SMH: Fire, not a government plot, felled third tower

Sydney Morning Herald weighs in on 9/11 conspiracy theory - by RICK FENELEY

"Building 7 has preoccupied conspiracy theorists ever since. Many believe it was brought down by controlled explosions. And if it was, so were the Twin Towers. And if they're willing to believe that, it is not such a big leap to conclude that the whole atrocity was a US Government plot. They have not been silenced by an official report that concludes their theories are bunkum."

Amazing, Ozzy MSM finally mentions 9/11...

Not so amazing, it has to be a biased, ill-informed piece of infotainment... nothing more than propaganda, really.

I'm so sick of the lying, twisted proponents of the official dogma.

The Sydney Mornig Herald claims to be commited to presenting information fairly and accurately.

They claim to welcome comments, suggestions and information about errors that call for corrections.

ReaderLink, ( ) the Herald's reader services department, answers inquiries, investigates possible inaccuracies and acts on complaints.

So I sent them the following complaint ...

I am writing to complain about unfair and inaccurate reporting contained in an article entitled "Fire, not a government plot, felled third tower", by RICK FENELEY, published in the Sydney Morning Herald, November 25.

1) The title of the article asserts, as fact or truth, the claim made by government officials, which, in itself, represents only one side of the debate or controversy. In other words, the title clearly supports, affirms, lends weight to one side of the debate (the government's postion) over the other. This obvious bias in the title does not seem to conform with the Herald's commitment to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and independence.

2) In the second paragraph, the author states "It took 5.4 seconds for its 47 storeys to complete their fiery descent". Wrong, it did not take 5.4 seconds. Trivial error, check your facts.

3) In the third paragraph, the author states "Building 7 has preoccupied conspiracy theorists ever since." We all know the term "conspiracy theorist" has pejorative connotations. The use of the term "conspiracy theorist" in this manner is clearly intended to cast aspersions against any who dare question the government's official conspiracy theory. This journalistic practice does not conform with the Herald's commitment to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and independence.

4) In the sixth paragraph, the author quotes a NIST reference to the hypothetical sound level of a blast event. The author then states "No witness reported it", as a statement of fact, without quotation or attribution. This is incorrect. There are witness reports as well as video and audio recordings of just such blast events occuring in the vicinity and at the same time that WTC7 collapsed. These reports and recordings are readily available in the public domain. There is no truth to the claim that "No witness reported it", this statement is wrong, it's an error.

5) In the seventh paragraph, the author writes "The 9/11 Truth Movement points to the discovery of thermite, a potential explosive." Wrong. Thermite is not a "potential explosive". There are no "9/11 Truth Movement" researchers claiming that "thermite" is an explosive. Thermite is an incendiary. The "explosive" material discovered in WTC dust by 9/11 researchers is not thermite, it is a nano-engineered form of thermite, commonly known as nanothermite, or super-thermite. There is an important distinction between regular thermite and nanothermite. Failing to make clear this distinction, is not a trivial error. It shows the author has conducted little research into the issues and has a poor knowledge of the subject. Please check your facts.

In conclusion, I consider this article to be little more than a formulaic promotional for the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In terms of the Herald's commitment to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and independence, this article is entirely without merit.

Excellent presentation

All of our presentations should be as air-tight as yours. You have taken down their tower of deceit at freefall speed.

Yes, bravo.

He debunked that article precisely and concisely. :-)

My patience wanes and my rage grows

It becomes increasingly more difficult to contain my rage and remain polite and civil, but we must if we are to reach those still asleep.
My response to the Herald:

Dear sirs,

Rick Feneley's article is factually incorrect in intellectually offensive. He doesn't even realize that "OBL and 19 hijackers did it" is a conspiracy theory. Any crime committed by two or more people is a conspiracy. Bin Laden has been charged with conspiracy to murder Americans outside the U.S. He has not been charged with 9/11 because there is no hard evidence he was involved.[1] This is not to say he wasn't involved, only that the official story is a conspiracy theory and the use of this term in a derogatory manner demonstrates a total lack of journalistic integrity.

Covering up a crime of mass murder in which Australians have died is a crime. The truth cannot be hidden forever and all who helped hide the truth will be held accountable. The Truth Movement is gaining strength and momentum because we are telling the truth about the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

After lying about the free fall of WTC 7 in their final draft, NIST was confronted with the truth by a high school physics teacher at a public hearing. NIST was forced to admit that WTC 7 did indeed fall at free fall acceleration for about 32 meters. NIST repeated the analysis of Mr. Chandler and got the same result.This is scientific conformation and it is now a matter of public record.[2]

Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the NIST report on WTC 7, stated in a technical briefing: [3]

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . 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."

In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure with explosives.

I respectfully request that you publish a retraction and correction after objectively viewing the evidence presented by Richard Gage AIA at


Chris Sarns



2] NIST NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [final report on WTC 7]

3] Tech briefing 8-26-08

1:01:48 Question from David Chandler about freefall.

1:03:14 Shyam Sunder: Response

Please watch this video summary:

I feel your rage...


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

My letter to SMH - Sydney Morning Herald

Madam, Sir,
let me comment on your 2 recent articles in your newspaper, Sydney Morning Herald, by Rick Feneley, at

In my view, articles severely distort facts of their topic, the 9/11 attacks in New York.

1. Article does not mention at all a recent visit and presentations in Australia, New Zealand and Japan by the leading scientist Richard Gage,, and a group of 9/11 researchers.

2. Article distorts or omits the fact that 9/11 attacks are a controlled demolition inside operation, per irrefutable scientific evidence, and per common sense too.
sites collection at, for one.

3. Article fails to mention the research work and results of leading Australian 9/11 researchers, at, namely John Bursill and Hereward Fenton, if I'm not mistaken.


Thank you,
Petr Buben

My email to the SMH

The article entitled "Fire, not government plot felled third tower" leads a reader to believe that somehow it really was fire that magically severed all perimeter columns at the same time causing WTC 7 to "collapse" with its roof line parallel to the horizon at free fall acceleration.

What was not reported is the scientific fraud conducted by NIST to make this "extraordinary event," caused by "thermal expansion" of girders making column 79 unstable, supposedly making the entire edifice tumble down.

NIST used a black box computer model tweaked with inputs that did not really happen in the real world, to arrive at their "extraordinary claim".

This included fires longer and hotter than what took place. It assumed absolutely no thermal conductivity of the steel beams. (Imagine that steel does not conduct any heat next time you heat needle to pull a sliver from your finger.) It assumed no sheer studs on the girder to concrete floor system, (there were sheer studs) and it assumed that only the steel girders heated, but remarkably not the floor slab directly connected to it.

Why did NIST have to lie with their computer inputs? It was the only way to get the extraordinary thermal expansion of the girder relative to the floor slab, inducing absurd expansions with no sagging in order to "push" the girder off its seat. Yet despite all that , their model fails miserably as their own graphic, with its twisted sides, does not match what we saw.

NIST also assumed RDX to determine the decibel levels. But it was nano-thermite (not ordinary thermite) a very high tech military explosive that was found in the dust. And there were numerous eye witness testimonies of explosions as well as the eutectic steel found by FEMA, all totally ignored by NIST.

Regardless, its impossible to have free fall acceleration of a falling body if there is anything whatsoever in the way, or it simply wouldn't fall "freely". The only way for a building accelerate like this is to have some other force first remove all supports. And the likely force, is that force from explosives, which matches all other known evidence.

So focus on the free fall acceleration and remember what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Sorry...sometimes the truth hurts.

Jonathan Cole

The NIST RDX decibels story is a weak hypothesis

Were they there at wtc7 with a sound level meter?

I wrote and they replied:

"The article is a report on the official report released by The National Institute of Standards and Technology. It is not an opinion piece. If you have issues with the findings, we suggest you take it up with The National Institute of Standards and Technology directly."
No opinion piece, right.

I got the same reply

No point in responding. They are not listening. We are talking to an answering machine with a BS denial message.

Well of course, they would say that ...

because they're a bunch of fakes, phoneys and frauds.

The fact is, this article is pure propaganda - one-sided, repetitive and designed to sway public opinion ... it mentioned the NIST report, but it also mentioned "potentially explosive" thermite, and NIST's report makes no mention of thermite, or explosives ... so the article isn't just a report about the NIST report, it's officially sanctioned opinion... dogma, actually. These people are simply liars, and well paid liars at that.