The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven- David Ray Griffin-Global Research, September 14, 2009

The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven
Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False

by Prof. David Ray Griffin

Global Research, September 14, 2009

At 5:21 in the afternoon of 9/11, almost seven hours after the Twin Towers had come down, Building 7 of the World Trade Center also came down. The collapse of this building was from the beginning considered a mystery. [1]

The same should have been true, to be sure, of the collapse of the Twin Towers. But they had been hit by planes, which had ignited big fires in them, and many people assumed this combination of causes to be sufficient to explain why they came down.

But WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, so it was apparently the first steel-framed high-rise building in the known universe to have collapsed because of fire alone. New York Times writer James Glanz quoted a structural engineer as saying: “[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [WTC 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come down?” [2]

From a purely scientific perspective, of course, there would have been an obvious answer. Scientists, presupposing the regularity of nature, operate on the principle that like effects generally imply like causes. Scientists are, therefore, loathe to posit unprecedented causes for common phenomena. By 9/11, the collapse of steel-framed high-rises had become a rather common phenomenon, which most Americans had seen on television. And in every one of these cases, the building had been brought down by explosives in the process known as controlled demolition. From a scientific perspective, therefore, the obvious assumption would have been that WTC 7 came down because explosives had been used to remove its steel supports.

However, the public discussion of the destruction of the World Trade Center did not occur in a scientific context, but in a highly charged political context. America had just been attacked, it was almost universally believed, by foreign terrorists who had flown hijacked planes into the Twin Towers, and in response the Bush administration had launched a “war on terror.” The idea that even one of the buildings had been brought down by explosives would have implied that the attacks had not been a surprise, so this idea could not be entertained by many minds in private, let alone in public.

This meant that people had to believe, or at least pretend to believe, that Building 7 had been brought down by fire, even though, as Glanz wrote: “[E]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.” [3] And so, this building’s collapse had to be considered a mystery – insofar as it was considered at all.

But this was not much. Although WTC 7 was a 47-story building, which in most places would have been the tallest building in the city, if not the state, it was dwarfed by the 110-story Twin Towers. It was also dwarfed by them in the ensuing media coverage. And so, Glanz wrote, the collapse of Building 7 was “a mystery that . . . would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world,” if the Twin Towers had not also come down. [4] As it was, however, the mystery of Building 7’s collapse was seldom discussed.

For those few people who were paying attention, the mysteriousness of this collapse was not lessened by the first official report about it, which was issued by FEMA in 2002. This report put forward what it called its “best hypothesis” as to why the building collapsed, but then added that this hypothesis had “only a low probability of occurrence.” [5]

This FEMA report, in fact, increased the mystery, thanks to an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese. [6] James Glanz, pointing out that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, referred to this discovery as “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”[7]

The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 was given to NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Although NIST had been expected to issue its report on this building along with its report on the Twin Towers, which came out in 2005, it did not. NIST then continued to delay this report until August of 2008, at which time it issued a Draft for Public Comment.

1. NIST’s Denial of Evidence for Explosives

At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.” Also, announcing that NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down,” [8] he said: “[S]cience is really behind what we have said.” [9] In the remainder of this lecture, I will show that both of those statements were false.

NIST and Scientific Fraud

With regard to the question of science: Far from being supported by good science, NIST’s report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud.

Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. [10]

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget---“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.” [12]

One of the general principles of scientific work is that its conclusions must not be dictated by nonscientific concerns – in other words, by any concern other than that of discovering the truth. This former NIST employee’s statement gives us reason to suspect that NIST, while preparing its report on WTC 7, would have been functioning as a political, not a scientific, agency. The amount of fraud in this report suggests that this was indeed the case.

According to the National Science Foundation, the major types of scientific fraud are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. There is no sign that NIST is guilty of plagiarism, but it is certainly guilty of fabrication, which can be defined as “making up results,” and falsification, which means either “changing or omitting data.” [13]

The omission of evidence by NIST is so massive, in fact, that I treat it as a distinct type of scientific fraud. As philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said in his 1925 book, Science and the Modern World: “It is easy enough to find a [self-consistent] theory . . . , provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.” The “moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,” he added, includes “[a]n unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.” [14]

NIST, however, seemed to manifest an unflinching determination to disregard half of the relevant evidence.

Physical Evidence of Explosives

Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7.

Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. [16]

The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” [18]

But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered. [19]

This piece of steel, moreover, was only a small portion of the evidence, ignored by NIST, that steel had melted.

Particles of Metal in the Dust: The Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this signature was “Spherical iron . . . particles.” [20] This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” [21] The study even showed that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust – meaning almost 150 times as much as normal. [22]

The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” [23] – meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F). [24]

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F). [25]

NIST, however, did not mention either of these studies, even though the latter one was carried out by another US government agency.

NIST could not mention these studies because it was committed to the theory that the WTC buildings were brought down by fire, while these studies clearly showed that something other than fire was going on in those buildings.

Nanothermite Residue: What was that? A report by several scientists, including chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, showed that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite, which – unlike ordinary thermite, which is an incendiary – is a high explosive. This report by Harrit and his colleagues, who included Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, did not appear until 2009, [26] several months after the publication of NIST’s final report in November 2008.

But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.

But when asked whether it had, NIST said No. A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying: “[W]hat about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?” Newman replied: “Right, because there was no evidence of that.” “But,” asked the reporter “how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?” Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.” [29] (You couldn’t make this stuff up.)

When Shyam Sunder, who headed up NIST’s investigation of the WTC buildings, gave his press conference in August of 2008 – at which he announced that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery” – he began by saying:

Before I tell you what we found, I’d like to tell you what we did not find. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. [30]

By making this point first, Sunder indicated that this was NIST’s most important conclusion – just as it had been NIST’s most important conclusion about the Twin Towers. However, although Sunder claimed that this conclusion was based on good science, a conclusion has no scientific validity if it can be reached only by ignoring half the evidence.

Molten Metal: In addition to the ignored evidence already pointed out, NIST also, in its investigation of the WTC, ignored reports that the rubble contained lots of molten metal – which most people described as molten steel. For example, firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31]

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32]

However, when John Gross, one of the main authors of NIST’s reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your “basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel,” adding: “I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so.”[33]

However, in addition to Ruvolo and Tully, the eyewitnesses who said so included:

• Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34]

• Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]

• Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]

• Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37]

And yet John Gross suggested that no credible witnesses had reported molten steel. That appears to have been a gross lie.

Testimonial Evidence for Explosives

Besides ignoring physical evidence that explosives had been used, NIST also ignored testimonial evidence.

NIST’s Twin Towers Report: In its 2005 report on the Twin Towers, NIST ignored dozens of testimonies provided by reporters, police officers, and WTC employees, along with 118 testimonies provided by members of the Fire Department of New York. [38] NIST even explicitly denied the existence of these reports, saying that there “was no evidence (collected by . . . the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions” that would have suggested that explosives were going off. [39]

However, when a group of scholars including scientists and a lawyer called NIST on this false statement, NIST refined its meaning, saying:

NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews). . . . Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers. [40]

So, although NIST had said in its report that there was no testimonial evidence for explosives, it now seemed to be saying that, because only 118 out of 500 reported explosions, the testimonies, “taken as a whole,” do not support the idea that explosions were going off, so that NIST had been justified in claiming that there was no testimonial evidence to support the idea that explosives had been used.

Imagine an investigation of a murder on the streets of San Francisco. Of the 100 people who were at the scene at the time, 25 of them reported seeing Pete Smith shoot the victim. But the police release Pete Smith, saying that, taken as a whole, the testimonies did not point to his guilt. That would be NIST-style forensic science.

Reports from People Outside WTC 7: NIST continued this approach in its WTC 7 report. There had been several credible reports of explosions. A reporter for the New York Daily News, said:

[T]here was a rumble. The building's top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray. [41]

NYPD officer Craig Bartmer said:

I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down. . . . [A]ll of a sudden. . . I looked up, and . . . [t]he thing started pealing in on itself. . . . I started running . . . and the whole time you're hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” [42]

Reports from Hess and Jennings from Inside WTC 7: Besides ignoring these and other reports of explosions made by people outside Building 7, NIST distorted the testimony of two highly credible men who were inside: Michael Hess, who was New York City’s corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority.

Immediately after the North Tower was struck that morning, both men followed the instruction that, whenever there was an emergency, they were to meet Major Giuliani at his Emergency Management Center on the 23rd floor of Building 7. The North Tower was struck at 8:46, so they would have arrived at about 9:00. They found, however, that everyone had left. Calling to find out what they should do, Jennings was told to get out of the building immediately. So, finding that the elevator would not work (the electricity had evidently been knocked out at 9:03 by the airplane strike on the South Tower), they started running down the stairs. But when they got to the 6th floor, there was a huge explosion, which blew the landing out from under them and blocked their path. They went back up to the 8th floor, broke a window, and signaled for help.

Firemen came to rescue them, Jennings said, but then ran away. Coming back after a while, the firemen again started to rescue them, but then ran away again. They had to run away the first time, Jennings explained, because of the collapse of the South Tower, which occurred at 9:59, and the second time because of the North Tower collapse, which occurred at 10:28. On that basis, Jennings told Dylan Avery in an interview in 2007, he knew that, when that big explosion occurred, “both buildings were still standing.” Finally, when the firemen returned after the second tower collapsed, Hess and Jennings were rescued.

This must have been sometime between 11:00 and 11:30, because at 11:57, Hess gave an on-the-street interview several blocks away. Jennings also gave an on-the-street interview. Both men reported that they had been trapped for some time – Hess specified “about an hour and a half.”

This story obviously was very threatening to NIST. It was going to claim that, when Building 7 came down at 5:21 that afternoon, it did so solely because of fires. There were no explosives to help things along.

But here were two city officials reporting that a big explosion had gone off pretty early in the morning, evidently before 9:30. In his interview for Dylan Avery, moreover, Jennings said that the big explosion that trapped them was simply the first of many. He also said that when the firefighter took them down to the lobby, he saw that it had been totally destroyed – it was, he said, “total ruins, total ruins.” Jennings also that, when he and the firefighter were walking through this lobby, they were “stepping over people.” [43]

Jennings’s testimony contradicted the official story, according to which there were no explosions in WTC 7 and no one was killed in this building. What would NIST do?

NIST’s Treatment of the Hess-Jennings Testimony: NIST simply ignored Jennings’ report about the lobby and, with regard to the time that Hess and Jennings got trapped, followed the line that had taken by Rudy Giuliani in a 2002 book, according to which the event that Hess and Jennings took to be an explosion within WTC 7 was simply the impact of debris from the collapse of the North Tower.

But that collapse did not occur until 10:28, whereas the event described by Hess and Jennings had occurred at least an hour earlier.

Also, Jennings said that the South Tower as well as the North Tower was still standing when the event he called an explosion occurred, and that is surely what he told NIST when it interviewed him (as well as Hess) in the Spring of 2004.

Another problem was that Hess had said that they had been trapped for “about an hour and a half.” If the event that trapped them did not happen until almost 10:30, as NIST claims, then they would not have been rescued before noon. And sure enough, in an Interim Report on WTC 7 put out by NIST in 2004, it claimed that Hess and Jennings had been rescued “[a]t 12:10 to 12:15 PM.” But that is clearly false, given the fact that Hess was being interviewed several blocks away before noon. [44]

NIST would, of course, deny that it had distorted Jennings’ testimony. But when we sent a Freedom of Information Act request to NIST to obtain a copy of the Hess and Jennings interviews, NIST declined on the basis of a provision allowing for exemption from FOIA disclosure if the information is “not directly related to the building failure.” [45] NIST thereby suggested that a report of a massive explosion within the building would be irrelevant to determining the cause of its failure. Using such an obviously phony reason seemed to be NIST’s way of saying: There’s no way we’re going to release those interviews.

The BBC Helps Out: In any case, NIST’s attempt to neutralize the testimony of Barry Jennings was aided by the BBC, which interviewed Jennings and then, obviously, changed the timeline, so that the narrator, with her reassuring voice, could say:

“At 10:28, the North Tower collapses. . . . This time, Tower 7 takes a direct hit from the collapsing building. . . . Early evidence of explosives were just debris from a falling skyscraper.” [46]

Mike Rudin, who produced this BBC program, recently telephoned me to discuss the possibility of interviewing me about my little book, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? [47] I told him that I had a book coming out shortly about WTC 7 and that, after seeing it, he probably would not want to interview me. When he asked why, I said because I pointed out that he had obviously distorted the timeline of Jennings’s account. When he denied this, I said, OK, show me the uncut, unedited interview. If this interview had showed that Rudin had not distorted the timeline, I would have told the world. Rudin, however, declined to allow me to see the unedited interview. [48]

This BBC program had appeared in July of 2008. The first version of NIST’s final report – its Draft for Public Comment – was to be released at a press briefing on August 21, at which time Sunder would announce that the mystery of the collapse of WTC 7 had been solved.

The Death of Barry Jennings: Two days prior to that, Barry Jennings died – and died very mysteriously. No one has been willing to provide any information as to how or why this 53-year-old man had died. Dylan Avery, trying to find out something, hired a private investigator - reputed to be one of the best in the state of New York - to find out what she could. He used his credit card to pay her a considerable fee. Within 24 hours, however, Avery received a message from her, saying:

Due to some of the information I have uncovered, I have determined that this is a job for the police. I have refunded your credit card. Please do not contact me again about this individual.

This is not the response one would expect, Avery observed, if she had merely found that Jennings had passed away “innocently in a hospital.” [49] The dedication page on my book says: “To the memory of Barry Jennings, whose truth-telling may have cost him his life.”

Be that as it may, his death was very convenient for NIST, which now did not need to fear that Jennings might hold his own press conference to say that NIST had lied about his testimony.

The BBC Helps Out Again: The death of Jennings was also convenient for the BBC, which could now put out a second version of its program on WTC 7, this time including Michael Hess.

In the first version, the BBC had pretended that Jennings had been in the building all by himself. Even though Jennings would say, “We did this, and then We did that,” the BBC spoke only of Jennings, never mentioning the fact that Hess was with him.

But in the new version, which was aired at the end of October 2008, Hess was the star. While admitting that, back on 9/11, he had “assumed that there had been an explosion in the basement,” he said: “I know now this was caused by the northern half of Number 1 [the North Tower] falling on the southern half of our building,” exactly what Giuliani had said in his book. It is no surprise that Hess supported Giuliani’s account, given the fact that since 2002 Hess has been Giuliani’s business partner.

In spite of the fact that Hess could in no way be considered an impartial witness, Mike Rudin portrayed him as such. On his BBC blog, Rudin said that some “self-styled truthers” had charged that the BBC, in presenting Barry Jennings’ testimony, had “misrepresented the chronology.” But, Rudin said triumphantly, Michael Hess, “In his first interview since 9/11 . . . confirms our timeline.”

But Hess’s account could be said to “confirm” the BBC timeline only if it were a credible account. In my book, however, I show that it is riddled with problems, so that anyone can easily see that he was lying. [50]

2. NIST’s Own Theory of WTC 7’s Collapse

Thus far, I have spoken about the first half of my book, which deals with NIST’s negative claim, namely, that it had found no evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7. NIST could make this argument, I have pointed out, only by committing two kinds of scientific fraud: Ignoring relevant evidence and falsifying evidence – in this case, the testimony of Barry Jennings.

The second half of my book deals with NIST’s own theory as to how fire brought the building down. To develop such a theory, NIST had to falsify and fabricate data on a possibly unprecedented scale. And yet, after all of that, it had to violate one of the basic principles of science: Thou shalt not affirm miracles.

You perhaps know the cartoon about this. A physics professor has filled several boards with mathematical equations, at the bottom of which we read: “Then a miracle happens.” In science, you cannot appeal to miracles, whether explicitly, or only implicitly – by implying that some basic principle of physics has been violated. And yet that is what NIST does.

Fabrication of Evidence

But before describing its miracle story, I will point out three especially obvious examples of scientific fraud committed by NIST before it resorted to this desperate expedient. These examples all involve fabrication.

No Girder Shear Studs: NIST’s explanation as to how fire caused Building 7 to collapse starts with thermal expansion, meaning that the fire heated up the steel, thereby causing it to expand.

A steel beam on the 13th floor, NIST claims, caused a steel girder attached to Column 79 to break loose. Having lost its support, Column 79 failed, and this failure started a chain reaction, in which all 82 of the building’s steel columns failed. [51]

Without getting into the question of whether this is even remotely plausible, let us just focus on the question: Why did that girder fail?

It failed, NIST said, because it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote:

In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders.

Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.

This point was crucial to NIST’s answer to a commonly asked question: Why did fire cause WTC 7 to collapse, when fire had never before brought down steel-framed high-rise buildings, some of which had had much bigger and longer-lasting fires? NIST’s answer was: differences in design.

One of those crucial differences, NIST stated repeatedly, was “the absence of [girder] shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint.”

But this was a fabrication on NIST’s part. How can we know this? All we need to do is to look at NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it had published back in 2004, before it had developed its theory of girder failure.

This report stated that girders as well as the beams had been attached to the floor by means of shear studs. [52]

We have here as clear a case of fabrication as one will see, with NIST simply making up a fact in order to meet the needs of its new theory.

The Raging Fire on Floor 12 at 5:00 PM: NIST also contradicted its “interim report” in telling a lie about the fire in the building. NIST claims that there were very big, very hot fires covering much of the north face of the 12th floor at 5:00 PM. This claim is essential to NIST’s explanation as to why the building collapsed 21 minutes later. However, if you look back at NIST’s interim report, published before it had developed its theory, you will find this statement:

Around 4:45 PM, a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

Other photographs even show that the 12th floor fire had virtually burned out by 4:00. And yet NIST now claims that fires were still going strong at 5:00 PM. [53] We have here another clear case of fabrication.

Shear Stud Failure: A third case of fabrication involves shear studs again – this time the shear studs that connected to the steel beams to the floor slab.

NIST claims that, due to the failure of that crucial girder discussed earlier, the floor beams were able to expand without constraint. But each of these beams was connected to the floor slab by 28 high-strength shear studs. These studs should have provided plenty of restraint.

They would have, except for the fact, NIST tells us, that they all broke.

Why did they break? Because of what NIST calls “differential thermal expansion,” which is simply a technical way of saying that, in response to the heat from the fires, the steel beams expanded more than the floor slabs did.

But why would that have been the case? Steel and concrete have virtually the same “coefficient of thermal expansion,” meaning that they expand virtually the same amount in response to heat. If that were not the case, reinforced concrete – that is, concrete reinforced with steel – would break up when the weather got very hot or very cold. NIST itself points out that “steel and concrete have similar coefficients of thermal expansion.”

So why does NIST claim that the shear studs broke because of differential thermal expansion?

To understand this point, you need to understand that NIST’s theory is an almost totally computer-based theory. NIST fed various variables into a computer program, which then supposedly told it how WTC 7 would have reacted to its fires. So, what did NIST feed into its computer that caused it to say that the steel would have expanded so much more than the concrete slab that all of the shear studs would have broken? The answer is given in this bland statement:

No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab, as the slab was not heated in this analysis.

When I first read this statement, I had to rub my eyes. Surely, I thought, I have mis-read the statement, because a few pages earlier, NIST had said: “differential thermal expansion occurred between the steel floor beams and concrete slab when the composite floor was subjected to fire.” The “composite floor,” by definition, is the steel beams made composite with the floor slab by means of the shear studs. So NIST had clearly said, in stating that the composite floor had been subjected to fire, that both the steel beams and the concrete slab had been heated.

But then in the eye-rubbing passage, NIST said: When doing its computer simulation, it told the computer that only the steel beams had been heated; the concrete floor slab was not. [54]

So of course the steel beams would have expanded, while the floor slabs stayed stationary, thereby causing the sheer studs to break, after which the steel beams could expand like crazy and bump into Column 79, which then causes the whole building to come down.

A comic book version of the official story of 9/11 has been published. [55] This was an exercise in redundancy, because the official reports already are the comic book version of what happened on 9/11. In any case, I come now to NIST’s miracle.

NIST’s Miracle

Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had almost from the first been pointing out that WTC 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so.

NIST’S Denial of Free Fall: In NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, it denied this, saying that the time for the upper 18 floors to collapse “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”

Implicit in this statement is that any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles – that is, the principles of physics.

Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said at a technical briefing:

[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent [longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.

Chandler’s Challenge: However, high-school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder’s denial at this briefing, pointing that Sunder’s 40 percent claim contradicts “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”

The following week, Chandler placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”

Finally, Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying: “Acknowledgment of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if the NIST is to be taken seriously.”

NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.

So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”

The implication of Chandler’s remark is that, by the principles of physics, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance, and only explosives of some sort could have removed them.

If they had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle would have happened.

That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance. Having stated in August that free fall could not have happened, NIST also stated that it did not happen, saying: “WTC 7 did not enter free fall.”

But then in November, while still defending the same theory, which rules out explosives and thereby rules out free fall, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2 and a fourth seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”

Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of a law of physics, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the physical principles. In its Draft put out in August, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis of the collapse was “consistent with physical principles.” One encountered this phrase time and time again. In its final report, however, this phrase is no more to be found.

NIST thereby admitted, for those with eyes to see, that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics. [56]

And yet the mainstream press will not report this admission. So the press continues to support the notion that anyone who questions the official reports on 9/11 is unfit for public service. [57]


The 9/11 Truth Movement has long considered the collapse of Building 7 to be the Achilles’ heel of the official story about 9/11 – the part of this story that, by being most vulnerable, could be used to bring down the whole body of lies.

My latest book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False, shows that the official account of this building is indeed extremely vulnerable to critique – so vulnerable that, to see the falsity of this account, you need only to read NIST’s attempt to defend it, noting the obvious lies in NIST’s report and its violations of basic principles of physics.

I hope that my book will indeed help bring down that body of lies that some of us call the Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory, according to which al-Qaeda hijackers, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Center, brought down three of them – an obviously false conspiracy theory that is still being used, among other things, to kill women, children, and other innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


1. This is a slightly revised version of a lecture presented at the 9/11 Film Festival at Grand Lake Theater, Oakland, California, September 10, 2009. It is based on David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False (Northampton, Mass., Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009).

2. James Glanz, “Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center,” New York Times, November 29, 2001 (

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. See FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (, Ch. 5, Sect. 6.2, “Probable Collapse Sequence.”

6. Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and Richard D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, Appendix C (

7. James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “A Search for Clues in Towers’ Collapse,” New York Times, February 2, 2002

8. Shyam Sunder, “Opening Statement,” NIST Press Briefing, August 21, 2008

9. Quoted in “Report: Fire, Not Bombs, Leveled WTC 7 Building,” USA Today, August 21, 2008

10. Union of Concerned Scientists, “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking”
( .

11. “NIST Whistleblower,” October 1, 2007 (

12. Ibid.

13. “What is Research Misconduct?” National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, New Research Misconduct Policies
( Although this document is undated, internal evidence suggests that it was written in 2001.

14. Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (1925; New York: Free Press, 1967), 187.

15. Glanz and Lipton, “A Search for Clues in Towers’ Collapse.”

16. The melting point of iron is 1,538°C (2,800°F). Steel, as an alloy, comes in different grades, with a range of melting points, depending on the percent of carbon (which lowers the melting point), from 1,371°C (2,500°F) to 1,482°C (2,700° F); see “Melting Points of Metals”

17. Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson, “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” C-13.

18. Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Testimony before the House Science Committee Hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse,” May 1, 2002 ( In the quoted statement, the name “FEMA” replaces “BPAT,” which is the abbreviation for “Building Performance Assessment Team,” the name of the ASCE team that prepared this report for FEMA.

19. “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation,” updated December 18, 2008

20. RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature,” Expert Report, May 2004
(, 11.

21. RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature Study: Composition and Morphology,” December 2003 (, 17. On the differences between the 2003 and 2004 studies, see my discussion in The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False (Northampton, Mass., Olive Branch (Interlink Books], 2009), 40-41.

22. RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature Study” (2003), 24.

23. Ibid., 21.

24. WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web (

25. WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web ( Although the scientists involved with this USGS study discovered the molybdenum, they did not mention it in their report. Knowledge of their discovery was obtained only by means of a FOIA request. See The Mysterious Collapse, 44-45.

26. Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009/2: 7-31 (

27. National Fire Protection Association, 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 1998 Edition
(, Section 18.3.2.

28. See The Mysterious Collapse, 142-44.

29. Jennifer Abel, “Theories of 9/11,” Hartford Advocate, January 29, 2008 (

30. Sunder, “Opening Statement.”

31. Ruvolo is quoted in the DVD “Collateral Damages” ( For just this segment plus discussion, see Steve Watson, “Firefighter Describes ‘Molten Metal’ at Ground Zero, Like a ‘Foundry,’”, November 17, 2006

32. Quoted in Christopher Bollyn, “Professor Says ‘Cutter Charges’ Brought Down WTC Buildings,” American Free, May 1 & 8, 2006

33. “NIST Engineer, John Gross, Denies the Existance [sic] of Molten Steel”

34. James Williams, “WTC a Structural Success,” SEAU News: The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001

35. Quoted in Francesca Lyman, “Messages in the Dust: What Are the Lessons of the Environmental Health Response to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11?” National Environmental Health Association, September 2003

36. “Mobilizing Public Health: Turning Terror’s Tide with Science,” Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, Late Fall 2001

37. Quoted in Bollyn, “Professor Says ‘Cutter Charges’ Brought Down WTC Buildings.”

38. For the FDNY testimonies, see Graeme MacQueen, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 2/August 2006 ( 49-123. For a brief discussion of these and other testimonies, see The Mysterious Collapse, 75-82.

39. NIST, “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” 2006 (, Q. 2. For discussion, see The Mysterious Collapse, 77.

40. NIST, “Letter of Response to Request,” September 27, 2007, published in Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 17/November 2007

41. This statement (by Peter Demarco) is quoted in Chris Bull and Sam Erman, eds., At Ground Zero: Young Reporters Who Were There Tell Their Stories (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2002), 97.

42. Bartmer’s statement is quoted in Paul Joseph Watson, “NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs,” Prison Planet, February 10, 2007

43. For documentation of these points about the testimonies of Hess and Jennings, see The Mysterious Collapse, 84-92.

44. For discussion and documentation of NIST’s treatment of the testimonies of Hess and Jennings, see The Mysterious Collapse, 92-94.

45. Letter of August 12, 2009, from Catherine S. Fletcher, Freedom of Information Act Officer, NIST, to a FOIA request of August 8, 2009, from Ms. Susan Peabody, for “[t]he complete texts of NIST’s 2004 interviews of Michael Hess and Barry Jennings, which are cited in NIST NCSTAR 1-8... , 109, n.380, as ‘WTC 7 Interviews 2041604 and 1041704.’”

46. For discussion and documentation of the BBC’s treatment of Hess and Jennings in the first version of its program, see The Mysterious Collapse, 95-99.

47. David Ray Griffin, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009).

48. Telephone conversation, September 1, 2001.

49. See The Mysterious Collapse, 98-99.

50. For documentation and discussion of the second version of the BBC’s show, including the problems in Hess’s testimony, see The Mysterious Collapse, 99-104.

51. See The Mysterious Collapse, 150-55.

52. For documentation and discussion of NIST’s claim about the lack of girder shear studs, see The Mysterious Collapse, 212-15.

53. See The Mysterious Collapse, 187-88.

54. For discussion and documentation of this point about failed shear studs, see The Mysterious Collapse, 217-21. As I point out in the book the contradictions between NIST’s final report and its 2004 interim report, involving the 4:45 fire and both claims about shear studs, were discovered by Chris Sarns.

55. Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón, The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006).

56. For documentation and discussion of this point about free fall, see The Mysterious Collapse, 231-41.

57. I am referring to the fact that Van Jones, who had been an Obama administration advisor on “green jobs,” felt compelled to resign due to the uproar evoked by the revelation that he had signed a petition questioning the official account of 9/11. The view that this act made him unworthy was perhaps articulated most clearly by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. After dismissing as irrelevant the other reasons that had been given for demanding Jones’s resignation, Krauthammer wrote: “He's gone for one reason and one reason only. You can't sign a petition demanding ... investigations of the charge that the Bush administration deliberately allowed Sept. 11, 2001 – i.e., collaborated in the worst massacre ever perpetrated on American soil – and be permitted in polite society, let alone have a high-level job in the White House. Unlike the other stuff ... , this is no trivial matter. It's beyond radicalism, beyond partisanship. It takes us into the realm of political psychosis, a malignant paranoia that, unlike the Marxist posturing, is not amusing. It's dangerous....You can no more have a truther in the White House than you can have a Holocaust denier – a person who creates a hallucinatory alternative reality in the service of a fathomless malice” (Charles Krauthammer
, “The Van Jones Matter,” Washington Post, September 11, 2009

David Ray Griffin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by David Ray Griffin

Excellent dissection

How odd that a Professor of Theology is forced to explain the scientific method to the "experts" at NIST. Meanwhile, the Russian media covers the 911 truth movement in a fair, unbiased manner while the Western Press increasingly resembles Pravda under Stalin. 911 has ushered in a sort of bizarro world where the need to maintain the big lie results in increasingly desperate and irrational behavior. It has turned "progressives" into shills, journalists into hysterical demagogues, scientists into alchemists, and politicians into...well politicians.

The issues raised by Griffin clearly demonstrate knowing complicity and fraud on the part of NIST. The same can be said of all major "news" corporations including the BBC. If 911 ever truly "breaks", the scientists and media whores who knowingly aided and abetted the perpetrators of the attacks should also be tried in a court of law.

One of the best lines I've read in a while

'9/11 has ushered in a sort of bizarro world....It has turned "progressives" into shills, journalists into hysterical demagogues, scientists into alchemists, and politicians into...well politicians. '

Now there's one of the best lines I've read in a while!

Show "alchemists more than scientists" by brianct

Alice in Wonderland stuff

Wow. A great summary of NIST's blatantly anomalous position by DRG.

The mysterious thermal expansion differential! I knew it!

This lie is made in obvious complicity with a crime against humanity, and the media complicity is also a crime, which must face human justice.

The trouble is, can our justice system cope with the task? I feel that it is too compromised. I do not have any confidence at present in the ability of this system to adequately handle the prosecution of 911 traitors. Reform is needed and that's going to take time,

While the truth person is maligned as someone "who creates a hallucinatory alternative reality in the service of a fathomless malice" by the Washington Post, an official government agency creates blatant falsehoods in service to mass murder.

Interesting that truth seekers are labelled as malicious. Those in denial always see exposure as a threat to their self interests. Thus, the label serves the purpose of creating a sense of victimization for the poor little government and media. The evocation of victimized feelings justifies further denial. And so it goes.

All legal people are compromised to some extent by personal interest. A legal career confers substantial status, power and other benefits. The use of legal initiatives is great, but what about when the legal decision directly or indirectly impacts upon the status of courts, judges and lawyers? Do you not think that it has become too corrupt?

We may find our current legal system incompatible with the kind of social equity and social justice we are seeking. It has failed us. Perhaps we should face this fact and begin discussing how the 911 criminals and collaborators are to be dealt with. I believe this is a matter for the whole of humanity. It is not a concern for the United States alone.

If the 911 Truth Movement starts to tackle this issue, the criminals will begin to see the writing on the wall. They know they are safe so long as our compromised lawyers, judges and others in the legal field remain in their entrenched positions. If they can see our plans for justice taking realistic shape, they will have to face facts.

Well that's what I think, anyway.

Love Alison

Excellent work David

I'm looking forward to reading the book. WTC 7 has been my focus and my passion for nearly 4 years now. Very pleased to see it take center stage.

How to hijack a thread

Jon Gold doesn't believe WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

He wants the attention focused somewhere else. On him.

So he hijacks this thread about WTC 7 and makes it about antisemitism.

Jon, take tour crying towel elsewhere.

This thread is about WTC 7 and DRG.

How to deflect attention from a legit issue

Jon's and my own comments are about a source DRG cited, a racist and holocaust denier that he has frequently and repeatedly cited in his books and articles.

Chris, are you saying the quality of sources doesn't reflect on the person citing them?

Chris are you saying you're OK with mixing racism and holocaust denial into advocacy for 9/11 Truth and Justice?

And AFAIK, correct me if i'm wrong, it isn't that "Jon Gold doesn't believe WTC 7 was a controlled demolition", it's that he isn't personally convinced it has been 'proven', and the math, physics and chemistry-related arguments and evidence often cited aren't something he has experience in to know one way or the other. However, he has posted information about Dr. Jones et al on numerous occasions.

Mostly, he has frequently pointed out there is a wealth of other evidence that he feels is sometimes overlooked by 9/11 truthers focused on evidence and arguments for controlled demolition- such as statements, actions and inaction indicating criminal negligence, complicity and/or cover up, that points directly at specific people that any honest investigation would have explored in depth, and that, in his opinion, and may be more immediately useful in a court, or simply in compelling a full investigation that has power to subpoena documents and testimony.

As far as that goes, the papers published in peer-reviewed journals contain both elements- they've put NIST's claims and physical evidence into the world of scientific discussion and peer-review. DRG has a great intellect- it seems he should submit a paper for peer-review and publication in a mainstream journal- and if he does, hopefully he won't rely on any dubious sources. As i noted in another comment, there are plenty of witnesses to molten steel, without the credibility issues of Bollyn, Tully and Loizeaux.

Show "pathetic loose:" by brianct


Bollyn is an obvious detriment to the movement. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then your information is compromised.

In Their Own Words

Disinfo-diversion tactic

Ignore everything DRG said, find something wrong and have your friends get into a long argument about it. Vote yourselves up.
You can tell the intent by the result.

I didn't ignore what he said...

I simply pointed out that this movement shouldn't embrace or promote the work of racists, and bigots. Do you think we should 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?

Sometimes I wonder

Well Jon .. DRG didn't promote or embrace Bollyns work, IMO. But he did use him as a citation, and I also take issue with that. People have given DRG shit over citing Hufschmid's work as well, and this is no different.

If we as a movement want to establish what I like to refer to as "credibility" among laymen and debunkers, then the first step toward that credibility would be to cite sources that are objective in their reporting.

Or we could continue to cite sources such as Hufschmid, Bollyn, Wood, Fetzer, Haupt, etc. But somehow I dont think that would aid our cause. But hey, that's just me.

In Their Own Words


Me too.

Show "credibility?" by brianct

Bollyn is credible?

On what planet? Sorry, but palling around on radio shows with white supremicists like David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the KKK is not the best way to establish credibility.

In Their Own Words

Show "yes hes credible, Zombie,..r u?" by brianct

Are you fucking kidding?

In Their Own Words


Bollyn is obviously anti-Semitic. That does not mean that everything he says is false. But I would agree that DRG should be more aware of this problem and avoid citing him.

its only a footnote jon

as for bigots, go look in the mirror. Your real reason is to prevent any investigation into israels role in 9-11

You can stop attacking

members of this board right now. A real investigation into 9/11 would include Israel, but not focus soley on it, which you seem to do.

Your trolling and baiting are about about all I need to see of you, and I can think of plenty of other websites where your obsession would be much more welcome. If you can't bring yourself to making a point without attacking someone, your "comments" probably wouldn't get so downvoted.

In Their Own Words

Show "how long have u been a zombie?" by brianct


Friend, I have been down-voting many of your posts only because you tend to aim your comments at other members of this board.

I am fine with seeking out any and all connections to the Israeli government, Mossad, specific Israelis, dual-citizen American-Israelis, Israeli corporations, people who consider themselves Zionist, and or whatever, with the 9-11 mess. But I am not too happy to see people attacking each other in these comments, for whatever reason.

Not that what I think is so very important. But I do suspect that several others here feel the same way. Going against each other here only confuses things, and makes our job that much harder. Please try not to do it.

Show "so y dont you down vote jon gold?" by brianct

This thread is about WTC7 and DRG?


Here's an old archive I made pertaining to Steven Jones. Here's an article I wrote after NIST's report on WTC7 came out that ended by saying, "now that I have seen their words on paper, I am more prone to think that Dr. Jones, Richard Gage, and Kevin Ryan might be right."

Here's an old archive I made of the good doctor. Here's an article I appeared in with the good doctor. Here's a radio show the good doctor and I appeared on together.

With regards to Israel, I have posted more than anyone on this site, and most other sites regarding Israel (and have posted more about it than Dr. Griffin, who does NOT talk about Israel's possible involvement, and gets a free pass by those who accuse me of avoiding the issue). Each of these movies asks about Israel's possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks. In my facts piece, I cite Israel in Fact #1, Fact #21, and Fact #50 (the who benefitted fact).

I have a problem with Dr. Griffin citing Christopher Bollyn's "work" when it could have been avoided. When confronted about it by me, Dr. Griffin said, "I cite the work of hundreds of people. I could not possibly check out their ideas on all topics of interest." So Dr. Griffin is honestly going to act like he doesn't know what Christopher Bollyn is about? Really? That's disappointing. Very disappointing. Especially for a professor emeritus.

If Dr. Griffin hadn't cited Bollyn, this would never have happened. Maybe that's an indication that next time he should cite better sources.

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?

Yes, this thread is about WTC 7 and DRG

So why are you still talking about Jon Gold?

I'll start another thread and we can talk about you there.

I talked about WTC7, DRG, and Israel...

And pointed out how a professor emeritus shouldn't bullshit me. Is there a problem?

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?

Show "bullshit you?" by brianct
Show "Griffin can cite who he likes..." by brianct

Would a Zionist...

Introduce the topic of Israel's possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks to the most popular 9/11 Truth site in the world?

Would a Zionist post more about Israel than most people in this movement, including those who consider themselves to be "Anti-Zionist?"

Would a Zionist post about people like Jack Abramoff, Elliott Abrams, Michael Chertoff, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Larry Silverstein, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dov Zakheim in my "Who Is? Archives?"

Would a Zionist promote more than anyone on the planet (that is VERY outdated) 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds who calls out the country of Israel?

Would a Zionist post about the Larry Franklin scandal over, and over, and over, and over, and over again?

Would a Zionist adamantly oppose the recent Lebanon War, and Gaza Wars?

Would a Zionist include Israel in Facts #1, #21, and #50 (the who benefitted fact) in an article entitled, "The Facts Speak For Themselves?"

Would a Zionist make a bunch of movies that asks the question of Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks?

Would a Zionist get REALLY pissed off after reading this article?

Would a Zionist write an article denouncing attacks against Ray McGovern because he is critical of the U.S.'s favoritism (to put it nicely) towards Israel, and try to save the image of the 9/11 Truth Movement at the same time?

Would a Zionist contact the only person who could have been the "Fire Department Commander" Larry Silverstein was referring to?

A better question is, would a racist and a bigot accuse someone of being a Zionist simply because he is Jewish, and better yet, should the 9/11 Truth Movement embrace, and promote people that are like that?

Yes, and


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?

Christopher Bollyn?

Edit: I am so sick of the individuals who claim to be apart of this movement who have prejudices against certain religions, specifically, one in particular. People who act as though they are "just against Zionism," but when you look at their writings or listen to them talk, they only talk about the Jewish Zionists, as opposed to the Christian ones (who outnumber the Jewish ones), and use the word "Jew" more often than not. On top of that, they equate being Jewish as being a Zionist. I once wrote that the 9/11 Truth Movement is not anti-semitic. I stand corrected. There are certainly individuals in this movement who are.

Could Dr. Griffin have written this without citing Bollyn? I can almost guarantee that he could.

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?

certainly could have, so why do it?

DRG cites numerous original sources in this article, but he cites a Bollyn article instead of going to the original sources for these statements:

"Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32]"

"Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37]"

Very strange.

Griffin is an accomplished scholar- a Professor Emeritus- and had published numerous books before he started pumping out 9/11 books. He has to be aware of the effect sources have on the credibility of the work they're cited to support. Citing a secondary source when an original one is readily available is not good or standard practice, unless one is also referencing the secondary source for some other point, such as the way they presented the information. However, Griffin doesn't appear to be quoting Bollyn, he's just citing his article as the source for the Tully and Loizeaux statements.

Griffin's research, writing and speaking has documented numerous aspects of the 9/11 coverup, in plain language. Yet, in all the Griffin books and articles I've looked at, he cites problematic sources- racists and holocaust-deniers like Bollyn, Hufschmid,, AFP- and people pushing BS 'theories' like Wood, Fetzer, Reynolds, etc.

So why do it- when the effect of referencing a holocaust denier and defacto 'anti-Jew' like Bollyn is to 'drop a turd in the punchbowl', tarnish his own work and give people an 'excuse' to criticize and dismiss both him, 'the high priest of the 9/11 Truth Movement', and the 9/11 Truth Movement itself?

DRG must know better, just from his own experience- in addition, numerous people have brought this to his attention- yet he has continued to do this, consistently. Truly unfortunate.

See here for some background on Bollyn and other holocaust denier 9/11 skeptics:


These are important points. Please also make them at History Commons. I hope DRG responds, and soon.

update on molten steel quotes

according to, Bollyn's article is the original source of those Tully and Loizeaux quotes, but in addition to Bollyn/AFP, there are some credibility questions re Tully and Loizeaux.

There are numerous other reports of molten steel, from more credible witnesses and more credible sources- George Washington has collected them here, with links to the sources-

Molten STEEL Flowed Under Ground Zero for Months After 9/11

Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?

note; GW includes the Tully and Loizeaux quotes, which may, in fact, be factual- so Bollyn's report, and Tully and Loizeaux's statements, are corroborated- at least as far as the presence of molten steel.

To use them alone (if at all)- and exclude the greater number of reports from more credible sources- isn't good.


GW is quoting Bollyn there, so . . .

On Bollyn --

Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth

"Apparently because of his original reporting, Bollyn's work has been widely cited and copied. Unfortunately, this is also true of a number of hoaxes that Bollyn has promoted -- perhaps unknowingly.

* Bollyn wrote an article misconstruing the seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, seeding the basement bombs theory.
* Bollyn wrote an article misinterpreting WTC 2's rising dust cloud as an explosion in Building 6, starting a hoax that would be exploited by In Plane Site.
* Bollyn has been one of the principal proponents of the Pentagon no-jetliner theory.
* Bollyn apparently originated the theory that crash of Flight 93 in PA was faked."


When I started pointing out his claims to people, like how he was saying depleted uranium was found at all crash sites, that none of the planes were real, etc, he called me at my work to harass me. So I asked him why he was willing to be a guest on David Duke radio, and suddenly there was silence. I guess people like him try to hide facts like that, like how he believes that white women should not be allowed to date black men. You can listen to his views here (unless your local network administrator is blocking racist hate sites):
(see April 30th for one instance)

And here's an example in his essay, "The Planes of 9/11," where he writes -

"Zionist Jews established their media empire in the United States in the early 1900s and have been able to control how Americans think for generations."

This is classic anti-semitic stuff that is deeply offensive to many Jewish people. We're not talking about Jewish people being in the media, we're talking about a particular time period when this claim was used to try to drive Jewish people out of jobs in the media and to further anti-semitic sentiment. There was a whole purpose behind it. He uses the phrase casually, like it is nothing.

White supremacists often try to hide who they are, and they try to lure everyone into their focus on Jews (described as Zionists, but often that's not what they mean) and non-whites as being the cause of all the world's problems. Don't fall for it.


"Zionist Jews established their media empire in the United States in the early 1900s and have been able to control how Americans think for generations."

"This is classic anti-semitic stuff that is deeply offensive to many Jewish people."

You are gatekeeping here, Victoria. This is not anti-semitic. It is similarly "deeply offensive" to many American people that their own govt would orchestrate 9/11. Bollyn's statement is quite true. Look at the individuals who own major media.

New York Daily News did a hit piece on "Speidi" coming out about 9/11 being an inside job. In the comments, I urged people to check out I received an email shortly thereafter telling me my account had been banned.

Curious, I did a wikipedia on NYDN, and found that it is owned by a man named Morteimer Zuckerman. Not only a classic Jewish name, but he's a member of AIPAC and a big supporter of the Israel lobby.

Zuckerman is one example of many. You may be enlightened to read this article by a Jewish man where he discusses this topic.

So yes, Zionist Jews have deeply infiltrated the government and media power structure of the USA.

I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb


In the whole article that's the only time he used the term Zionist Jews. He used the word Zionist 25 times. His problem is with the Zionists, not all the Jews.

That is article is not anti-Semitic, it's anti-Zionist.

He may be anti-Semitic but I haven't seen anything that makes that case.
Do you have anything else?
He has been called a Holocaust denier.
Do you know where he wrote that?



"I received an email shortly thereafter telling me my account had been banned."

That is a clear violation of the first amendment, the same amendment that protects the New York Daily News. Talk about hypocrisy.

Perhaps you could start a thread asking for similar attacks on first amendment,
"The Dixie Chick Files" and make that the first post.

Ask for a moderated thread where only documents are allowed. [no comments]
I don't know if that is possible but if this thread is any example, it wont work without that restriction.

"That is a clear violation

"That is a clear violation of the first amendment, the same amendment that protects the New York Daily News. Talk about hypocrisy."

No it's not. I wish people would stop making this claim. You have no first amendment rights to have your opinions published on any privately run news outlet or discussion forum. Period.

At first thought...

Jon, at first it looked to me as though this comment of yours is way off-topic -- important, yes, but not appropriate right here.

But now I get it. This comment on DRG's sources belongs here. It also merits his attention. As loose nuke points out below, primary sources exist to document the same facts.

I wonder: Can anyone get his attention on this issue? He needs to clean this up.

I have already corresponded with him...

And I don't suspect that anything is going to change.

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 hope he ignores you

Your efforts to control 9-11 truth are really disturbing. Lets hope DRG has more sense than to take your advice.

yes it is way off topic

Its also a sign of a deep seated prejudice of any jewish involvement in 9-11.Anyone remember the Lavon affair?

"Jewish involvement..."

How many people have a problem with that statement?

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?

Show "FYI: the dancing israelis" by brianct

I'm sorry...

Did you say something? I was busy reading Fact #21 of my article. Doesn't say anything about "Jewish involvement."

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?

See no evil, hear no evil...

yes jon,Your self elevation in 9-11 truth is a real problem,as you seek to control the information people receive. You look moreand more like the very MSM.

You're funny.

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?

Show "an appeal to the emotions, Jon?Mossad agents in NY on9-11" by brianct

Fact 21

apparently brianct didn't look at Fact 21, which is in an article by Jon Gold, a 9/11 Truth Activist who happens to be Jewish by descent (not that it matters- except some people are making an issue out it)

Fact #21
On the morning of 9/11, a homemaker by the name of Maria will notice a group of people sitting on top of a white van. She says, "They seemed to be taking a movie" at the time of the first impact. She calls the police. At 3:31pm on 9/11, the FBI issues a BOLO (be on the lookout) that says, "White, 2000 Chevrolet van...with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center.... Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals." At 3:56pm on 9/11, these individuals are arrested. On 9/14/2001, the owner of Urban Moving Systems flees to Israel. Because of great pressure in late October 2001, the arrested men, allegedly Israeli spies, are released in November 2001. One of the men claims "our purpose was to document the event."

the term 'dancing israelis' and 'jewish involvement' are inflammatory; they imply that 'Jews' did 9/11. As Jon has repeatedly pointed out, 9/11 was done by 'people'; not by a religion or race. 'Mossad agents' or 'high fivers' is more to the point, and doesn't have racist overtones.

Notice how brianct is not interested in highlighting 'Christian involvement in 9/11', or 'Caucasian involvement in 9/11' - I don't do this myself- it would be just as inflammatory and off-base as brianct's fascination with promoting evidence that certain Israelis and people of Jewish descent were involved in 9/11. This evidence does deserve attention and needs to be investigated, but there's nothing 'new' here; it's old evidence, and it's not like it hasn't been covered here at 911blogger and at every other important 9/11 truth site.

There's nothing new about certain people trying to portray the 9/11 Truth Movement as racist and anti-semitic, either.

And nothing new about people trying to cause division and controversy in the movement, either.

"Jewish involvement..."

Is JUST as ignorant as "Muslim involvement." I don't think in 7 years I have addressed anyone by their religion. Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Luai Sakra, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Marc Grossman, John Ashcroft, Richard Cheney, Richard Armitage, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Niaz Khan, Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley, Robert Wright, Jack Abramoff, David Addington, Scooter Libby, Prince Bandar, etc... etc... etc... NEVER have I addressed any of these individuals by their religion.

Edit: I may have called some of them a lot of names, but never did I address them by their religion.

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?

Show "you are concealing israels role.,jon" by brianct

That's the subject of FACT 21 !!!!!

i did did your read my posts on the dancing israelis?

why is john turning a secular debate in to race and religion one! Dancingf israelis is not a matter of religion, but of nationality and behaviour. Dont think i havent noticed people trying to squash this issue here on 911 blogger. Its fact 22!

Show "911 blogger is being critiqued elsewhere" by brianct

-6 so must be good

that post got a -6 so it must be good....

take up that issue with Mike Rivero

'the term 'dancing israelis' and 'jewish involvement' are inflammatory; they imply that 'Jews' did 9/11. As Jon has repeatedly pointed out, 9/11 was done by 'people'; not by a religion or race. 'Mossad agents' or 'high fivers' is more to the point, and doesn't have racist overtones'

thats a nice dodge...But if you have trouble with 'dancing israelis; i suggest you take it up with Mike Rivero.
But what u seem to be doing is by ignoring the nationality of these people (would you prefer dancing middle easterners?) you are concealing motivation. Israel has a long history of false flag ops disguised as arabs.Lavon affair?

Nothing inflammatory here..Just the 911 truth(!)...but your efforts to conceal israels role puts your objectivity in serious doubt.

we were there to document the event:

'Interviewed in Israel by ABC 20/20's John Miller:

Although Paul and Sivan would not talk with us about the inci-dent, Sivan and two of the other detainees did go on an Israeli talk show after their return. Oded Ellner denied they were laughing or happy that today.

Mr. ODED ELLNER: (Through translator, from Israeli talk show) Nothing of the kind, the fact of the matter is, we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.

ABC source

But how did they know there would be an event to document? In spite of this obvious question, Barbara Walters evaded the logical response to this question.'

Show "more attempts to censor on 911 blogger?" by brianct
Show "why are my comments being concealed?" by brianct

Do you see the show/hide link?

your claim of 'censorship' is laughable; the racist views you're promoting in your comments are repugnant to many users here. Voting shows approval/disapproval, agreement/disagreement.

Even if you get banned for repeated efforts to be divisive and lower the discourse, it's still not 'censorship' in any meaningful sense; you can go post your views and claims of 'censorship' on any of the many racist so-called 'truther' forums that exist.

Show "lower discourse?" by brianct
Show "what racist views, Loose cannon?" by brianct
Show "more attempts to censor on 911 blogger?" by brianct
Show "Check out my signature" by Adam Syed

The difference does matter

Israeli, Mossad, Zionist--these are terms relevant to describing who was behind the plot that came to be known as the Lavon affair. Are we to describe Mossad plots as 'Jewish' any more than we would CIA plots as 'Christian' (or 'multi-denominational,' 'interfaith,' what have you)?

That there are many Jews who oppose Israeli policies, and who are even opposed to the ideology of Zionism, is good enough for me not to use the two interchangeably.

I sometimes wonder how much more progress the mass of the people would have made in countering the power of the global financial elites if, time and again, those who speak of those elites in narrow ethnic and religious terms hadn't come to the fore as spokespersons in such efforts (Father Coghlan, Ezra Pound, et. al.).

When you look at struggles for justice, against perpetrators of injustice, and on both sides you will see Gentile and Jew. And in view of that, to concentrate on such distinctions can only serve as a distraction from what the real underlying issues are. And we should all want to safeguard against that happening to the 9/11 Truth movement.

'Zionism,' 'Mossad,' 'Israel' or 'the Israeli government,' on the other hand, denote something else, and do need to be part of the conversation. (And I do not see that being disputed in this thread.)

I do not know whether the matter of the source cited by DRG is as significant as some here believe it to be--it may be--but I did feel obliged to express myself on this basic point.

Show "indeed" by brianct
Show "what issue exactly?" by brianct

Is nanothermite Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Mormon, Atheist ...

Just wondering.


The 9/11 Truth Movement embrace individuals who are racists, and bigots? If so, then I am done. I've had it with Barrett, Bollyn, Hufschmid, Smith, Thorne, Guliani, Gustavo, Hordon, Shafqat, and the like... and everyone that gives them the time of day. I've had one too many accusations of being a Zionist. Griffin should know better. PERIOD.

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?

Show "are u a zionist jon? Why are you silent on the dancing israelis?" by brianct

so who gave me -5?

you may not like what i have to say, but at least let others have the chance to make up their own minds.

Jon, this is beneath you.

First of all, the reference to Bollyn makes up about .0002% of this important DRG article, which is about BUILDING 7--and appears in a FOOTNOTE. Yet it’s the only thing you pick to focus on. And now you’ve triggered an entire thread on anti-Semitism.

Have you read the Bollyn article? It’s a report on Steven Jones and the molten metal. There’s not one word in there about Jews or Zionism. Bollyn, like you, as well as many of the other people you mention above, has done a lot of excellent in-depth research into 9/11. Yes, he has pursued the Israeli-Zionist angle, perhaps more than most. Accuse him of that, if you will, but don’t smear him with that thought-stopping label of “anti-Semitism.”

Whenever I hear “anti-Semitic” being used against someone, I immediately think that the person using it is trying to derail or stifle a discussion. It always, always, always has that effect (as you can see here), and it’s a contemptible trick. You know better than to stoop to that level.

For the record, I categorically reject any use of the word “Jews” or “Jewish” in reference to 9/11. “Israeli?” Only if it’s understood to mean rogue elements within their government, just as in ours. “Zionist?” Maybe, if it refers to the Neocon agenda. “Jews” or “Jewish?” Absolutely not.

I think we can agree on that.

>>and appears in a

>>and appears in a FOOTNOTE

As it does with each and every book.

CNN: Shackling 9/11 Truth With Anti-Semitism

"The idea that all challenges to the official 9/11 myth are based on anti-Semitism is one of the central memes used to discredit such challenges. Apologists for the official story needn't look hard to find writers who mix potent critiques of the 9/11 myth with Holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism. One of the more blatant examples of this tactic was a segment of the CNN show Paula Zahn NOW aired on January 30, 2007. Following segments on racist college parties and environmental racism, the final segment of the one-hour show featured portions of an interview with Christopher Bollyn and excerpts of Eric Hufschmid, whom it portrays as representative of the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists". The piece exploits the fallacy of the false dichotomy, implying that the only alternatives to the official story blame Zionists and Jews for the attack. "

>>Whenever I hear “anti-Semitic” being used against someone, I immediately think that the person using it is trying to derail or stifle a discussion.

How about white supremacy? Is that used to stifle discussion? If you know who David Duke is, and you read his writings, you will understand why some people might have a problem with Bollyn (who has been a guest on his radio more than once), and why most, but not all of the people who are focusing on "Jews" and "Israel", are, like Bollyn, concealing various levels of racism. It's not that easy to understand until you experience it, but if you spend some time looking at hate sites, you'll start to get it.

Show "youre way off track, vic" by brianct

Link does not work.


I read the article you posted earlier and responded to it on pg 2 of this thread.
I have not yet seen anything that clearly establishes Mr. Brollyn as anti-Semitic much less a Holocaust denier as some have claimed.

Please post anything you have. I would like to know if these charges are founded.

Thank you

The mongrelizing of America

Chris, here is the link that is working --

Here is part of the discussion (DD is David Duke, CB is Christopher Bollyn). Duke rambles on a little, but I hope the irony of the situation will not be lost on readers . . .

DD: Now you said that you had a relationship for a while with an Israeli girl, and of course again it's amazing the Jewish media, of course, is full of promotion of interracial mixing and marriage between whites and blacks and other races, constantly being promoted.

In fact I went and saw the Sydney Pollack film -- I have to keep my knowledge about these areas up -- and I went and saw a Sydney Pollack film last night called The Interpreter. And in the role they had Nicole Kidman as this very blonde perfect Nordic specimen, as far as physical looks, and it was some sort of mystery about a possible assassination attempt of an African leader in regards to her visit by him to the United Nations, and the African leader who had abandoned his idealistic calling and who overthrew or helped overthrow the white governments.

And in this film, this traditional film, they have Nicole Kidman who many people look at is this beautiful white goddess, and she talks about having -- very disgustingly -- about having a relationship with his black revolutionary in Africa where he and her brother were killed. Her mother and father and sister were killed by a landmine which was planted supposedly by the forces supporting this corrupt African dictator. But she talks about how she had this great love affair with this black person -- they didn't show any of it on the screen, thank God -- but again it was teaching all of the young blonde girls and white girls in the audience, basically, and the white guys, that it's perfectly OK, that it's just fine, and if you're a pretty white girl it's absolutely normal for you to have a love affair with a black person.

CB: Yeah, this kind of intermarriage and interracial dating seems to have become very popular, not popular, but it's been accepted in countries like Sweden, Scandinavian countries and in Holland. You see it more and more and it's almost like these rather naïve European girls, they accept what they're being told on MTV, and they flock to these boys, many of whom, in Europe, are not, they're not even European, in the sense that they haven't grown up there. They're often immigrants from Africa and the cultural difference between these European girls and these African boys is so great that it can't make for a very good relationship in any way. But like you say, this has been forced on Europeans and Americans by MTV . . .

DD: Jewish media, that some of (unintelligible).

So I was getting to the point I want to address, the point that there is this Jewish media in America pushing intermarriage and interracial sex between whites and blacks and other races constantly in the media. And yet what's their position, what happened to you in Israel being with this blonde Nordic that you talk about, this Israeli girl?

CB: It's illegal in Israel, it's absolutely illegal. And although this Israeli girl that was my girlfriend when I was in a lifeguard, who I eventually married in the United States, she was a Polish Jew , blond and blue-eyed and all that, but it would not be legal or possible for her to marry a non-Jew in Israel. Intermarriage across religious lines is forbidden in Israel. It's not a legal marriage, they're not allowed to, they're simply not allowed to. It's also looked down upon. For example, when I was married to her and living with her Jerusalem, her uncles and aunts from Haifa, for example, were greatly offended that I, as a non-Jew, was living in the apartment that belonged to their grandmother. So it gets that extreme.

DD: What was the term they used for you?

CB: Well a non-Jewish male they referred to be as a "shegitz", and the root word of shegtiz gets is shegua, in Hebrew, which means something so foul it cannot be touched. So it doesn't leave much to the imagination about what they're talking about. And this is the term that's often bandied about in novels, shiksa, and this is the female form of the same word, equally disparaging.

DD: So you encountered a lot of this prejudice, but again, isn't this amazing how we have this incredible hypocrisy, and my argument would be, like, how can the same people like Sydney Pollack and the rest, are very positive Israeli supporters of this very racist state of Israel which again, doesn't even allow marriage between Jews and non-Jews, how can they be supporting this kind of intermarriage in America unless they see it as something . . . if it's bad for themselves they've gotta understand that it's bad for us.

CB: Well you know they want to mongrelize much of the populations they are in contact with, and the best way to do that is to mix the races in the nations to such an extent that nobody knows who they are anymore.

DD: Do you think they're using this as kind of a weapon, of their own?

CB: Absolutely. There's no question about it. If they saw it as something good and wonderful and honorable and good for their people they would be doing it themselves.

Think about it.

Thank you for the info


That was an eye opener. Mr. Bollyn is not anti-Semitic. The married a Jewish girl. He is a white supremest who considers Jews as white. So his problem is not with Jews, it's with Israel. Israel is a political entity and criticizing it is not anti-Semitic.

Interesting comment: It is illegal for a Jew to marry a non-Jew in Israel.
Do you know if this is true?

I now view Mr. Bonllyn as a persona non grada but not for the reasons you and Jon Gold gave. Just for the record, do you have anything else? I have a file on this now and I would like to have all relevant data.

BTW: The "Holocaust denier evidence" is not the least bit believable. This was supposedly an email from Mr. Bonllyn to Steven Jones. How did this anonymous JREF poster get it? It's just something typed up with no proof that is real.


Show "good reply usapatriot" by brianct

jons little rant sign of prejudice?

Care to explain your little rant against Bollyn, Jon? Or can i take it you are just prejudiced?No where does DRG even mention the words jew or zionist. The word 'Bollyn appears once in the lit at the end. After a very lengthy article, you zero in on one word!! This really needs explaining.


I have a problem with the fact that CNN can run a program like that.

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?

why is this being kept out of 9-11 discussion?

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.

It is...?

Really? Wow, I didn't know that.

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?

Show "you do now" by brianct

So now...

You're accusing me of Zionism... Good job. People like Barrett, et al, and everyone that has defended people like him should be proud of themselves.

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?

Show "why ignore the presence of mossad agents on 9-11?" by brianct

I think...

... Jon has a problem mainly with the word "Jews" the way it is used in this context. Mossad, of course, is known to have committed several false-flag operations, such as the one that resulted in the Lavon Affair.

the truth is showing

"They more than Bush are a likely cause of that days tragedy."

in addition to having a strong desire to portray 9/11 as a 'Jewish' job, it seems brianct's prejudiced against the possibility of Bush's responsibility for 9/11- Bush has never been properly investigated for failing to take steps to defend the US against the impending 9/11 plot, let alone suffered any consequences- and this, despite his receiving numerous stark warnings.

Bush swore an OATH to defend the Constitution.

Notice how this thread is starting to turn into one of those long argument distraction threads- if DRG would simply cite only the most credible sources, this wouldn't be coming up in this thread.

But as long as he does, and as long as the MSM (and pieces of shit like Screw Loose- you bitches here? Go fuck yourselves, Curley and James B) is being given fodder it can use to spin the 9/11 Truth Movement as 'anti-semitic', it needs to be confronted.

EDIT: Had to come back to this, this is such an amazing statement: "['The JEWS'] more than Bush are a likely cause of that days tragedy."

I am 'shocked' that anyone who is actually interested in full disclosure re: 9/11 could say something like that. Perhaps a prejudice against 'Jews' is the reason, but i don't know- there may be other reasons.

brianct- and anyone who would actually like to know more about who Bush is, see his profile on

And something else that definitely has not gotten enough scrutiny is why the Secret Service allowed Bush to go to the elementary school at all, when WTC 1 had been hit (after a 'summer of threat') and both they and Bush were aware of this , and why Bush sat in his chair for 7" after he was TOLD 'the nation is under attack', and why the Secret Service let the 'President' stay in his publicized location, just miles from an airport, for a HALF HOUR after they acknowledged they KNEW the nation was under attack- talk about not caring about children!

yes, i dont think bush was involved

'in addition to having a strong desire to portray 9/11 as a 'Jewish' job, it seems brianct's prejudiced against the possibility of Bush's responsibility for 9/11- Bush has never been properly investigated for failing to take steps to defend the US against the impending 9/11 plot, let alone suffered any consequences- and this, despite his receiving numerous stark warnings.'

Bush had no part in the Clean Break document! or PNAC! There you ahve the 'new pearl harbor wish!
The likely perpetrators are the neocons.They controlled the dept of 'defence'; which allowed them to prevent jet interception.
Your 'jews' this and 'jews' that is a straw dog. But this is history:

let screwloosechange screw that!

Forget Bush....he is no more than a figurehead., Theres no more evidence he planned and executed 9-11 than the turks!

Me too

Dr. Griffin should eliminate the qoutes of Loizeaux and Tully from Bollyn and instead use the quotes of LIRO @ Ground Zero and Mazzocchi Wrecking, the other two debris removal contractors on site.

Red Hot Debris. The removal of debris from the collapsed areas requires the safe lifting and maneuvering of
very heavy steel beams, often twisted and tangled from the force of the collapse. Some beams pulled from the
wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the
debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F.

With ground temperatures reaching in excess of 1,200°F, steel beams were pulled out of the wreckage glowing red.

did you really say this jon?

Finally, id like to hear you comment on this post of yours Jon, its on Kevin Barrett, where u say first:

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:05 pm
'Steve Alten just told me that he interviewed Barrett today to debate Zionism and 9/11, and he told me that by the end of the show, Barrett admitted he wanted Israel wiped out. '

then on sep 16

'To be fair, Barrett didn't say he wanted Israel wiped out... he did say that he wants the state of Israel dismantled...'

which is both disturbing in the initial misrepresentation, but also it puts into question your objectivity on 9-11...and your ability to investigate this issue ES where it involves israel..


Bollyb is very obviously anti-Semitic. That does not mean that everything he says is false, but I do agree that DRG should be more careful to avoid citing such sources.

Excellent!! Building 7 is the Achilles Heel of the Media

I am thrilled to see this release. 9/11 Truth is a juggernaut.
North Texans for 9/11 Truth

If the US Geological Survey...

found that molybdenum had been melted in WTC destruction and the RJ Lee study found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization", why is this issue not already covered in "Nature" or "Science"?

FEMA Reports Melted Steel.......

Preliminary FEMA investigations reported intragranular melting of steel.... So the claims of NIST engineer John Gross that he's not familiar with reports of molten steel is further eroded. (In addition to the all the eyewitness reports of molten steel and the actual examples themselves.)
NIST Lying and Denying:

Note that Rudy G. stated that fires were still burning at 2,000 F. weeks after 9/11. However the maximal temp. jet fuel fires could reach is hundreds of degrees BELOW that. So are we saying that some WTC fires temporarily reached the max. burn temp. of 1,800 degrees, but that this temperature was exceeded weeks later??

Giuliani's statement

"Rudy G. stated that fires were still burning at 2,000 F. weeks after 9/11"

Would you happen to have a source for that?

Someone argued that kerosine fire could have melted molybdenum and cites the following:

P-4 is a mixture of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. It is a flammable transparent liquid with clear or straw color, and a kerosene-like smell. It evaporates easily and floats on water. Although it has a low flash point (0 °F (−18 °C)), if a lit match is dropped into JP-4, ignition does not occur. JP-4 freezes at −76 °F (−60 °C), and its maximum burning temperature is 6,670 °F (3,688 °C).

Any comments?

"2,000 degree fires below the ground"

Giuliani's statement is at the 4 minute mark in this extended version. (I posted the shorter version of the NIST denial of molten steel earlier. sorry). This has the "Meteorite" and Giuliani's comment to a Congressional hearing.

2,000 F. is more than 200 degrees hotter than jet fuel fire can burn.... And it's underground and oxygen deprived... WEEKS later! So on top of the molten steel issue (which is checkmate for explosives) is the temperature issue. These hot spots prove explosives were used.

David Ray Griffin has more energy than nanothermite

Official Bush-Cheney-NIST-mainstream media-Congress - Obama - Popular Science - National Geographic - BBC Conspiracy theory -- Boom, boom, boom .

DRG is sheer volume of output is amazing

David Ray Griffin is a prodigy. When I read his books or listen to him speak, I feel like I have been given 'special glasses' that make it all seem so clear. I marvel at t the universe of details that he logically dissects in his books and arguments listed below. This is even more amazing considering that he also continues with his theology work as well as just having a life outside of being a theologist and author.

* The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9-11, Olive Branch Press, 2004, ISBN 1-566-56552-9
* The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2004, ISBN 1-566-56584-7
* Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, ISBN 0-664-23117-9
* The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God: A Political, Economic, Religious Statement, with John B. Cobb, Richard A. Falk and Catherine Keller, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, ISBN 0-664-23009-1
* 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1, editor, with Peter Dale Scott, Olive Branch Press, 2006, ISBN 1-566-56659-2
* Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Revised & Updated Edition),Olive Branch Press, Paperback: 392 pages, 30 Mar 2007, ISBN 156656686X, ISBN 978-1566566865
* 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, Interlink Publishing Group, March 2008, ISBN 1-56656-716-5
* New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-up and the Exposé, Olive Branch Press, September 30, 2008
* New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-up and the Exposé, Olive Branch Press, 9 Oct 2008
* Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?, 2009 ISBN 1-56656-783-1
* The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False, 2009

Most Impressive! Now it's time for:

NANOTHERMITE: ( Evidence of High Tech Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust), by Steven E. Jones and Kevin Ryan

DRG is a 9/11 Hero, but he shouldn't be the only author of this truth movement.

A5 format booklet available

I have made a booklet PDF of this article. It runs to 28 pages, so requires 7 A4 sheets. Get it from

I think DRG has done a superb job, with thorough analysis and referencing. It's most unfortunate that Bollyn's article was cited.

JG: what kind of response did you get?



GENERAL RULES [emphases mine]

Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors [is the Bollyn source a factual error?] in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated. Don't make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time.* (If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid [or "anti-Semitic?"] that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)

Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread.

Do not post sexual or pornographic material.

Do not embed pornographic, gore, or otherwise non-work safe images or video.

When re-posting an article, try to limit your copy to four paragraphs, and link back to source. [Why was it necessary to post the entire lengthy article?] DO NOT ALTER THE COPY FROM THE SOURCE. THIS WILL RESULT IN THE END OF YOUR ACCOUNT.

Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults. [Where does the accusation of "anti-Semitic" fall?]

Keep your comments relevant to the blog entry.

*Of the 70 comments so far, only 10 or so have to do with the actual topic of the post. The rest are responses/invectives to a gratuitous (and frankly irrelevant) comment made by Jon Gold about something personally upsetting to him. Don't get me wrong: I fully sympathize and have no quarrel with that, but it seems to have no place in this blog entry. It clearly violates the rules (by a veteran and respected poster, who should know better), yet there's no enforcement.

Where are the moderators?

(I apologize for my now two off-topic comments here. Will I be placed in a queue?)

>>*Of the 70 comments so

>>*Of the 70 comments so far, only 10 or so have to do with the actual topic of the post.

So Jon should repost the article and title it, "Why is Griffin Using Bollyn Again?" and that would satisfy it all?

Citations are a part of Griffin's work, they are not some completely different topic. Griffin has relied on Bollyn as a source now for almost all of his books. There are many references in Debunking911Debunking. It's an issue that is not going away and it is a relevant issue.

911Blogger should make a survey

on this issue, it's important, and maybe the outcome will have an impact on those who cite holocaust deniers as sources.

There are plenty more sources, real sources. George Washington has the most of them. I can add a few more. Just ask.


You say Mr. Bollyn called a Holocaust denier.

Please post the article where he says that.

Here you go

You mean white supremacy isn't enough?

Well, here you go Chris (count on the debunkers to always do the leg work on this stuff) --

"Having visited several of these former camps at Auschwitz, Dachau, and Buchenwald, all I can say is that I have not seen any evidence of these large ovens in which Jewish prisoners are said to have been burned. I did visit the crematoria at all three camps and saw that they comprised 6 single-body cremation ovens. It has been many years since I visited Dachau so my recollection of the crematoria there is not as clear as the other two camps.

I don't deny that many Jews were held as prisoners in these camps, and that many died in these camps, but they were certainly not the only group of people who suffered in these camps. At Auschwitz, for example, I know that many of the prisoners were Roman Catholics. The Nazi regime held many political prisoners of different nationalities in their concentration camps.

As I said, I have not seen at these three former camps any evidence of any large oven in which hundreds of people could be gassed or burned. Nor, have I seen any photographs or physical evidence of such an oven. I don't see how this could make me a denier of anything. One can only deny by refusing to acknowledge something that one has seen the evidence of. I have looked for the evidence of these huge gas chambers and crematoria and not found it in the places they are said to have existed. That does not make me a holocaust denier."

The full post is here.

When you're going around visiting the camps to look for large ovens to prove that lots of Jews were killed that way, the average person worldwide is going to see you as a holocaust denier, regardless of how many times you try to say you are not one. End of point.

BTW, people gas themselves to death in their own garages all the time, intentionally and not. It doesn't take anything that spectacular to shut the life off in a human body. It's a miracle life exists at all as it is.

Daming if true


I found this line the most definitive:
"The fire-bombing of Dresden is the only real holocaust in Europe that I have seen the evidence of."


JREF is NOT a credible source.
Does Steven Jones confirm the validity of this letter? If so, source?

Also: Do you have links to Brollyn's appearances on David Duke's program?

Thank you

I will look for a working

I will look for a working link if that one isn't working, but I listened to the show and that's how I know that he was saying white women and black men should not be allowed to date.

Simply awesome essay and

Simply awesome essay and can,t wait to read the book.The chapter about the proven high temperatures including boiled lead and molten molybdenum really is powerful.overwhelming evidence that an unnatural event did indeed happen.This fact alone warrants a new investigation and there are literally hundreds of other facts of equal importance warranting a new investigation.

Phewww! i only mentioned Jews once but i think i got away with it.



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?


For those of you who voted Jon up and didn't read that link, please realize that he's being sarcastic.

Here's what screwloosechange wrote (emphasis added):

. . .
Meanwhile Griffin publishes a paper on the "Mysterious Collapse" of Building 7. It's the typical nonsense, and also as usual, his citations are worth checking:

32. Quoted in Christopher Bollyn, “Professor Says ‘Cutter Charges’ Brought Down WTC Buildings,” American Free, May 1 & 8, 2006

Has Griffin ever published anything that didn't include neo-Nazis or Holocaust Deniers as a source?
Labels: David Ray Griffin

posted by Pat @ 12:43 PM Comments (37) | Trackback

Notice that this was posted on Thursday, 9/17/09, a full 24 hours AFTER Jon posted his comment about the Bollyn footnote ("Submitted by Jon Gold on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 9:08am") -- thereby handing screwloosechange the ammo they could use against David Ray Griffin, and nicely making Jon's point for him.

Way to go, Jon. Sometimes silence is the better part of argument.

So you're blaming me...

For the fact that SLC used what Griffin did? Even though SLC has pointed out Griffin's "associations" numerous times in the past? Funny.

SIlence is betrayal. They may very well have seen my comment, but as has been pointed out in this blog, if he didn't source Bollyn, the comment of mine would never have been posted.

It is the job of SLC to do what they did. That's what they do. That's what the "media" does. That is why we DON'T source people like Bollyn.

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 didn’t source Bollyn…”

Really? Do you think it’s a coincidence that SCL happens to mention DRG’s paper and zoom in on footnote 32, just so they can point to Bollyn and make an asinine smear-by-association -- which is curiously the exact same thing you did one day earlier? …which then allows you to point to it and say I told you so?

Maybe if Joe hadn't posted the entire article (see Rules) which allowed everyone to see footnote 32, you would not have made your comment, and none of this would have been necessary.

I may be guilty of a post hoc argument, but you’re guilty of throwing gasoline on the fire every time you go out of your way to bring up anti-Semitism. It plays right into the hands of the perps and keeps the truth movement fragmented and distracted. Believe me, they do a fine job without us doing it to ourselves.

I suggest the best strategy is to downplay or ignore it altogether. (Sorry, but “Silence is betrayal” makes no sense here.) People who try to link 9/11 truth with anti-Semitism are looking more and more ridiculous in the public eye. If anyone brings it up, just ask if they’re accusing YOU of being anti-Semitic -- or any number of others at There are so many other arguments and evidence to focus on. Don’t get sidetracked into (or instigate) a flame war about anti-Semitism, and certainly don’t try to prevent others from making valuable contributions to the movement because you don’t like a source they use.

That’s all I’ll say on the matter. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to place myself in a queue.


So you're saying that no one should hold the actions or writings of the 9/11 truth movement under a critical lens?

And are you also faulting Jon for the fact that DRG cited a famous anti-semite in a new article? Or that we should all turn a blind eye to things that could detract from our credibility?

Are we about being conspiracy theorists or are we about demanding the truth for the victims and their families?

In Their Own Words
The Truth and Lies of 9/11

Besides for substitute the Bollyn quotes

I have another suggestion for David Ray Griffin.

Mention the cutted columns. So far I could not verify a date of the pictures, but on all pictures I knew of there are these cutted columns visible.
With firefighting efforts, and one as I remember from 9-12-01 (before bigger welding or cutting work for debris removal has begun)