National Geographic to air new "documentary".

National Geographic has announced it will air a documentary with the title: 911 Science and Conspiracy.

Title of the announcement:
Official Version or Cover-Up Conspiracy? The Truth Behind 9/11 Put to the Test in New National Geographic Channel Program.

Based on the comments about it at the announcement website here:
it doesn't look like it will be very fair. For example, they say that "Eight years have passed and no stone has been left unturned in the painstaking process of piecing together what happened that fateful day". In what alternate universe? This is just propaganda. Of course it's what people think has happened and of course it should have happened, but didn't as we all know. The writer doesn't seem to be aware of the stone-walling by the Bush administration to even HAVE an inquiry, let alone any of the incriminating details intentionally left out of the official report. As a number of 911 truth luminaries like Richard Gage will be featured, it will be interesting to see if they are treated fairly. I'm not holding my breath.

As I said on Facebook...

"I wonder what would happen if these individuals interviewed people like Paul Thompson, Ray McGovern, Peter Dale Scott, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, Nafeez Ahmed, Jon Gold (hee hee), Kyle Hence, John Judge, Mike Berger, Kevin Fenton, P. Devlin Buckley, Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley, etc... etc... etc... and put ALL of "the truth behind 9/11" to a REAL test."

Edit: I also wrote:

"Why does every "hit piece" focus on the "science?" Why don't they focus on the history, the facts, the lies, the distortions, the omissions, the family members, the first responders, the OBVIOUS reasons why a 9/11 Truth Movement exists in the first place? Obvious reasons that those who write "hit pieces" do their VERY best to avoid."

And a few days ago I wrote:

"Count how many "hit pieces" you see during the 8th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks against people like me, and count how many are valid pieces of journalism. I bet you will be able to count on one hand the amount of valid pieces, if that."

Edit: From last year... just take out BBC and put in National Geographic.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

True Jon

........however let's see if they cover Dr. Jones and companies peer reviewed paper on proof of thermite.
I think that would qualify as science.

Rupert Murdoch owns National Geographic channel.

Don't expect anything but a vicious attack piece from National Geographic they belong to Murdoch.


Why dont they interview people like Paul Thompson, Ray McGovern, Peter Dale Scott, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, Nafeez Ahmed, Jon Gold, Kyle Hence, John Judge, Mike Berger, Kevin Fenton, P. Devlin Buckley, Sibel Edmonds, and Coleen Rowley?

It must be our obsession with the magic bullet. If we just keep arguing our case, maybe they'll make a fair documentary! (eyeroll)

Its much easier to focus on something that can be endlessly argued into a fine distraction from the intended purpose of the movement, and the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement seems perfectly content with this.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.


I wonder if the "fine distraction from the intended purpose of the movement" is by design. Only Dick Cheney knows...

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


I still wonder why the 9/11 Truth Movement concentrates on complex issues such as the mechanics of how the towers collapsed, while neglecting to propagandize simple facts such as the continuing lies told about NORAD (the fact that NORAD monitored American air space on 9/11 is an historical fact!). The great thing about the NORAD angle is that NORAD's "air sovereignty" mission is not a hypothesis, and the information on NORAD's capabilities before 9/11 has not been gagged by the Justice Department! Then, once we get the interest of strangers on the street with the FACTS on NORAD, we can THEN pull them in to listen to more complex issues such as the towers collapsing at free fall speed and the physics of what that would entail/mean, or the murky issue of Flight 77 where we now have TWO official narratives for, the NTSB's and the 9/11 Commission Report's.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

For some people...

...the "mechanics of the collapse" are easier and more straightforward to comprehend than inner workings of our military. It sure was for me. Just the collapse speeds for themselves are huge red flags. When one recognizes the collapses for what they obviously were -- explosive demolitions, then there is no room for any other causes behind the whole event besides an outright inside job. There can be no "sleep at the wheel" or LIHOP excuses which NORAD facts leave open. People can easily fall back to sleep on the basis of: "Oh, sure, they lied because they had to cover their behinds." That's why I think the demolition is a more powerful argument, because it leaves no excuse.

Can this movement...

PLEASE stop using ridiculous terms created by an insane lunatic that have done nothing but divided this movement. Thank you.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Did you mean "LIHOP"?

Who created the term?

I think David Ray Griffin, too, uses it a lot. As he does "MIHOP".


Were "created" by Nico Haupt. I have asked DRG to stop using those terms. As I said, I respect DRG, but I don't agree with everything he says.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You are wrong

LIHOP and MIHOP were NOT created by Nico Haupt.

I don't know why you think that, but I could probably prove it isn't true if I spent some time on it.

Nico may be a psychopath, and maybe even a "disinfo agent" (but most probably not), but his actions and such have had a very minor impact on the 9/11 Truth and Justice Movement to the point where it doesn't do anyone any favors by mentioning his name. (EVER AGAIN)

Nico Haupt is dead. (and never even really existed)

According to John Albanese...

And Nick Levis, Nico Haupt is the one who created those terms. If you can show me differently, then please do so.

And if you think his "impact" was minor, you would be wrong. Because of him, was forced to restrict blog creation on this site. Ask those who were singled out by Nico or his minions whether or not his "impact" was minor. Ask Luke Rudkowski and Sabrina Rivera whether or not his "impact" was minor. Ask those people who still argue against the idea of "TV Fakery" whether or not his "impact" was minor. Go back to all of those articles that were written about us in years past that made a mention of his insanity to make us all look like idiots, and tell me whether or not his "impact" was minor. Ask those people who received the multitude of hate emails from Nico Haupt whether or not his "impact" was minor. His "impact" and his minions' "impact" was anything but minor.

Edit: Here is a reference to it.

The MIHOP and LIHOP labels were purportedly coined by Nico Haupt in 2002: " I invented the acronym 'LIHOP' at the same time [we] created [the] '9/11 Science and Justice Alliance'."

As I said, this movement should STOP using those divisive terms, and so should Dr. Griffin.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Nico takes credit for many things

Nico would probably take credit for starting the whole 9/11 truth movement. Whatever. If Nico was the first person to propose controlled demolition, would that therefore mean that Richard Gage, et al., should not advocate controlled demolition? Of course not.

The only people who seem to have a problem with the MIHOP/LIHOP terms are the small minority who continue to push the absurd islamo-fascist hijacker narrative. But this tiny and shrinking minority that for some reason stubbornly holds onto the OCT myth of Bin Laden/Al Queda having masterminded and carried out 9/11, despite the fact that the mainstream truth movement has long ago discarded that scenario because it does not contain a shred of credible evidence to back it up, is pretty much an endangered species in regards to the mainstream truth movement.

Michael Ruppert's LIHOP crap is what kept me from being a 9/11 truther until 2005, when I discovered the evidence for cd and the deception at the Pentagon. I was reading Ruppert's articles from right after 9/11/01 and even attended a few of Ruppert's presentations, but his LIHOP scenario in which the Bush Administration allowed Bin Laden and Al Queda to attack us remained a dubious and unproven scenario that simply kept me confused and mystified to the point where I gave up on ever knowing the truth about what really happened on 9/11...until I discovered the false flag evidence of 9/11 that for some reason Ruppert withheld. The mountain of evidence that proves that 9/11 was a false flag attack which was masterminded and executed by the US/Israel and falsely blamed on islamic terrorists only gets bigger by the day. Focusing on PR and policing the movement ostensibly in order to sugar coat our "message" or trying to avoid having the media ridicule us is not only futile, but it doesn't interest me nearly as much as wanting to know the full truth about what actually happened at the WTC, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, no matter how absurd the truth may be. Truth may be stranger than fiction, but only truth will set us free. I seriously doubt that the movement will stop using the terms MIHOP/LIHOP.

Thanks for showing us exactly...

Why those terms shouldn't be used. ;) I love how someone who's been a member here for a week can tell us what the "mainstream truth movement" is. I especially love how you sound exactly like a bunch of idiots I know of at another site. Any relation? Hmmm...

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I've been a member of the 9/11 truth movement...

for over 4 years now and have attended numerous conferences and met thousands of people in the movement and it is pretty clear to me that David Ray Griffin represents mainstream 9/11 truth views. In all those encounters, 99% of seasoned truthers that I've met do not believe in the islamic hijacker/Bin Laden myth anymore.

Most of the people I know...

Don't claim to know what happened on 9/11, and understand that we need to. I like Dr. Griffin. I appreciate his work. However, I don't agree with everything he says, and guess what? It's OK to disagree with Dr. Griffin. It's OK to disagree with anyone in the movement. There should be no "you're either with us or against us mentality" in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and that is EXACTLY the kind of bullshit that you are promoting. Sorry, but I have no time for it.

Edit: I have a question for Dr. Griffin supporters. Not all Dr. Griffin supporters. Just those who accuse me of trying to blame Muslims for the 9/11 attacks, and that accuse me of ignoring information pertaining to Israel and 9/11.

I can say with great confidence that I have promoted more information regarding Israel than most people. Dr. Griffin, however, does not. At least not information that may connect Israel to the 9/11 attacks. Why am I singled out and attacked when I DO and HAVE promoted information pertaining to Israel, whereas he is given a free pass?

I'm just curious. Eleusus?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

WTC 7 is a smoking gun, do you agree?

Most people in the Truth Movement agree that WTC 7 was a CD. NIST has admitted that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for over 100 feet. This free fall can can only happen if all the supports are REMOVED on 7-8 floors. Free fall cannot happen in a progressive collapse by definition.

Jon, do you think WTC 7 was a CD or are you unsure?

I think that...

It doesn't matter what I think. However, I am still waiting for Eleusus to answer my question.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

It does matter

While you're waiting for Eleusus, please answer the question.

Do you think WTC 7 was a CD?

Let Keen..

Ehem... Eleusus... answer the question rather than give him a free pass. If you knew what I thought as well as people claim to on this site, you would know that I already wrote this.

I have a question for you. True or false: researching the alleged 9/11 hijackers means that you are trying to "frame muslims" for the 9/11 attacks.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

No YOU are wrong

And it's hilariously disgusting to see your factually inaccurate attempt at historical revision being voted up here. Nico Haupt did indeed coin the terms LIHOP and MIHOP and began propagating them on the Democratic Underground site in 2002. I know this for a fact - I was there and I witnessed it. I'm not sure why you are so eager to re-write history but you are hereby failing at your effort.

Nico Haupt is dead. (and never even really existed)

And 2+ 2 = 5

Is this still the "truth movement"?

Unfortunately, Haupt's impact on the movement has not been as minor as you want to portray - anyone who has done street activism or outreach and been asked "oh are you the guys who think no planes hit the towers" can tell you that. The disinformation that he pushed formed the basis of many a high profile hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement that had wide-ranging and long-lasting negative effects. But I guess all that gets flushed down your memory hole too, eh?

Those who can't remember the past are doomed to repeat it!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

anyone who has done street

anyone who has done street activism or outreach and been asked "oh are you the guys who think no planes hit the towers" can tell you that

I've participated in many street actions over the past 4 years and no one has ever asked me that. Maybe word of Nico's existence never made it to the midwest, lol.

"We believe that the NIST investigation and the resulting NIST report are valid and credible.” - Mr. Marvin J. Malecha, President, AIA

So you don't know for sure

Jon Gold:
"NIST released their final report that supposedly explains how WTC7 collapsed. Now that we know their side of the story (their words on paper), as has been the case with every report regarding 9/11, I now have more questions than answers."

The videos alone leave no doubt in the minds of most who have seen them. WTC 7 was obviously a CD. But if that's not enough then free fall acceleration for over 100 feet clinches it scientifically for anyone who understands the laws of physics. You did not mention free fall acceleration in your statement. Has learning of this convinced you that WTC 7 was a CD?

I don't know anything...

"For sure" about 9/11 other than we were lied to about a great many things, the investigations we got were laughable, the "Post-9/11 World" is destroying this country, and the Middle East (so far), and that elements within our Government and others have EARNED the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11.

Oh yea, and the families deserve justice, and the responders deserve help.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You still don't know for sure?

Shyam Sunder at Technical briefing 8 26 08
"The analysis show that the difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it and that is not is not all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. You have a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and where everything is not instantaneous."

Free Fall Final 1-A pg 45 & 602
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, . . . This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)"

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Dr. Sunder admits that free fall cannot occur if there was any structural support and the final report admits that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration. In doing so, NIST admits that the structural support was removed completely for 7-8 floors. This cannot happen in a progressive collapse. It can only happen if all the supports are removed simultaneously with explosives. Do you understand this principle?

I sure do...

What I don't understand is why people MUST believe an argument or promote an argument in order to be considered apart of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Is this a movement that believes you are either with us or against us? I didn't think it was, but now I'm not so sure.

I'd also like to know why people can't seem to answer my questions (there's one for you up above).

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

What is with you Chris Sarns?

What difference does it make what Jon Gold thinks about WTC 7? Did someone appoint you Captain of the Thought Police? If Jon was running around arguing against the facts of WTC 7's demoliton then I could understand you taking it up with him but he is clearly not doing that. He is saying that he thinks other aspects of 9/11 truth should receive attention and he is more than entitled to his opinion. What you are doing amounts to an attempt to extract a loyalty oath and it's a disturbing sight. Are you sure you don't have anything better to do with your time?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Effectively, he is arguing against the evidence

He does not believe the Trade Towers and building 7 were CDs despite the overwhelming evidence.
This goes beyond reasonable doubt. Free fall is the indisputable proof that WTC 7 was a CD. A building cannot fall at free fall acceleration unless all the supporting structure is removed with explosives.
This is axiomatic yet Jon still isn't sure. Either he does not understand the laws of physics at all or he is being disingenuous.

A stunning case

Maybe you can be the chief prosecutor in the trial of Jon Gold. Thanks for this important work you're doing!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

In this post

I pointed out that Shyam Sunder admits WTC 7 could not fall at free fall acceleration in the progressive collapse he proposes. The only alternative is CD yet it gets voted down.

This is a popularity contest.

Reply to "A stunning case"

I hereby charge Jon Gold with self indulgence and thread hijacking.

Jon has made it clear that he thinks we should focus on the points in the video he posted on this thread. I fully support Jon in all his endeavors but I object to his trying to minimize and marginalize STj and AE911Truth in their endeavor to prove CD. His denial of the obvious when it comes to free fall is over the line IMnsHO.

Jon's redirection is jealousy IMO. National Geo is afraid of STj and AE911Truth. That's why they have produced another hit piece. It will backfire. The sheeple will be comforted with the BS rebuttals but some people will see thru the BS and become interested enough to do some investigating. Once awakened, there is no going back to sleep. We can only gain converts every time they show it.

There is so much evidence that it is necessary for different groups to specialize in different areas. This does not mean we are in competition. Mutual support is essential if we are to prevail.

In case you have forgotten, this is a matter of life and death . . . . ours.
If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately. - Thomas Paine

Jon's redirection is jealousy...

No, actually, it has to do with every single hit piece focusing on Controlled Demolition, and Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon. The reason those "hit pieces" are written is to give those who NEED to cling to the official account something to cling to, on top of making us look bad. So, I recommend that people start pushing things that those who write "hit pieces" don't like to focus on. It's not rocket science, and it is CERTAINLY not "jealousy" as laughable as that is.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Those hit pieces

are focused on the smoking gun, the implosion of WTC 7, because it's the strongest evidence of foreknowledge and planning. People can see with their own eyes that it was a CD. This is an easy call.

If you have seen the videos and know the nature of fire and the basic rules of physics and the fact that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for over 100 feet, then you know it was a CD.

If you insist that you are "not sure" i.e. you don't believe WTC 7 was a CD, you are either:
a) in denial
b) dumber than a mud brick

I know it isn't b so it must be a. You refuse to see that WTC 7 could not fall at free fall acceleration without explosives despite the fact that there is no other explanation and no reason to doubt your eyes or the laws of physics.

This isn't between you and me it's between you and the vast majority of the Truth Movement. How can anyone take your opinion seriously when you can't wrap your mind around the reality of WTC 7?

I respect you for all you have done and are doing for the Truth Movement but I think your denial is a detriment to the Truth Movement.

Your recommendation that we start pushing something they don't focus on doesn't make sense. If we push something else they will write hit pieces on that.
If you think there are stronger points then push them but don't expect many to follow someone who denies WTC 7 was a CD.

I'm curious Chris...

Have you posted this many articles on Steven E. Jones? When Bill Doyle, Bob McIlvaine, Dr. Jones, et al filed a petition of correction with NIST, did you post that news anywhere? When Steven E. Jones debated Jim Fetzer in Arizona, and made an absolute fool out of him, were you there to support him? When Steven E. Jones first came out at the end of 2005, were you one of the individuals that posted about him? I know I was... where were you?

I think your ignorance is a "detriment to the Truth Movement."

And it's 9/11 Truth Movement. Get it right.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

If you support Prof. Jones

then why don't you believe him? He has been compiling evidence to prove what he saw in the video of WTC 7. He recognized right away that it was a CD. He now believes that all three buildings were CDs, why don't you? He has found a loaded gun. Why do you deny his proof?

Why don't you answer all of my questions?

And do I deny it, or not understand it (again, I'm not a Controlled Demolitions expert, or scientist... a point I've made countless times).

Answer my questions Chris.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Subject shift attempt noted and denied

Your attempt to turn this in to a personal pissing match will not work.

You don't have to be any kind of expert to see WTC 7 was a CD or read and understand the thermite paper. Many, including myself, have read it and understand all but the very technical stuff. This is not rocket surgery. There is nanothermite in the WTC dust. The significance is self evident if you have been following what Prof. Jones has been writing and saying.

Just answer my questions...


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?



Then as far as I know...

You are someone who's only contribution to this cause has been to post on a website so as to challenge those who have actually taken steps to further this cause. I have no time for you.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Cheap dodge

I am above or below no one and neither are you so get off your white horse.
You pat yourself on the back for posting Steven Jones' papers and debates but you don't believe him or support his efforts. You do not believe WTC 7 was a CD, much less all three skyscrapers. You repeatedly say we should not focus on CD. That's what Prof. Steven Jones is all about.


Reply to "Then as far as I know"

I could be Kermit the frog in drag for all it matters. I can accept the obvious CD of WTC 7 that a even child can see in the videos. I understand that free fall acceleration confirms CD.

Please study the evidence some more if you are not sure. Check out David Chandler's videos. Ask any physicist, architect or structural engineer who is part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, they will tell you why the failure of a single column cannot lead to global collapse as NIST claims and that free fall acceleration can only occur if all the supporting columns are removed simultaneously with explosives.

Hit pieces

"So, I recommend that people start pushing things that those who write "hit pieces" don't like to focus on."

I recommend not letting hit piece writers dictate our avenues of research. How about we stop comparing Pentagon flight path and impact research to WTC destruction research?

With the Pentagon, the focus is mostly on eyewitness statements, with considerable contradictions, and most if not all physical evidence is explained away as 'fake'. I fully understand your point here. With WTC 1, 2 and 7 destruction research the focus is on primarily physical evidence supported by witness testimony. The witness testimony is consistent and overwhelmingly in our favor. Furthermore, the official reports on the matter are complete bullshit, and violate laws of nature. These reports are fraudulent in ways that dwarf the 9/11 commission report. (On the other hand, I don't believe NIST tortured anybody for false confessions, some nuance is in order)

This repeated opportunistic misuse of anti-truth hit pieces for topic policing (Let's not "push" WTC research) is uncalled for, imnsho. Every time such a hit piece arrives, and it involves Steven Jones or AE911Truth, several people, including you, point out how "damaging" this is for the movement. But it is much more damaging for Jon Gold to say that it is "damaging" in the first place! I don't think you'll ever see the day when we react in any other way than deprecatory to hit pieces on say.. NORAD research and then use that to tell others to stop "pushing" NORAD research. Instead we'll side with you and defend you ferociously against such hit pieces. Because we have faith that you are doing the right thing.

You know the tactics of the MSM, don't you? Straw men and guilt by association. Like I said before, for the perpetrators and their enablers, science is both dangerous because it offers certainty, and convenient because our educational system doesn't equip people to detect fallacy and sophistry, nor does it equip people with sufficient knowledge of exact sciences. NG could say the earth is banana-shaped and cite an "authoritative" source backing it up. What does it matter? If the man in the box says it's true, then it's true. Hit pieces don't set or change my agenda. My conscience does. We MUST fight back against this continuous rape of science and logic. You've said you've always supported Steven Jones and WTC research. Doesn't this include defending us when the core principles of science and logic get attacked with such weak and obvious lies? Just reiterating a point I've made several times, and please know that I advocate for including all legitimate facts and research when making the case, not just WTC research.


The majority of hit pieces over the years have focused on 1) Controlled Demolition 2) Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon. I didn't make that up.

Edit: Perfect example. Hot off the presses re: this show...

"National Geographic Channel’s 9/11: Science and Conspiracy conducts a forensic investigation to test tenets of some of the most common conspiracy theories. Did the Twin Towers really collapse from fires, or did explosives inside cause the buildings to implode? Was the Pentagon hit by a missile, and not a commercial airliner?"

Again, I didn't make this up.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You didn't make it up

Of course you didn't. BTW, imo, most hit pieces focus on the problem of "conspiratorial thinking". Also NG is a "science" oriented channel, what do you expect?

But it seems as if you're debunking WTC research by proxy. Who cares if NG conflates facts with fiction and nonsense with facts? What else is new? Aren't you going to cite Popular Mechanics? They attack us full time, and have ties to Chertoff. So what?

I don't approve of comparing Pentagon research with WTC research. These are guilt by association and straw man tactics. Like I explicitly said in the comment you replied to...

Did prof. Jones find and investigate missile remnants from the Pentagon? Did RJ Lee analyze Pentagon debris and find molten steel spheres and evaporated lead? Did the USGS find molten molybdenum at the Pentagon? Are there video images of the Pentagon showing impossible downward acceleration rates through the path of most resistance? Is the Pentagon building performance report properly peer reviewed and found to be fraudulent? Not yet..... There is just no comparison and it's really unfair.

National Geographic does not get to referee "allowable topics" via hit pieces, no matter how hard they try to confuse matters with the standard fallacy/sophistry/omission script. NG is entertainment with a scientific veneer. NG simply parrots "scientific authority". However truth is the only authority and not vice versa. What is said in such programmes does not hold up scientifically, in fact, it is complete and utter bullshit peddled shamelessly for an audience of millions. I know this because it's so damn obvious to anybody with critical thinking skills and affinity for science, and most certainly for scholars.

And when the day comes that Fox news starts attacking put option research for example, I won't be suggesting we move our efforts elsewhere...I'm not here to tell convenient truths withing the boundaries that provide some protection from information warfare. If I were to do that, I'd be yielding to blackmail and racketeering. Flattery makes friends, truth makes enemies. That's the cruel reality faced by skeptic minds. This is the sort of milieu were casual strategic omissions and white lies aren't desirable. We need the full, uninhibited, coarse, harsh, unforgiving truth. I know 3000 people were blown to shit in a military shock and awe operation. I know why and I know part of how and part of who.



There is no argument

WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. There is no other explanation for the free fall acceleration.

Do you agree? Please give a straight answer.

Please give me...

An answer to my question. True or false: researching the alleged 9/11 hijackers means that you are trying to "frame muslims" for the 9/11 attacks.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


And your answer to my question?

I'm glad you know it's false...

Because others think it's true. Eleusus for instance. With regards to WTC7, it seems like those who advocate the building was brought down with explosives are right. However, I would like other physics professors and other individuals familiar with building contruction to have an honest and open debate with them. People who don't have an "agenda" against us, but instead, are just willing to debate the science, Dr. Jones' findings re: nano-thermite, and the circumstances regarding the building's collapse. If it is debatable. Which is why when the nano-thermite paper was released, I asked students to take it to their science teachers, and ask them to look over it. Believe it or not, I am not qualified to tell you if they're right, however, I appreciate your confidence in my scientific abilities. However lacking they may actually be.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Seems like?

That's a semi answer. Why can't you say definitively whether or not you believe WTC 7 was brought down with explosives? It's not a question of people advocating WTC 7 was a CD, it's a scientific certainty.

Please, answer directly and definitively.
WTC 7 was a CD. True or False?

What part of...

I'm not qualified to tell you that don't you understand? Is Dr. Jones a nice guy? Yea. Does Dr. Jones seem credible? Yea. Does his arguments make sense to a layman such as myself? Yea. Can I tell you whether or not what he's saying is proven and/or fact? NO.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You are qualified

This is not rocket surgery. If you have a ounce of common sense you can put 2 and 2 together and see that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives.

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.
That is only possible with explosives.
WTC 7 was brought down with explosives.

Your never ending tap dance around this axiom is tiresome and very telling.
Either you understand that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives or you are in denial.

The only question now is, why?

And your...

Attempt at painting me as someone with an agenda because I don't know anything about optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) is telling. The only question now is, why? Haven't I done enough over the last 7 years not to warrant questions about my intentions? I guess I haven't.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

What part of free fall acceleration

don't you understand! >:-{

ETA: See "You are not stupid" below


I hesitate to say something here, because Jon has been reasonable here and isn't denouncing this research either. Just one thing, Jon, that may help you understand this better. (Feel free to ignore, this is facultative) You're a smart guy, so this is not something that exceeds your intelligence level or whatever. From what I gather, exact science just isn't your thing. Nevertheless, I'll try to explain this best way I know how. I hope this helps some people understand.

Whenever debunkers (or truthers) talk about speed, they are incorrect. This isn't about speed, it's about acceleration. Acceleration is, of course the rate at which the speed of an object increases. Negative acceleration would be the rate at which the speed of an object decreases. Acceleration is handy, because unlike the speed of an object at a certain moment, acceleration tells you how much force is being applied to an object.

This is because of Newton's second law of motion, given by: F = m * a (Force equals mass times acceleration).

Gravitational acceleration is a number that varies slightly depending on where you are on earth. In New York, it's 9.802 m/s² .

What does meters per second squared mean exactly? "Meters per second" means "velocity" (the amount of distance you travel divided by time), and meters per second per second (m/s²) means "the amount of velocity per second", in other words, how much more velocity you gain in a second.

What does all of this mean for WTC 7? Well, if WTC 7 falls at an acceleration rate that is "indistinguishable" from gravity (In New York, as quoted above, this is 9.802 m/s²) that means that whatever is below WTC 7's point of failure is behaving like air.

In other words, when WTC 7 fell onto itself, it fell onto nothing for at least 2.25 seconds, and probably 2.5 seconds. This is the same as eight floors. Eight massive floors that had to be crushed, but instead behaved like air.

You can stop here, but read on if you like.

So how does this relate to the formula F = m * a? Well, suppose we were both pushing against a door. The strongest guy wins, right? Your force is positive and my force is negative. Say I'm pushing with -20 Newton, and you are pushing with 30 Newton. Add the two up, and you get +10 Newton. Positive wins, you are stronger and the doors opens and moves towards me. If you keep pushing with the same strength, the door will go faster every second. What would have happened if I wasn't there? Well, the net force on the door would be +30 Newton, in other words: all you.

For WTC 7, try to see it like this: Gravity is pulling on the upper block, and under normal circumstances, the lower block is pushing back with the same amount. The end result is that the building doesn't move.

Now, when the building starts moving downwards, and its acceleration (a) is identical to freefall, then that means nothing is "pushing" back. We know this because earth always "pulls" with roughly the same force. Multiply that acceleration with the mass in kilograms of the upper block and you get the force in Newtons of the earth pulling on that block. If something, anything at all, would have pushed back (a negative force), then the force F would be smaller, and since the mass is the same, acceleration will have to be smaller also, or even negative to satisfy the formula (F = m * a).

But the acceleration wasn't smaller. Therefore F was maximal. Therefore nothing was pushing back against earth's pull.

Since the building fell symmetrically, that means not just one section of the building didn't resist, but magically, for eight floors, the entire length of the building, although damage and fire were asymmetric, behaved like air. This is impossible. If the building is crushing itself, it will meet resistance. This is best explained using a video of an actual controlled demolition, where the building starts slowing down after it meets resistance. Watch the roof line. Notice there are no loud bangs, because (afaik) this is a demolition without explosives. Supports are knocked away on two or three floors using (iirc) some sort of pneumatic drill, and the building falls onto itself.

This video shows you that WTC 7 (but also WTC 1 and 2) were behaving worse than an actual controlled demolition. This is because what was done to these buildings was absolute overkill.

If this didn't do it, there is always dr. Legge's Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations.

Hope this was somehow useful to somebody.

Very useful, snowcrash.

I'm surprised this particular demolition hasn't gotten more play in the movement. It appears this is a perfect example of a "top down" demolition.

"We believe that the NIST investigation and the resulting NIST report are valid and credible.” - Mr. Marvin J. Malecha, President, AIA

More play

Some truthers/debunkers may think the video somehow debunks explosive demolition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trying to use this video to support said argument is beyond clueless. The video completely demolishes Bazant's model and by extension his paper, because the upper block is destroyed and the roofline decelerates (Newton's laws of motion) as soon as resistance is encountered from intact structure. It also debunks the "big boom big sound" excuse by NIST and Popular Mechanics. (Which was already made irrelevant by what DoD calls "impulse management" and by the fact that explosions were reported by many witnesses, and are heard in the Naudet video)


... I had no idea LIHOP was a "bad term". I didn't even know what you had in mind until I read the responses. Even if it was created by an insane lunatic, as you say, I hope he did not manage to trademark it, and I hope the 911blogger does not have to pay for each occurrence here... :)

Joking aside, what terms would you recommend for describing the different degrees of government complicity? (I know -- all complicity is bad, but if one needs somehow to differentiate between them for argument's sake?...) Should we use legalese (misfeasance, malfeasance etc). I am not good at that vocabulary. LIHOP/MIHOP seem like nice short acronyms for the concepts at hand...

Good question, but you won't likely get an answer...

as it seems that there is a small minority who would prefer to not draw attention to this distinction (between A. Those who believe in essentially the OCT that real islamo-fascist hijackers were "allowed" to attack us, and B. Those who believe that it had nothing to do with arabs/muslims).

There is also a small minority who seem to want to maintain the islamo-fascist hijacker myth, despite all evidence to the contrary. I believe that these small minorities are essentially overlapping. I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to what is going on here.

Answer the question...

Up above, or is it likely that I won't get one?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You are not stupid

and therefore you know WTC 7 was brought down with explosives.
But you don't want to share the stage with others who have discovered evidence that is clearer and easier to understand than what you favor. All the things you list are true but not as simple and easy to understand as "WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration and that can only happen with explosives."
Your support of "Press for Truth" is a major contribution to the Truth Movement but not the only one. You continuously downplay the contributions made by Steven Jones and David Chandler by denying CD.
Again, you are not stupid, you just want to be in the limelight and the leader of the Truth Movement so you deny the overwhelming evidence of CD.
There's another thread: Jon Gold introduces Jon Gold introducing "Press for Truth" where you remind everyone that you arranged for the money to have it made. Kudos for doing that but boo-hiss for minimizing Jones and Chandler because of your personal need to be #1.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


Good morrow.


I wanted "to be in the limelight and the leader of the Truth Movement" don't you think I would go along with what is supposedly "the mainstream" as has been described in this thread? Instead, I often point to information that is not "the mainstream," and am unpopular for doing so. This isn't a popularity contest.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Physics vs. Specific Quotes on NORAD

smoothie, if the physics of how the towers collapsed is easier to you than the April 2000 Air Force Instruction that says, "The First Air Force Commander... provides...surveillance and control of the airspace of the United States and appropriate response against air attack" then I salute you! Most people, however, will look at you with a blank stare when you begin to explain the physics of how the towers collapsed.

The NORAD angle doesn't require inner knowledge of the military, just the specific quotes (like above) that straight forwardly show that NORAD DID monitor American air space on 9/11.

smoothie, the towers are easy for me to understand also, however, most people just look at you with blank stares or nod their heads. One person asked me, "Well, how long would it take for the towers to collapse." The fact that I told her the towers fell at free fall speed according to the 9/11 Commission Report didn't impress her.

I also like this quote from the GAO in 1994:

"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE, which includes:

1. intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;

2. tracking hijacked aircraft;

3. assisting aircraft in distress;

4. escorting Communist civil aircraft; and

5. intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts."

The best thing about these NORAD quotes (and others found at is that they don't come from members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, they come from the GOVERNMENT itself!

smoothie, when it comes to NORAD, "sleep at the wheel" is now not an issue, not since the first paper on NORAD was posted last year at The issue with NORAD is the continued lying by the government/media about NORAD's monitoring American airspace on 9/11.

As for LIHOP, the same applies: the government/media continue to lie about NORAD.

The importance of the NORAD papers is that we, the 9/11 Truth Movement, have caught the government in a massive, PROVEN lie.

smoothie, don't forget, when people say NORAD lied about 9/11, the lies have to do with the three stories NORAD gave the 9/11 Commission, not the lie that NORAD didn't monitor American airspace on 9/11. NORAD had no problem giving us three stories for its behavior on 9/11, but it will NOT admit it lied about monitoring American airspace on 9/11. It can't, because it realizes that most persons would then realize that NORAD stood down on 9/11. After Flight 11 flew into the North Tower at 8:46 am, NORAD radar operators would have been looking for suspicious tracks. Ten minutes later, at 8:56 am, NORAD would have seen Flight 77 turn around and head back towards Washington, DC!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

I agree the Norad angle is important...

... and should be emphasized more (by the way, last I checked and unless I misunderstood, your Wiki edits had been challenged by someone). However, even there many people would just think "Well, something just went wrong with NORAD's surveillance and they therefore HAD to lie about their responsibilities and many other things". Many people do anything not to have to face worldview-shaking questions.

In my view, there is no one right way to educate people about these issues.

I personally think that the facts that

1) WTC 7 was destroyed in a way that matches the most skilful of controlled demolitions and 2) the investigation of the unprecendented collapse began with the destruction of all the physical research material

are powerful arguments when combined with showing a video of its neat destruction. After all, even an 8-year-old girl I know exclaimed "A bomb!" when she happened to see a video of its destruction.

Wikipedia Comes To The Rescue!

Vesa, it isn't a question of NORAD pretending something went wrong with their surveillance, it is NORAD/government/media blatantly lying that NORAD didn't monitor American air space at all! However, I do agree, all aspects surrounding the 9/11 attacks need to be mentioned, but let's begin tutorials with the easy stuff first.

Another easy topic to discuss with strangers about 9/11 would be the FBI having "no hard evidence" linking bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. Anyone can go to the FBI's bin Laden wanted page and see for themselves that there is no mention of the 9/11 attacks under bin Laden's profile.

Yet another easy topic are the Pentagon police Sergeants' Lagasse and Brooks, the NTSB and civilians all saying that Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo Gas station. One doesn't need to get into debates about did an aircraft crash into the Pentagon and what size was it, just keep it simple and let strangers know that a northern flight path is inconsistent with the trajectory of the damage path in the Pentagon.

I checked Wiki's NORAD page. My edits still stand, though someone did add a sentence in parentheses, but that comment is okay.

Wiki is tough! The editor wasn't impressed with my pre-9/11 quotes from the 1990s that showed NORAD did monitor American air space on 9/11. He wanted something current. I scratched my head thinking how can I come up with something current? The material on NORAD that told the truth were all published in the 1990s. So the editor kept taking my edits down. Then I remembered the April 2000 Air Force Instruction I found when doing one last Google search on NORAD. At the time I didn't realize what the importance of the Instruction was, just that it was from the Air Force and it had that great quote (see my last comment). Anyway, I took another look at the Instruction and realized that it was the official document from the Air Force ordering monitoring of American Air Space. I then contacted the Air Force Publishing Department, asking if the Instruction was in effect on 9/11. They said the Instruction was STILL in effect! By the way, the April 2000 Instruction was FINALLY superceded in June 2009! Can you believe that?

So I (and the 9/11 Truth Movement) owe a special thanks to that tough editor at Wiki, because if he hadn't been such a tough SOB, I wouldn't have gone back to the April 2000 Instruction and realized what it was and what it meant.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC


Whaddaya know, the majority of this movement is screaming about controlled demo and the Pentagon and so the NatGeo film makers focus entirely on these two points! Thereby discrediting 9/11 truth, since 9/11 truth = what happened to the towers and at the Pentagon of course. .. /feigned shock ..

As Jon has pointed out time and time and time again, if they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they dont have to worry about the answers. They can just make you look like a nutty conspiracy theorist, EVERYTIME. Everytime!

And yet we go around shoving "peer reviewed" papers into the faces of law makers like any of them will take us seriously. Great for morale, sticking it to the man, but what is it accomplishing? Or going around telling Congress to do something about the Flyover Theory. I somehow doubt theyre shaking in their boots.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Think again.

If you think you and "your" research will somehow be treated any better by the perpetrators and their propaganda octopus, think again. When that hit piece comes, you won't see me gloating, making warped comparisons and putting stuff in scare quotes with no jusitification whatsoever.

Is the comment you just managed to get out of your fingers really doing justice to the work of such giants as Kevin Ryan, Steven E. Jones, Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregg Roberts, Richard Gage, Justin Keogh, Jim Hoffman, James Gourley, Graeme MacQueen, Frank Legge, Gregory Jenkins, Crocket Grabbe, Gordon Ross, Daniel Farnsworth, Tony Szamboti, Aidan Monaghan, David Chandler? (In no particular order)

Or to Bob McIlvaine, who concluded his son died of an explosion after inspecting his body? Or to the first responders who breathed the toxic particles that were created by explosive energy? To William Rodriguez? Kevin McPadden? Craig Bartmer? Barry Jennings?

Bad for the movement? It's part of the movement. It's not going anywhere for PR purposes.

One last thing. Don't compare controlled demolition fact to flyover theory. Really.... don't.

It takes the "right" kind of people to demand answers to unpopular questions. We are LONG past the phase in which the pertinence of these demolition questions is uncertain. I've noticed the elephant in the room. Have you, or are you STILL trying to pretend it isn't there? Then ACKNOWLEDGE its presence.

MY research?

Your tone is entirely unnecessary. Please point out where I've "gloated" and/or made warped comparisons.

Dont tell me what I can and can not say.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Your list...

Of "giants" differs from mine. Did you know that Willie Rodriguez doesn't support CD? Bombs in the building is different than CD. The question of how those buildings came down is ABSOLUTELY a question that needs to be answered. However, the question doesn't define the cause of 9/11 Truth.

The "research" I assume you're talking about (anything other than how those buildings came down), for the most part (with the exception of a missile at the Pentagon, Flight 93 being shot down, and a "stand down" order), like the majority of this, has been completely and totally ignored by "the perpetrators and their propaganda octopus." I wonder why.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Our list

That's just the point, I quoted "your" because I think all of this is actually "our" research. I simply don't make the distinction. I think the 9/11 truth movement has matured to the point where it can distinguish between genuine and unresolved/controversial avenues of research. I would say that is certainly the case for 911blogger. There may be some heated discussions, but generally people are well versed in the subject matter by now. The Pentagon may remain deeply divisive, but the number of divisive topics has dwindled.

When discussing 9/11, I often mention the plight of the families and first responders, the protection of double/triple agents such as Ali Mohamed, the failure of the 9/11 commission, the financial crimes of 9/11, the EPA lies, the prior knowledge issue, the geopolitical agenda tied to 9/11, the role of foreign intelligence, the vague nature of the "Al Qaeda" network, the various conflicts of interest with government figures linked to 9/11, et cetera et cetera.

Of course, I'm sure we can all agree that we haven't covered election fraud, wiretapping and anthrax enough either, which are all powerful and deeply disturbing issues to be faced. The bigger picture is that of rising totalitarianism. I reject a single issue movement, but I do support the CD researchers. I haven't blindly followed, but attempted to verify claims with what physics and chemistry knowledge I have. This also involves "neutral" parties, such as RJ Lee and the USGS. The RJ Lee reports are as devastating to the OCT as the work of J.O.N.E.S. and AE911Truth is, imo.

The main stream media doesn't focus on controlled demolition research because it's a weak argument, but because within this argument lie both threats and opportunities: the threat being scientific certainty: absolute proof of active and malicious government involvement, and the opportunity being that the discussion lends itself perfectly for logical fallacies and proof by intimidation. (I.e. stacked odds, TNRAT, argument from authority, and most of all, relying on the poor educational system to do the rest)

Scientific research is only one avenue of 9/11 research but it offers quantified insights into the likelihood of a government conspiracy, whereas non-quantifiable research depends on the public's sensitivity to ethics to drive the point home: i.e. acceptability. I think the ideal approach is a combination of both.

As for William Rodriguez: I don't know exactly where he stands, but I do know this

I do know where Willie stands...

And he doesn't support or promote the idea of a "Controlled Demolition." Does he support those who question how those buildings came down? You bet. Some of us have promoted that which you mentioned. Too many times to count.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Since when does William Rodriguez NOT support CD?

That is an outrageous claim Jon that needs to be backed up by some strong evidence such as Mr. Rodriguez saying it himself. I have met William twice and attended his lecture twice and saw NOTHING in his presentation that contradicts CD. He is very specific about a BOMB going off prior to the plane impact so how you can even suggest he does not support CD is bizarre to me. What is going on here Jon? Please clarify this statement.

A bomb...

Does not equal Controlled Demolition. Willie has NEVER promoted Controlled Demolition with regards to his story. He just TELLS his story. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. I have asked Willie to come here, and speak for himself. Whether or not he does, is up to him.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You are implying William rejects CD.

Just because he does not openly talk about or promote the CD evidence during his talks does not mean he rejects CD Jon. He simply doesn't talk about it because it is beyond the scope of his experience that day. The way you characterize him is as though he does not think there was a CD at all which is wrong (unless I hear otherwise from William himself). Saying he "has NEVER promoted Controlled Demolition" leads people to think you are saying he rejects the CD idea altogether. I don't understand why that is so hard for you to understand? Saying he doesn't talk about CD during his lectures but takes no position on CD positive or negative would be accurate and not so misleading.

One further point is that William does talk about bombs in the basement which is VERY close to an outright endorsement of CD so for you to make this distinction about bombs and CD being two completely different things is a huge stretch.

In my book William Rodriguez is the very definition of hero so I pay very close attention to him and what he says. Nothing I have ever heard from him suggests even a tiny bit that he rejects the CD concept so I don't know why you are even saying "Willie has NEVER promoted Controlled Demolition" unless it is to imply that he rejects CD. Is that what you are saying Jon? According to you does William Rodriguez reject CD?

I said...

If it is, in fact, proven, he may very well believe it, but what I said to Snowcrash, who seems "new" to what's going on, I asked him "did you know that Willie Rodriguez doesn't support CD? Bombs in the building is different than CD." What I SHOULD have said was "doesn't openly support CD." He has said to me (not verbatim), "I never talk about Controlled Demolition. I just tell my story."

If this story is valid, and the "bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives," then it would seem that the possibility exists that someone may have planted "bombs" inside the WTC. However, we don't know because it wasn't thoroughly investigated. I think it's safe to say that the small group of men in that truck would not have been able to "wire" the WTC for a "Controlled Demolition," but as we saw from that GAO report, they could have planted a bomb(s). Are we supposed to disregard the information? No.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Not really new

I watched various interviews with Willy and I watched 9/11 keymaster.... and I didn't want to say "Willy supports CD" because I know he only talks about his own experiences. If Willy is right and a bomb in the basement was timed to go off with the plane impact, then that is puzzling. To be honest, I don't really see the function of a basement bomb at that moment, but I do believe Willy because his story is corroborated by others (See also comments)

One other remark: you said:

it would seem that the possibility exists that someone may have planted "bombs" inside the WTC. However, we don't know because it wasn't thoroughly investigated.

What do you mean, as I presume you are not just referring to Willy's story here, but to explosive demolition as a whole? What about the extensive research by the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies? Have you read about the fireproofing upgrades? The elevator maintenance & Gordon Ross's research into the core? Securacom/Stratesec? Kroll/Jerome Hauer? Have you read the RJ Lee reports? USGS? Are you aware of the fact that lead vaporized, oxidized and then condensed on mineral wool from the WTC during its collapse, indicating that something close to the fireproofing (fireproofing upgrades) generated temperatures beyond 1,740 C or 3,164 F during its collapse (RJ Lee's words, not mine)? And these acceleration studies by Tony Szamboti/Graeme MacQueen and David Chandler that show the impossibility of sustained acceleration at approx 0.64-0.70 G through what should have been the path of most resistance?

Please read these:
PA Of NY/NJ WTC FOI Records: WTC 9/11 Uniformed Security Company And Silverstein Lease
Another amazing coincidence related to the WTC
Port Authority Of NY/NJ No Longer Possess Some World Trade Center Property Records
Port Authority Of NY/NJ: No Records For WTC Security Company Linked To Bush Family
Pre-9/11 WTC Steel Fireproofing/Post-9/11 Ground Zero Clean-Up Contractor, Planned 2000 Seattle Kingdome Demolition
Port Authority of NY/NJ: Records For Reported WTC Renovation Work Destroyed On 9/11
Pre-9/11 WTC Steel Column Renovation Records Reportedly Forthcoming; Others Not Located

Then we have Kevin Ryan's recent work:
Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one - Tenants
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two - Security

Don't forget his paper at Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies about the "squibs"/debris bursts, eliminating "air pressure" as the cause:
High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers

There are various scenarios: explosives could have easily been placed during fireproofing upgrades and/or elevator maintenance and/or "cabling upgrades" (core access), and possibly replacement of ceiling tiles (floor access). The above research supports that hypothesis strongly. I had another weird and horrifying revelation of my own recently, but I don't know what to do with it yet. If I blog about it and it's not well supported, nobody will care. Anyways, just some friendly reminders of this side of ED (Explosive Demolition) research. (I dislike the word "controlled"... it may have been, at the same time, such disregard for human life and the surrounding structures can only be described as "uncontrolled")

And by the way, I know you support the work of these people, thanks a lot. I just want to make sure you understand the strength of this case. It's comparable to JFK's head moving "back and to the left" times 3000. The active thermitic materials paper is a step beyond in that regard, it reveals both part of the "how", but, more importantly, the "who". No wonder prof. Jones was threatened by somebody with (alleged) ties to the DHS.

NORAD Off Course, And Off Script!

Jon Gold, NORAD can't get its story straight! From your Fact # 17:

NORAD gave three different timelines with regards to their response on the day of 9/11. Sen. Mark Dayton slammed the 9/11 Commissioners for what the 9/11 Report said about NORAD. On 6/17/2004, 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick will question Gen. Myers about NORAD's mission. "In my experience, the military is very clear about its charters, and who is supposed to do what. So if you go back and you look at the foundational documents for NORAD, they do not say defend us only against a threat coming in from across the ocean, or across our borders. It has two missions, and one of them is control of the airspace above the domestic United States, and aerospace control is defined as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. To me that air sovereignty concept means that you have a role which, if you were postured only externally you defined out of the job."

In 2004, however, the Air Force contradictorily said, "Before 2001, 1st Air Force was charged with keeping an eye on the nation’s borders, usually looking for threats in the form of Russian aircraft skirting too close for comfort to the mainland. In those few hours, the command’s mission went from looking outward to looking inward."

In 2008 NORAD again contradictorily said, "Since the tragic events of 9/11, NORADs role which previously was outward-looking now includes monitoring airspace within North America."

Wikipedia had the same "NORAD didn't monitor American air space" nonsense until it was revised in August 2008.

This is unbelievable!


NORAD might say, well Myers was really talking about the limits of NORAD's theoretical responsibilities as prescribed in its Charter, but on 9/11 NORAD didn't actually monitor American air space.

That explanation won't fly, either, because not only do we have all those wonderful articles on NORAD from the 1990s that prove NORAD was, indeed, monitoring American air space just before 9/11, we also have the April 2000 Air Force Instruction 13-1AD, Volume 3 on Air Defense Command and Control Operations, which states in Chapter 3.1, under Mission, "The First Air Force Commander (1 AF/CC), in his role as the CONUS NORAD Region Commander, provides CINCNORAD/Commander US Element NORAD with TW/AA, surveillance and control of the airspace of the United States and appropriate response against air attack." This Instruction is an official order to be followed by the Air Force. As Chapter 1.1 of the Instruction says, "General. This instruction and the references herein outline procedures TO BE FOLLOWED [emphasis mine] by units/ele­ments of the Air Combat Command (ACC) Air Defense System (ADS)." And 13-1AD, Volume 3 was in effect on September 11, 2001.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

"Willie Rodriguez doesn't support CD"

That is patently false. I challenge you to back up this claim. I've met Willie and attended his presentation and I have no idea how you can come up with such a claim.

"Bombs in the building is different than CD."


Jon, are you actually going to argue the logic in which you believe that bombs were in the building but still reject CD?

I talk to Willie...

All of the time. I just saw his new movie. It was great. No mention of a "Controlled Demolition" in it though. Maybe you should ask Willie yourself what he believes. I already know.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

"No mention of controlled demolition"

does not mean that he does not believe it. His movie was about his personal experience with the explosions, he doesn't need to discuss the technical science of CD, it's already a given and assumed to be a reality.

Please provide a link to prove that Willie does not believe in CD. If he doesn't believe in CD, what does he theorize about the explosions?

I don't have a "link"

I know from the multitude of conversations that we've had. Again, ask him yourself. He's not a hard person to find. I can see that you're one of those argumentative posters, so I've decided to avoid you. Take care.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

If he does not believe in cd...

what is his theory about the explosives planted in the buildings?

As far as I know...

He doesn't claim to "know" what happened in those buildings. He DOES NOT promote the idea of a "Controlled Demolition," and NEVER has. He tells his story, and that's it. As I said earlier, he supports those who are looking into how those buildings came down, but he DOES NOT endorse or promote Controlled Demolition. Now, if you have any further questions about Willie Rodriguez, I suggest you ask him.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Frankly Jon, I think you are being disingenuous here

You started out saying that Willie Rogriguez does not believe CD of the WTC. When I attempt to pin you down and ask you to provide evidence, all you say is that you have personally talked with Willie and you claim to know what he believes, but I don't.know what he believes. Then you seem to equivocate and say that he "DOES NOT endorse or promote Controlled Demolition", as if that equates to him not believing CD. Then you say that I should personally contact Willie and ask what he believes. Would you like me to get a statement from Willie?

For anyone who is an activist in 9/11 truth to have personally experienced explosives in the WTC, and then to have seen the research done that proves cd of the WTC, it is only logical and rational to assume they therefore accept CD, UNLESS THEY SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN IT, which Willie has never said. I think you are being very disingenuous to insinuate that Willie does not belive in CD. Utter nonsense. I have to wonder what kind of agenda you are pushing, Jon.

EDIT: Ok, Jon. Let's see if you could come up with a plausible theory about how there could be explosives planted in the building, but no controlled demolition. Oh wait, let me guess. Would it be something like...this:

Bush went on to say that the operatives of the planned attacks were instructed in the placement of explosives. "For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out...He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

Heard this before? Is that what your theory would look like? So...the explosives were planted by Al Queda, right Jon? LOL! Only if the theory includes framing muslims for planting explosives in the WTC will you ever advocate a CD/explosives theory. You are so transparent.


doesn't promote explosive demolition research at this point. Willy is involved in NYCCAN. Maybe this is where the confusion stems from.

It was a strategic decision by NYCCAN, not a decision based on belief. Although I disagree with it, I respect their decision.

However, not discussing explosive demolition isn't good for the movement, it's bad for the movement. Only discussing explosive demolition is bad for the movement too.

Explosive demolition = 9/11 truth, but not vice versa. Just my 2c.


And this is my last response to you. You are obviously some kind of troll meant to start trouble on At least, from what I've seen of your posts, that's exactly what you come across as. I said, "I do know where Willie stands, and he doesn't support or promote the idea of a "Controlled Demolition" first. Then I said, that he "DOES NOT endorse or promote Controlled Demolition." Support and endorse basically have the same definition. I did not say that he "does not believe CD of the WTC." He may very well believe it if it is, in fact, proven. However, he and I have talked, and from what I gather, he thinks what he heard was some type of bomb. A bomb does not equal "Controlled Demolition," and from what I remember, Dr. Jones has said there may very well have been another type of explosive besides thermite.

With regards to your statement that "Only if the theory includes framing muslims for planting explosives in the WTC will you ever advocate a CD/explosives theory. You are so transparent" tells me that you probably frequent another site filled with idiots that prompted me to write this.

If it was a bomb, and I had to guess, I would think it may have something to do with Fact #21 of this piece that I wrote (which is why I included it).

Fuck off.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Accusing people of being a troll

because they disagree with you is a cheap shot, Jon, and only reflects badly on you. It gives people the impression that you don't have very solid arguments and so must resort to ad hominems and straw men.

From what I've seen of your posts, Jon, I could say that you seem to have an inexplicable obsession with trying to keep the focus on Arabs/Muslims by latching onto anything and everything that could be a rumor or innuendo of their guilt, no matter how flimsy the evidence or how un-credible the source (mainstream media, US gov, FBI IG reports, tortured detainees at Gitmo, etc.).

Jon said:
However, he and I have talked, and from what I gather, he thinks what he heard was some type of bomb.
Well, yea, obviously he experienced a few individual explosives go off way before the demolition sequence. But the main event of the controlled demolition happened like an hour or so later. Why do you pretend that the two are mutually exclusive. Since when did anybody try to argue that there were not individual explosives that went off previous to the main demolition event? Not sure what your point is here.

A bomb does not equal "Controlled Demolition,"
No shit. Obviously you can't pull off a controlled demolition with a single bomb. I've never argued that it was equal. This is what is known as a straw man argument. But again, how does the presense of one or more explosions prior to the main controlled demolition event exclude the possibility of controlled demolition? Obviously it doesn't, but I think you know that full well and are just pretending to be dense.

So, now you say that there was no controlled demolition, but just a few bombs planted? For what purpose? To trick people into thinking that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition to distract from the plane crashes and fire and ensuing structural failure? This should be interesting...

and from what I remember, Dr. Jones has said there may very well have been another type of explosive besides thermite.
Yea, and your point? Are you saying that only thermite can be used for controlled demolition, and the presense of other types of explosives precludes controlled demolition? I am at a total loss as to what you are trying to argue here. Do you even know what you are trying to argue?

If it was a bomb, and I had to guess, I would think it may have something to do with Fact #21 of this piece that I wrote (which is why I included it).

Well, that's a first. Are you now saying that Mossad would be your first guess as to who planted the bombs in the WTC? That would be a significant change of direction for you, no?

You're right...

I'm a racist/crusader, trying to promote information so as to make sure we murder every single solitary Muslim in the Middle East. Just like Erik Prince. As a matter of fact, Erik Prince is a hero of mine. (For those who don't know this is sarcasm, guess what, it is). And you're right, I've never promoted anything having to do with Israel and 9/11. (Again, sarcasm) And you're right. I'm not a physics professor like you, I'm not a Controlled Demolitions expert like you, and the rest of the movement.. You must be one of those people who knows exactly what happened on 9/11. I congratulate you. Well done. Ok everyone. Pack it up. 9/11 has been solved. Time to get on with our lives.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


No Jon, you don't have to be a controlled demolitions expert to see that the buildings were blown up with sequenced explosives. You just have to have two eyes. That plus a dash of honesty to stop pretending that you can't plainly see what everybody else in the 9/11 truth movement sees when watching the videos of the buildings get blown up.

You can learn basic common sense and physics, etc. in school. I'm not sure where you go to learn how to stop pretending, however.

Controlled Demolition is what brings new people in.


Among other things

Among other things. But, yes, it has helped open a lot of eyes.

May they be continue to be opened--by whatever evidence one finds effective.

so far

From what I have read so far I have a sick feeling.

The real question is whether the populace is so cowed by "experts" that they simply cannot think.

Yes. And it's hard to tell.

It really is difficult to tell how many people really see the truth.

Take Richard Gage's Fresno TV appearance. It has over 240,000 viewings and 1,748 ratings. The average rating is a full five stars, and when you read the comments it's obvious that people see the truth and those who defend the official story are laughed away as shills. You can't find a more mainstream website than YouTube. I look at these kinds of things and think "Awesome. People are awake to the truth." I also feel a similar uplifting sensation when our voice is so powerful that the bad guys have to blatantly squash it, as was the case here. That screenshot doesn't show all comments, but there were probably about 200 or so positive comments before the first "Wow. You people are insane."

Conversely, my faith in humanity gets tested when I read threads like this one. is apparently the most mainstream gathering place for discussion amongst firefighters. This thread is 10 pages with around 200 posts, almost all of them angry OCT believing firefighters, spewing nothing but hatred and ignorance at Erik Lawyer and his organization/site FireFightersFor911Truth.Org. What's really sad is that this thread was created just this year, after the publication of the Bentham paper and existence of 700 a's and e's on petition rejecting the official story. Even with all this stuff presented to them by the few lone truther firefighters on that thread, (including Erik Lawyer who registered an account just to defend himself, upon which he gets accused of trolling), they are answered with a slap down of the Popular Mechanics article and NIST report, upon which the OCT believer says "Here. Real experts in the real fields who carried out a real investigation. Take your website and stick it." And how about: "Why is it that the hugest piece of evidence - that planes flew into buildings which we saw on TV - goes right over your head?" Oh well, I guess firefighting might require a lot in the way of "bravery," "courage," "loyalty" and "honor," but obviously it must not require too much in the way of intellect and critical thinking. And, I might like to add: these same "patriotic" firefighters were very likely among the 69% of brainwashed Americans who on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003 believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11. They no doubt believed bombing Baghdad was payback for their "fallen brothers" in the twin towers. Remember 69% of the country believed those lies, according to scientific polls.

So which of these two extremes more accurately reflects reality consensus?

Cointelpro agents at work...

It is not surprising to me that a "first responder" website in support of a new investigation is overwhelemed with negative comments. This is what the Pentagon pays for!

And its really important that the 9/11TM get their arms around such predictability.

Lets just keep putting the facts out there for the average citizen to consume. They will get it, and IF there is change, it will be led by us and powered by such average folks.

BTW...being an X air traffic controller, do you all see now WHY we do not get one single word from current or retired AATCs who may "know" some stuff?

Current ATCs have their jobs because they replaced me and my brothers and sisters after the PATCO strike...they KNOW the deal...shut up or else!

Its no different for the NYC first responders and other support groups around the world. If you get paid by a governement, you are censored!

love, peace and progress...

Robin Hordon

Fear & poor education

Fear of the awful truth plays a part, as does the failure of many schools to nurture critical thinking and to teach basic physics. I guess I'm lucky, in that I was taught enough to enable me to understand what 9/11 Truth researchers point out in their works.

There is also the issue of disbelief wrt sheer malevolence from US government entities, perpetrated on US citizens. Even now, I cannot fully take this fact in - and I'm a Brit.

9/11 Truth booklet PDFs:

Nat Geo: Bias And Endless Speculation


Judge for yourself.

Finite Element Method Analysis - engineering software

Finite Element Method Analysis - I should mention this. Derek Johnson, an engineer member of AE911Truth is putting together a presentation which shows how this engineering software application could potentially handle silly things like the Purdue simulation. During an event on 7/11/09, Derek explained that the accepted engineering software of Finite Element Method Analysis is a pertinent, agreed-upon application in resolving issues regarding the collapse of Building 7. A snippet at the last half of this clip

They do have good nature photographers

And they do take nice fuzzy pictures of baby seals and baby birds.

And now they are shilling for the murder of millions in endless wars.

This seems to be the way of the world.

I am going to seek Enlightenment.

Wish me luck.

How can we make usuable copies of these three videos ?

Herblay France

bonsoir ,
thank you for the video. Very interesting and helps up to be more exact in our analysis.
I tried with my usual programme ( .flv) to make a copy but it is not working. Is there a version on Youtubeor else where so that we can make copies ?

This video is a poor try reply to the nanothermite found in the dust. But for us the expolosives must have been set of by radio or a ( micro wave beam ? ) giving the primeur heat. The wires shown have no reason to exist so there is no point in looking for them.

Perhaps the National Geographic Channel would be better looking for non activated nanothermite on Staten Island. There should be millions of pieces of evidence !!!

Do not forget to make your own copies for the day these videos will no longer be available on the internet !!

Yours John

and all the nano thermite chips have been turned over as well ?

Herblay FRANCE

bonsoir ,
and all the nano thermite chips have been turned over as well ? There must be millions on Staten Island just waiting to be turned over and analysed !!

see °1 ==>



°1 _ _ _ _ _

Not Unlike "History Channel" Propaganda Piece

Previews reveal similarities to the History Channel 9/11 "conspiracy" broadcast, only this time Nat Geo even enlists a Rolling Stone magazine "expert" to demonstrate how wrong the movement is for believing what they believe.

Should we expect anything more from corporate controlled media?!

Hit Piece

That's just what I was thinking too, Aidan-- it appears to be something closely akin to the HIST Channel hit piece of '07, which also popped up around anniversary time. Their "experts" are laughable. Last time with the HIST, they trotted out Jay Meigs and Michael Shermer (a science editor for Popular Mechanics and an editor for "Skeptics" magazine.). Every dirty trick was employed: proponents of the official story were called "experts" while the opposing side were "conspiracy theorists." No degrees were acknowledged, no fair rebuttals. Even the lighting was skewed to make our side appear less appealing. Highly edited.

How about a "9/11 Truth Debate" which features a panel of 5 or 6 experts for each side in a classic debate format? Which allows the presentation and attempted debunking of evidence. Where is THAT program?

We Must Go Around The Media, Not Try To Work Through Them

Our world is dominated by corporate interests. Naturally these corporate interests will utilize media controlled by themselves to shape public opinion in ways favorable to their objectives.

The fact that major corporate media outlets are still attempting to undermine our point of view eight years later speaks to our success as activists.

Don't get mad - get even. Maintain the activism.

Aidan, EXCELLENT statement !! Carve it in stone.

"We Must Go Around The Media, Not Try To Work Through Them...The fact that major corporate media outlets are still attempting to undermine our point of view eight years later speaks to our success as activists... Maintain the activism."

Maintain the activism. We have made tremendous strides with 9/11 Truth since 2005 !!! When the media lies, they destroy their credibility. They are destroying themselves by their deception. People are wising up at an accelerated rate. People get ticked-off at the deception of the media. A huge number of people now know that the mainstream media is sham...and the numbers continue to grow as the hit pieces come. We embarrass the media with insight and truth.


Notice that the corporate media, particularly its dead-tree faction, is boiling away like the Wicked Witch of the West.

I found the answer:


Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.


Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Science: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.
Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.
Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.
Science: Some truthers claimdust that some New Yorkers found after the attack shares the components of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.


Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash into the building.
Science: Purdue University created a visual simulation of the crash, which indicated the victims’ bodies would have been pushed forward in relation to one another, just as they were in the actual attack. . To further investigate, EMRTC launched a projectile into a simulated structure. They did not include wings in the projectile model because Purdue asserted they were of little consequence as the Pentagon was so heavily reinforced. The experiment created a hole in the structure the approximate size of the projectile - similar to photo evidence from the actual attack.

Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.
Science: EMRTC also planted an explosive in the same model structure and compared the results to photos of the Pentagon after the crash. The explosive test demonstrated a different sort of damage. The structure blew out from the point of the explosion, causing complete destruction of floors and walls. This dispersed debris did not match the photo evidence.

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." -Martin Luther King Jr.

analyze this

National Geographic says:

"The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel."
They designed an explosive?
Why didn't they just burn some jet fuel?

then they say:
"the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes."
OK, but the towers stood for about an hour as the fire cooled down.

National Geographic annoys me, but they are responding to our thermite research. It means someone there takes us seriously.

Wiki entry says: "The Energetic Materials Research and Training Center (EMRTC) is a research division of New Mexico Tech, which performs testing of high explosives, bombs, and other munitions," Someone should send them some WTC dust to examine so that they don't have to invent an explosive, but test for the one therein contained.

What about the evidence???

"National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes."

What did NIST discover when they examined the evidence?

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC(482F)… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC(1120F). (NIST, 2005)

Maybe the creators of this documentary forgot that each tower had some 90,000 tons of steel, not just one "bare steel beam." Or maybe they are being intentionally misleading.

"it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes."

What kind of nonsense is this? Are they saying that the melting of the airplanes created these red/gray bilayered chips? Besides it would not be impossible to determine. If an airplane melting can create this chips then other airplane crashes should have produced them. Why don't they just provide evidence instead of saying it would be impossible to determine? Because they can't.

"Or maybe they are being intentionally misleading. "

The crew working on this National Geographic project are bound to be curious and some will do their own research. They will find the truth and have to hold their tongue to hold their job. Do you wonder how these
hit pieces are presented to those working on them?

Science: The Energetic


The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Take a read and show me the science,it is not there only anti science.

EMRTC used a bare steel beam.

Brilliant! steel beams floating in mid air not interconnected to the other steel beams supporting it,not dissipating the heat by obeying the second law of thermodynamics.ANTI SCIENTIFIC.

(EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel.

Now call me old fashioned but i would use burning jet fuel to test for the effects of burning jet fuel fire on steel,that would be the scientific approach.Using explosives to test for a jet fuel fire is ANTI SCIENTIFIC.

Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

NO! your one piece of steel floating in mid air not connected to any other object might have failed but how can one single piece of steel be classed as a structure.Not ANTI SCIENTIFIC,more ANTI COMMON SENSE!

Who exactly is this documentary aimed at? my guess is a man called Bubba who lives in a trailer with his six,web fingered wife and cousin who are the same person.Nobody is going to be fooled if this is the standard,it really is rather pathetic.

This made my day.

Who exactly is this documentary aimed at? my guess is a man called Bubba who lives in a trailer with his six,web fingered wife and cousin who are the same person.


Results of NIST sent out before they ever had a meeting.

"Lucky" for the authorities, that NIST after their "investigation" found that the towers were STRUCTURALLY WEAKENED BY THE INTENSE HEAT OF THE FLAMES which caused their collapse, because it sure would have been embarrassing, to come to a different conclusion after the Government sent out this secret "talking points' memo to the embassies around the world at the Beggining of Oct 2001 which said......



The thing about these corporate hit pieces is that on the surface, they might appear to be balanced in a generic sense. They do look at "both sides." In fact, by letting the truthers go first early in the program, they give the impression of "hey - look how fair we're being. We're even letting them make their case first."

However, this is also the weakness. When the anti-truthers get to go second, in effect having the last word, this could convey the impression that the anti-truthers have "won" and that the truth movement has been debunked. Never in one of these corporate hit pieces has the interviewer said to DRG for example: "You must obviously be aware of the community of debunkers who insist they've rebutted each and every one of your claims. What is your response to them, and what specifically about their answers to your claims do you not accept, and why?"

It's all about psychology. Even if the first half of the program shows the Danny Jowenko clip, the presence of "demolition expert Brent Blanchard" toward the end of the program "debunking" the demolition argument will be enough to reassure those who still cling to the official myth.

Speaking of the detractors:

Featured interviewees include "Truthers" Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery, and Richard Gage; David Aaronovitch, journalist/author; Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone journalist; Patrick Smith, pilot and Salon columnist; David Baldacci, conspiracy novelist; and Brent Blanchard, demolition expert; among others.

Matt Taibbi's faulty logic and arguments were completely destroyed by Dr. Griffin in the debate between the two. Yet rather than acknowledging his shortcomings, Taibbi is still pimping for the OCT. And Brent Blanchard is a demolition expert pimping the no-demolition argument in 2009, long after there has been scientific proof otherwise. He's obviously working for the bad guys. I think both of these men deserve a visit from WeAreChange.


Instead of conspiracy theorists, they will probably call us "truthers" to make us look like wild believers, like " birthers." (instead of skeptics who are reasonable and demand investigation. It is even more derogatory than " conspiracy theorist," imo. It is another subtlety to make our side appear wacky. And no, they will not give us the last word. Whatever decent coverage is allowed us, the other side will get to respond and be the final word, reinforcing the notion that they debunked our claim. No rebuttal for us.

It's like "liberal."

Do you ALLOW the other side to sully it and smear it, making you afraid to be smitten with the Curse of Coulter? Or do you get mad, get even, and draw your line in the sand and say "I'm PROUD to be a liberal!"

I am proud to be a 9/11 truther.

It is to laugh.

"A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero."
No traces were found because none were looked for.
The f@#$ing evidence was destroyed idiots.
They are obviously preaching to the choir.

Official explanation ad absurdum

"A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero."

What? Haven't they heard about the active nanothermite paper, for example?

Isn't it interesting that narrow Finnish wooden planks seem to be more fire-resistant than massive WTC steel:

And actually, if the official 9/11 story were true, all the wood-burning stoves in Finland's million or so saunas would have collapsed after just one or two heating sessions.

But seriously.

I hope there has been a quantity of this suspect dust from 9/11preserved in a safe place with a provable record of possession.
Otherwise skeptics can claim the nano-thermite claim is made up.
We have learned by now that the bar is set impossibly high for Truthers.

I was being serious

Most Finnish households have a sauna. The wood-burning sauna ovens have a grate about 2 centimeters thick that can be subjected to intense fire for hours on end. Moreover, the grate can carry the weight of over 260 kilograms of oven stones.

Every Finnish sauna oven in use proves the ridiculousness of the official explanation for the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers.

Inoculating the uninitiated

'They are obviously preaching to the choir.'

'The choir'? Not exactly, I don't think. 'The choir' for them I would consider to be those people with an actual stake in maintaining the OCT. Whereas their target audience with programs like this consists of all those people for whom it is not a matter of having a stake--in terms of wealth and power--in maintaining the OCT; but rather who have about the same potential to become truthers as those of us who already are, but who haven't yet been are exposed to all the information. Programs like this are a sort of ideological pre-emptive strike, meant to inoculate the public from reasoned, sane arguments before they have the chance of being exposed to them. They've had to increasingly resort to such methods, notably since about 2006, since ignoring us outright was ceasing to be effective, the numbers of ordinary citizens doubting the official story kept growing, so they had to start ramping things up from the 'ignore them' stage of political movements to the 'attack them' stage.

And I'm not sure, on balance, how effective it is. Sometimes I feel that, unfortunately, such hit pieces do have a negative effect for the cause of truth. But then again, they could also have the effect of stimulating interest in people so that they want to learn more about these topics. Regardless, they obvioulsy feel that they have no choice but to try such methods and hope that, on balance, they are more effective for their side.

The animation in their trailer is absurd

Never mind that Purdue evidently spent eons of time and mountains of money creating it (who paid for this?). We are asked to believe that the plane sliced effortlessly through the exterior columns but did not damage the floor? Their animation shows the plane sliding across the seemingly indestructible WTC floor.

Trailer here.

This can't go unanswered..

I don't know if they actually interviewed Richard Gage, Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan, etc... but I would like a see a rebuttal video out as soon as possible after it airs in a format similar to the one David Shayler (before his breakdown) did on the 7/7 bombings hitpiece by the UK's conspiracy show. I'll donate tomorrow.

It seems obvious that they are going to play up passe OCT support theories such as overplaying the prep work, the assumption that all CD's are the same, and my favorite, ignoring the support of the building beneath and stating "global collapse was inevitable." I'm sure they will omit exotic explosives and the fact that in CDI's own words, they can control direction, noise, debris, ground vibrations to suit any situation. (I paraphrase but I believe they say it on the very same DVD "What a blast".) The fact that this could have been years in the making. In my most humble opinios, my gut tells me this plan was conceived damned near the day after the first bombing in 1993 failed to bring them down, but that's just my hunch.

They are going to use a non-representative example of thermite trying to cut a column as debuking? This just re-enforces the CD argument to me because it looks EXACTLY like the molten liquid pouring out of the south tower just before it collapses. Maybe it was cutting a horizontal connection or it had another type of delivery method. Who knows. but it debunks nothing. I doubt they'll refer to the FEMA report Appendix C either. They'll try anything they can and hope it sticks to the wall. The science can't back them up and they are running out of ideas. The red/gray chips found in the dust could have come from the planes? You can't be serious. If those are plane chips, how'd they get that small in all the samples all over the city? Please give us more respect than that. My gut also tells me that this might be their "battle of the bulge." A final barrage. If Prof Jones is right (and I think he is) and more scientists will be publishing about these red/gray chips, they won't have anything left. All this computer animation cannot replace the live tapes. Why not just play the tapes from the pentagon and be done with it? Why all the analisys, animation, and "experts". 9/11 was too obvious and people are starting to see it. The harder they defend it with whackier "possibilites" with no tests or data to back them up, the more ammunition they give us. PBS hasn't replayed they're documentary in years. It was beaten up so badly by 9/11 Demolitions (again IMHO) and I don't believe it has resurfaced. (not to my knowledge anyway). The truth cannot stay hidden and we'll be able to use their own aruguments against them.

Peace all


ps thanks for the vent. I am going to pass this show to some ardent believers I know and ask them to watch Blueprint right after and see what they think. Sharing the results can help us all if others do it as well. Best to all..

"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful." Edward R. Murrow

Sheyler's 9/11 And The BBC Conspiracy was very good.

"the one David Shayler (before his breakdown) did on the 7/7 bombings hitpiece"

it is really sad that David went insane or feigns insanity. Who knows what "pressure" was behind it?

Seriously, the answer may be humor.

911 Truth is a serious matter -- a deadly serious matter. The movement generally attracts serious and serious-minded people. As a result, the most common defense from within the movement to serious challenges is typically more seriousness. In fact, some of the most serious and memorable responses are funny (e.g. parodies). The good ones are funnier than hell! I think we're missing something important by not perfecting the genre for 911Truth.

Some recent examples:

This past April 2009, Nation of Marriage (NOM) released the video, “Gathering Storm. In the script, Americans were opposed to gay marriage an warned viewers that granting marriage rights to gays would make it difficult for heterosexuals to live their lives normally, etc. While any number of people share those beliefs, its over-the-top, in your face, fear mongering created an immediate backlash. A parody on YouTube went viral faster than you could say "I Do."

The earliest was "On the Gathering Storm" (Sophia Bush, Sarah Chalke, Lance Bass, Alicia Silverstone, Star Trek's George Takei, etc.) While respecting all personal beliefs on the issues themselves, if I step back a moment and look at the whole thing from a pure humor perspective, it's hysterical ...funny and informative. The parody made its point a thousand times better and had a million more views than any of the serious responses did.

Just in case you missed that, here's a link to both videos:
(Original video on left, initial parody 3rd down on the right.)

Then there's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report - the ONLY news for growing numbers of Americans! Both shows are informative and funny. Thats' why people watch. Another example, is a great parody I saw, which was directed at Bill Maher's "New Rules" segment. I can't find the clip right now and I can't remember what the subject was (911?). What I do remember is that the subject was serious and the parody was really funny - because it was a parody. (If you happen to know what I'm talking about here, add the link if you can.)

And then, of course, there's the Jean-Marie Bigard's series. Heck, his being serious about 911 caused the best thing that could ever have happened - French 911 comedy skits!

Comedy can be deadly serious. NEW RULE: 911 Truth gets the "last laugh."

There have to be people in the movement talented enough to create and eventually perfect the parody genre for 911 Truth if they just find one another, brainstorm, and act. Why not short clips? They'd have to look professional and be spot-on, having a great script and believable acting. But the Maher clip could have been made with a zero budget using an ipod video. ) Why not start with National Geographic? I'm sorry, did you say, Irrational GeographIc?

Another good example...

HUMOR - You are right...we can reach a new audience with it.

The aura of 9/11 is about as enticing as going to the morgue. It is a subject which often demands an inner ability to courageously confront a very uncomfortable situation.

An AE911Truth engineer once mentioned a comparison to churches. Churches sometimes have a hard time getting members to come, so they remedy it by having a free BBQ or social...and then crowds show up.

Sales people use humor all the time. Preachers and politicians and public speakers often open with a joke.

We really do need "Comedians for 9/11 Truth". We would reach a new audience / category of public by making the entrance way more appealing.

My humor sucks. (I was born in Oklahoma, and then went to Texas A & M majoring in "Advance Crayon Drawing" ) Maybe somebody who is clever could start "Comedians for 9/11 Truth".

One fine example of irony from our side

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
But unfortunately some of the links don't work anymore.

Truth Behind 9/11 Put to the Test

I remember first reading about this story here. I assume it will be similar to other 9/11 Conspiracy documentaries, nothing better than an 8th grade book report.

From the story: "On Monday, August 31, 2009, at 9pm ET, National Geographic Channel's "9/11: Science and Conspiracy" conducts a forensic investigation to test the tenets of some of the most common conspiracy theories."

Now I wonder what sort of forensic investigation they have conducted? Will it address the "Active Thermitic Paper"?

p.s. I suppose we should get used to seeing these kind documentaries crop up once a year around the time of 9/11.

Maintain the activism.

Maintain the activism.

I'm Burn'in DVDs as I Type

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?


So, National Geographic has joined the tarnished ranks of other bastions of excellent science and truth...Popular Mechanics and NIST.

Always were there!

National Geographic has always had a dark side at the editorial level, so this does not surprise me. It has some excellent features too, but I will not support it again unless it redeems itself soon.

This Hit Piece is an indication...

This hit piece by National Geographic is an indication that we are indeed making progress. The fact that they have been compelled to produce another in a long line of hit pieces tells me that they are still trying to snuff out the Truth wildfire. Bringing National Geographic into the game indicates that they are taking the truth movement seriously, and have to use up some perceived credibility. They are ramping up their propaganda because our numbers are growing. Once someone sees the truth, they never go back. So every time we reach someone it increases our numbers. it is like flypaper. Once you light on it, you are there to stay. I am inspired by this hit piece.

Who owns the National Geographic Channel?

from Wiki:

"In the United States, National Geographic Channel, launched in January 2001, is a joint venture of National Geographic Television & Film and Fox Cable Networks. National Geographic provides programming expertise and the Fox Networks Group provides its expertise on distribution, marketing, and ad sales."

Make a note that National Geographic Television and Films is a taxable entity. They are a for profit venture. Adam Leipzig is the president. He comes from Disney and Touchstone, mainstream Hollywood. Can you say status quo?

It is when they ignore us...

It is when they ignore us and do nothing to counter our position that you must worry that we are ineffective.

To me

Its just an indication that that September is coming around again and they want to increase their ratings.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ratings are a factor, I agree.

But if there were no controversy about 911, if there weren't so many who questioned the official story, they wouldn't take this approach to the subject.


Let's keep it simple.
Who are they trying to debunk?!
Why?..........................Because our analysis is sound and it's catching on with the public.

National Geographic and Fox have spent more $$$ on this one film than the entire truth movement spends in a year.......or two years. Rob is right in every respect. Hit pieces like this inspire me, too, and give me confidence that our methods are working and getting through to the public at large. We are forcing them to come out of darkness into the light. If they were winning, they wouldn't feel the need to produce hit pieces like this. So that means.....we're winning. So let's ACT like we're winning and keep THEM on the defensive.

One thought that I have had for a long time is that we should take on the demolition industry directly. To date we haven't really focused on that industry, which is quite large in America. We will get resistance, for sure, just like we do with firefighters, which is more of a reason to pursue them, IMHO.

Why are we speculating?

Was Gage on this program? How would he let them get away with a cherry picked version of the facts?

As many people have found out for years.

When you agree to go before their cameras, you try to make the best case you can, but ultimately, they do the editing.

They frame the issue and they get the last word.

We may be to the point where we can ignore them and not participate in their charade any more. It is now our presence on their programs that gives them the little credibility that they have.

If I know the referee is going to throw the game to the other team, do I really have any reason to play?

That said, we can use ju jitsu on their media and easily show it to be lies to all but the most hardcore deniers.

More and more people are realizing that the msm is lying to them about more and more things, this continues to make it easier for people to accept the reality of the 9/11 operation.

We should create a very professional direct rebuttal piece and put it on every community access station in the country, as well as the internet. has the brainpower and technical resources (i.e. access to a professional studio and equipment), with adequate funding they could do this. So this is something the movement should consider. I also have another project in mind that takes a proactive approach, rather than a reactive one.

We are making real progress, brothers and sisters, we have the perps playing defense.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Hideous evil intent - National Geographic labeled "murderous"

The hideous evil intent of National Geographic is very evident from what I have seen so far. This type of covert deception leads to the murdeous ruin of many lives. There is no intent to truly present the alarming facts of 9/11, but rather an intent to keep people in the dark.
Personally, I label National Geographic as a lower scum than the actual perpetrators of 9/11, because of the show's treasonous attempt to mask the truth when the evidence is now overwhelmingly on the side of 9/11 Truth. I will bad mouth National Geographic on blogs and message boards, and I will promote other TV programming which is in their time slot. I will contact their advertisers and deride their Channel.

My ears are red.

It hurts my heart too

Very painful.

News Corp owns National Geographic beware!

As I said erlier don't expect anything but a vicious attack piece from National Geographic they belong to Murdoch. National Geographic is now a virtual branch of FOX So called News.

The days of National Geographic having credibility are gone, they have been FOXified.

I Ended My Subscription Some Time Ago

When the student is ready the teacher will come.
Hello Truthseekers and Truthtellers,
I'm a collector of NG magazines and my collection goes back to 1916. I ended my subscription some time ago when the first piece they did was a sham. If I remember right they had someone who worked for them die in the Pentagon attack. They get no more money from me. I will hold my opinion on this next attempt of theirs until I see it but I have my doubts.
Take Care Matt

Expose them

Write down all their names and call them out. Get some cameras and interview them. As a matter of fact, when they interview you (if), you should have your own cameras.

We should make our own hit piece about journalistic integrity...not me, but someone here who has talent...I'm just an 'ideas guy' ;)

It would've been interesting...

... to have seen the reaction of the "uninitiated" people to the BBC's "The Third Tower". This kind of data would be very useful.

To me, the manipulation by the BBC was *so* obvious, and I cannot see how many people could see the smooth demolition-like destruction of the skyscraper and not start asking questions. But if I were "new to 9/11", how would I have reacted to it?