witness statements (the people who were actually there and saw the plane) is seen as promoting disinformation. How strange, as these statements confirm the presence of a plane, looking like AA 757, heading for the Pentagon. It's just not following the flight path outlined in the official narrative.

Then you say: "On 9/11 planes flew into buildings. It's 2009 now, it's about time to wise up to that fact." This is a strange comment. You seem to want to imply that I am some sort of no-planer. I find that disrespectful and irresponsible.

"Perhaps you are in favor of the truth movement harrassing ordinary citizens that were willing to help us." If you say so. This is again a wild accusation that I find both disrepectful, insulting and irresponsible. I feel like I'm on the Bill O'Reilly show, with straw man arguments and ad hominems flying left and right.

Then you proceed to bring in missile theory. It seems your whole comment is construed to associate me with things I haven't associated myself with. "Maybe you didn't notice, but everyone in these pentacon movies say they saw a passenger jet fly into the pentagon". Again, and for the last time: I clearly said I do not necessarily subscribe to Ranke's conclusions. I can think for myself. I'm very interested in the witness statements he gathered, certainly in relation to the findings of pilotsfor911truth. Their work corroborates eachother to a certain degree. As to wether or not flight 77 flew into the Pentagon, yes, it could have. That's where I disagree with Ranke. I've seen Hoffman and Arabesque's witness lists. However there is no certainty, since many witness statements suffer from a flaw called 'deduction'. This is why I still know little for sure about what happened at the Pentagon, and why I hardly speak about the Pentagon when trying to convince others. A Northwoods-like scenario is possible. More facts, research and data is needed. You, on the other hand seem to have the paranormal ability to predict my point of view on a subject. Clearly I don't get the benefit of the doubt in your predictions.

"It's time to wise up and stop listening to BS artists and look at the work of a real 9/11 researcher like Jim Hoffman...."
I have been reading and studying Jim Hoffman's material for years. So much so that I immediately mirrored his backup website when the production site went down recently due to some sort of temporary hosting issue. You seem to be full of premature assumptions. I'm a fan of his work. I don't, however, have to agree with everything he says, although I consider Jim to be a heavyweight researcher of tremendous worth and importance. Get the nuance?

Reprehensor said in his article "On Disinformation and Damaging Associations" : "Yes, you CAN exclude some. The most improbable, the most unlikely, the impossible, the absurd ... grossly obvious disinformation, you CAN exclude this nonsense from your 9/11 horizons."

I could not agree more, but I'm quite certain this does not include taped witness statements. You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept "hostile source". Such statements from witnesses are interesting and valuable no matter who tapes them. This is why I included a 'caveat emptor' in my recommendation, which you unfortunately ignored and then proceeded to attack the recommendation as if the caveat had not been there. Honestly, I find Pentagon discussions a time waster, since there is so much intolerance in discussing the subject freely. Your previous post borders on character assassination, and that's why I feel compelled to respond. I'll leave it up to you how you feel about that.

It's not about you

You said.."Your previous post borders on character assassination, and that's why I feel compelled to respond. I'll leave it up to you how you feel about that."

Here's how I feel about it. I'm more concerned about REAL character assassination, done in the name of "9/11 truth" against ordinary working class citizens, in order to keep a silly theory alive, than in your own perceived "character assassination" on a post I made on 9/11 blogger.

that it is a mine field is all you have to know

"If you are going to say something about the pentagon, you'd better be really thorough. It's a mine field."

The fact that the Pentagon "is a mine field" is all you have to know to realize that something is terrribly wrong with the official story.

"Big airplane hits building bristling with surveillance cameras." What could possibly be simpler, more straightforward and easy to prove?

And yet it is a minefield. That in itself is all you need to know to realize that something is very, very, very wrong with the official story.

Craig Ranke, not Bernanke!

Another innocent mistake, but Ben Bernanke is from the Federal Reserve, *Craig Ranke* is one of the Pentacon investigators, FYI.


You're right. I should keep my own advice.

Flights of Fancy & Not So Deep Impacts

SnowCrash, the massive heat sink properties of the towers would have added days to any collapse scenario (assuming they continued to burn). No one (including NIST) mentions the towers' heat sink properties! The towers were designed to withstand worse kinetic energy impact damage than they suffered on 9/11 (especially the North Tower), and worse damage due to jet fuel fires (see the article, "Not So Deep Impact" at for the numbers on this. The numbers are truly shocking).

As for the Pentagon, the current research from both the PentaCon and Pilot's for 9/11 Truth websites corroborate each other: large jetliner flies north of the Citgo gas station, not south. This confirms that a large jetliner was not the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon from the south. The track of the damage within the Pentagon confirms a southerly strike, therefore the large jetliner that flew north of the Citgo gas station overflew the Pentagon. Elementary, my dear Watson!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Why is it?

Mr Galloway didn't have Dr Steven Jones on the program to talk about the tons of thermitic materials found in the trash that was the WTC...We'll get a non-professional but we can't handle a professional who has mastered that of which he speaks? Come-on George, hearsay defines the official lie. It's inadmissable in a court of law, fairly easy to comprehend, you being a politician ought to know a little of jurisprudence. Now expert testimony, and actual eyewitnesses who heard and were involved in explosions, testifying under oath are the real deal..Heck they'd tell you the truth on your show. This man from NY is trying but he's just not very good at it. I think less of you George, your smarter than this.

The "Brilliant" cabbie is a buffoon

North Texans for 911 Truth
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

sometimes buffoons rule (unfortunately)

The 911 psyops was not aimed at discerning, analytical adults. It was aimed at the broad populace. Our big problem is not in analyzing the evidence but in not knowing how to psychologically deprogram its effects. That's why facts are not ruling the day. And that's why that buffoon cabbie probably got a lot of listeners saying "right on" (or whatever is the equivalent in the UK.)

Fortunately, people outside the US and the UK are not as psychologically shaken, and are therefore better able to evaluate the evidence on its own merits. We are making progess here, but we are handicapped by our lack of deprogramming knowledge and skills.

Just the facts, mam.

jimd3100, why not? My understanding of the main points of is that the "official" story is full of holes and can not be true. This is also the case with pilots for 9/11 truth and many other truth seeking sites. Look, study, analyse, cross check and stick with the best factually supported lines of inquiry. But do look at everything!

This was good ...

Though the cabbie didn't even know what he was talking about. I'd like someone to tell Tom that the melting point of steel is around 2700 degrees F. and the maximum temperature achievable with a hydrocarbon fire under ideal conditions is about 1800 degrees F.
I hope Galloway looks deeper into this. I am very much looking forward to part two and thank you for posting this.



Information Clearing House

Is this the same Tom Feely who runs ?

Tom Keely

The name sounds more like "Tom Keeley".

Okay so here it is...

I was looking for it on the front page. Sorry about that.
Reprehensor please disregard my earlier questions. Thanks for all the work you guys do.


Now it's back on front page?
Anyway. In this part Golloway calls Tom Kieley . Part one it was Keeley? What exactly is Tom's last name and is there a way to contact him?

blog editing

When a user edits his/her blog entry, it goes back into the moderation queue. That's what happened here.

Great show, heard this last

Great show, heard this last night on TalkSport, haven’t checked out the one from the 17th though so big thanks for upping that!