Foreknowledge of Building 7's Collapse : Dr. Graeme MacQueen

Investigate Building 7 : March 26 2011, West Hartford CT

The Case for a New Building 7 Investigation
First of a a Three-part Presentation Introduced by Dr. William Pepper, International Human Rights Attorney

Foreknowledge of Building 7's Collapse
Dr. Graeme MacQueen

Even though World Trade Center Building 7 is said to have been the first steel-framed building in history to undergo total collapse due to fire, there were many people who knew the building was going to collapse long before it did. In this presentation, the evidence for this peculiar foreknowledge will be summarized and its significance discussed. The argument will be made that it is impossible to explain this foreknowledge on the basis of the collapse hypothesis offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The only hypothesis that explains this foreknowledge is the controlled demolition hypothesis.

(Full Version: HD) (more to come in coming days)

This presentation is one of

This presentation is one of the best ive ever seen.

I'm curious...

Both towers fell long before WTC7. Isn't it possible that because the towers fell, people thought it was possible WTC7 might fall as well? Isn't it possible that because of the "fog of war" that did exist that day, some of the "predictions" of collapse were sent out to different news agencies prematurely, and those reports were misreported on as if it had already collapsed?

I haven't watched this yet, but this is a thought I've had for a while since the bad "news reports" were found. Did anyone ever ask the news stations what their sources were for these bad "news reports?" Most "mainstream" media outlets use news wires like Associated Press. I'm wondering if the same wire was sent out everywhere.

included in the "bad news report" is the CAUSE!

"some of the "predictions" of collapse were sent out to different news agencies prematurely, and those reports were misreported on as if it had already collapsed?"

another report (at 4:35 in this video) of the "Saloman Brothers Bldg has also collapsed"

What is so damning is that the CAUSE is also stated.

(at 14:50 in this video) "not the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened"

The building...

Was weakened I thought. Wasn't there a huge gash in one of the corners? I just think there's an alternative explanation for the foreknowledge that isn't "sinister" in nature. Maybe I'm wrong.

Everything 9/11 is "sinister"


I think...

There was legitimate confusion on 9/11. How could there not be? Not everything can be written off by confusion obviously, but there was definitely confusion that morning. Always look at both sides of the equation. It improves your own arguments.

Fair point Jon

but I think it is necessary to take your suggestion to its logical conclusion. Here is my reaction: If it was natural to believe that WTC7 should collapse because of its fire/damage then the same should be the case for all other buildings that suffered damage/fire. Can you find similar news clips on that day where they talk about bringing other buildings down or that they would collapse? If you can find this I would say that you have a strong case. Otherwise one has to wonder why WTC7 was singled out.

What about WTC3-4-5-6?


Voted you up, but.... You should read the NIST report on WTC 7.

It's not fair to keep saying things and making criticisms without having read the report.

Tell you what...

You get the 9/11 Truth Movement to read and watch everything in this, and I'll take the time to read NIST's report. And "we" were criticizing the Government's explanation regarding WTC7 long before NIST released its report. You don't have to read a report to question what is being put forward publicly.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Just look the footage/photos, Jon. It's obvious to a layman that explosives were used at Towers 1 & 2. Gravitational collapse has nothing to do with this.


I never once considered it until I became affiliated with the 9/11 Truth Movement. Danny Pearl, Sibel Edmonds, the Families, Bush and Cheney asking Daschle not to investigate the attacks, and the Aug. 6th PDB were the first things to interest me. And I had seen the video of the collapses as often as the media liked to show it.

You know

now that I think about it...

The way I remember it, I had never seen the collapse of 7 on TV. After I found out more about WTC 7, it made a lot of sense why they didn't show it on TV.

I also remember that they didn't show the collapses of the twin towers nearly as often as they showed the plane hitting the south tower. That was just over, and over, and over. I tend to think that they did that to reinforce the idea that plane impacts, in addition to the ensuing massive fires are what brought the towers down in the exact same fashion. And I tend to think that they didn't show 7's collapse on TV very often at all to reinforce the idea that....only 2 buildings fell to the ground like mining blasts.

Its always reminded me of stuff like this:

I defo

Remember building 7 coming down. They did show it a few times. But at that point in the mass confusion after the other two towers. Friends of mine and I all had thoughts similar to 'well there's ANOTHER building that fell today. Just seems like what's happening in NY.' Didn't really think to much more of it, because after the first two, it just felt like more tragedy in an already sad and weird feeling day.

Just in order to provide us with something bizarre

First: Please excuse writing errors in this comment.
Then: In my opinion it is blatantly obvious that those buildings were taken down by CD.
The problem is rather: Why did they do it, even with WTC7? What was the reason and could that reason be the reason for Jon Gold's discomfort?
Yes, I know that there was a CIA-centre in WTC7 and there could be reasons satisfying our rational mind. But what about all the foreknowledge, CNN-reports, BBC-reports, all this is giving us a picture of an emperor without clothes, a naked emperor who is even known for his vanity. He appearing naked to the public? Impossible! Unthinkable!
So why did they take down WTC7 by CD? My theory: Just because of the absurdity of it! The absurdity was the reason. (When it comes to the Twin Towers, the shock of the violent destruction can be understood as a reason, but the CD of WTC7 not. That CD was probably designed to become just another bizarre fact. A rather quiet bizarre fact.
It was designed to look irrational. Because the irrational is a perfect turn-off for a lot of rational people. By pointing to the facts, we appear like those UFO-people. It was designed to look irrational, so we could look like those UFO-people. That was the trap. Giving us an image-problem ("Truthers = UFO-fanatics, you see?)
So I think Jon Gold has a point somehow.
The whole point about the CD of WTC7 was in my humble opinion to reinforce disbelief by the sheer absurdity of the facts.
That must also be the reason for the huge overkill by using tons and tons of thermite to destroy the Twin Towers completely. Oh, do you remember few years ago when we preferred the theory that the Twin Towers were taken down by much smaller amounts of explosives? Although the fact of the streams of molten metal was running in the face of that theory, we preferred it because it seemed more rational, more easy to understand, more easy to explain.
And how about the testimony of explosions hours before WTC7 came down? There is no reason for those explosions taking place. Id est, I believe that this is just the reason for them! In terms of taking down the building, there was no reason to let something explode inside WTC7 hours before 5:20 PM that day, the only reason for those explosions was to provide us with some more bizarre facts.
That was probably - by the way - also the point about using names and identities of living pilots from the Middle East for the alleged hijackers. The facts had to be as crazy as possible.
My humble opinion is that there is a problem by focusing on facts that appear absurd. I do not say that we should stop educating the public about the forensic evidence. But we should be conscious that the whole thing was designed to look incredible and incomprehensible. Those problems should also be addressed. (Once more: Please excuse my spelling errors and syntax-errors)

There were serious case files housed in WTC 7

that were lost and never resurrected after the building collapse. There are real means, motives, and opportunities attached to this crime that have yet to be investigated.

Saying it was done to generate a bizarre reality is an unsupported assumption.

These kinds of comments

Are a logical fallacy. If you think explosives brought down 7, there are better ways of saying it. If you go around saying to people what you just said, you re-enforce ideas of the truth movement like THIS:

And before people down vote, I think CD is very likely and there is great research being done to confirm this. That being said, if people like Gage and others skip the basic facts and just launch into detailed CD discussions, Justice and Truth lose. People lack the fundamental facts which have direct implications of guilt within then. We need to show these first, then start talking about 'possible' or 'most likely' explanations and theories.

? kdub, I am curious...

Regarding Building 7 from your comment above:
Do you "think CD is very likely" ?...
...Do you think that it was definitely brought down by controlled demolition?

That's what NIST initially claimed...

... that there was a huge gash in the southwest corner and that huge portions of the building's south facade had been "scooped out", but all that was forgotten in its final report.

First all the evidence is destroyed without investigation. Then they begin a 7-year "hypothesis game", in which they first try to attribute the total collapse to south-side damage and to diesel fuel stored in tanks in the building. In 2006, their lead WTC investigator says in an interview: "...I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building 7". Then they come up with a totally new theory that they put in their final report. Still, their 3D collapse models do not resemble at all the way WTC 7 can be seen coming down in all the videos.

You yourself once replied to me on 911Blogger that NIST's WTC 7 investigation does not appear to be valid. It certainly was not valid, and not just for those reasons mentioned above, which already make it invalid.

Please watch Graeme's presentation, Jon.

The prescient mayor Giuliani's office put out word at 1:00 PM

that "building 7 was lost". Think about that.

This had the effect of keeping firefighters away from the building and not charging the sprinkler system using the external siamese fittings, of which WTC 7 had three. Contrary to what we have been told there was water at the site after the twin tower collapses, as two or three fireboats were just 300 yards away in the Hudson River. There is photographic evidence of water being sprayed on other buildings early in the afternoon, well before WTC 7's collapse, but nothing was being done to put out the fires in it. Nobody could blame firefighters for not attempting to extinguish the fires in WTC 7 if they were told it would collapse, especially after what they saw happen to their colleagues in the twin towers.

The southwest corner damage as well as the alleged bulging wall, that firefighters put a transit on, would have been inconsequential to the overall stability of the building. It would have been impossible to predict a collapse based on this observed minor damage and fire in the building.

WTC 5 was damaged far worse with much more fierce fires and no prediction of its imminent collapse was made, or of any other damaged building in the area.

Anyone who doubts that there was real foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse, which could not have been based on the observed damage and fires, should watch Dr. MacQueen's presentation before commenting any further.

Show "Regarding WTC5..." by Jon Gold

WTC 7 could have been easily saved

by hooking up to the external siamese fittings.

It seems the incredible predictions of the building's imminent collapse kept them from doing so.

I am not sure if any of the reporters like Aaron Brown, Brian Williams, etc. have been asked where they got their information from, but they should be asked. Under oath preferably.

Was anyone trying to...

"Save" WTC5?

I don't understand your point

Have you watched Dr. MacQueen's presentation yet?

There is no point...

I'm asking if they tried to save WTC5. If they tried to save WTC5, which was clearly more damaged than WTC7, and not WTC7, I would find that to be interesting.

No, I have not watched it yet. I will probably watch it over the weekend.

To all you "downvoters," there's nothing wrong with asking questions.

"WTC5, which was clearly more damaged than WTC7"

Yes WTC 5 was far more dammaged than WTC 7, to the point that WTC 5 wasn't worth trying to save, though it only had a small section in the upper floors collapsed. On the other hand, WTC 7 being notably less damaged than WTC 5 wouldn't have even partially collapsed had it not been rigged to come down, just like the many other similarly damaged buildings around the complex didn't come down, and nor were any of the other buildings predicted to do so.

Anyway, I agree with your suggestion that there's nothing wrong with asking questions. I'm guessing the people who voted you down are just holding a grudge against you for how long you've avoided seeking out the answers to questions many of us here have resolved years ago. That said, I for one applaud your newfound interest in WTC 7, and will be voting your "I'm curious" post up. I hope you might post here again after you've watched MacQueen's presentation, as I'm interested to see your take on his answers to your questions.


The questions are resolved? Funny, and I don't have a "newfound interest" in WTC7. I'm still never going to lead with "Controlled Demolition" when I participate in any actions for this cause. It's about reaching the most people, and CD doesn't do it.

Most of the questions are resolved

as far as the reality that the three buildings were taken down via controlled demolition being beyond doubt at this point. Anyone looking at it honestly has to arrive at that conclusion and there is no need to be an engineer to see it.

It is only politics stopping a genuine investigation needed to determine precisely who did it, and precisely how it was done. The what and even the why has been resolved.

And you are welcome to your own approach

which does not need to include the controlled demolitions of the three high-rise buildings if you choose not to.

What I think most would say you are not welcome to do is to constantly berate others with your opinion that exposing the illicit controlled demolitions that occurred is somehow erroneous.

What I think is "erroneous"

Is 9/11 Truth being equal to Controlled Demolitions when there is a massive amount more that doesn't sound crazy and is able to reach more people. I get so much "flack" because of my views regarding CD... that I don't push it enough, etc... and so on, and the fact of the matter is... the "movement" is ignoring a massive amount of information. When it chooses to solely focus on the question of how those buildings came down. Lisa and Victor used to campaign to make this movement solely about CD. They would attack people like Kyle Hence, Nick Levis, Janice Matthews, etc... and here we are. Exactly as they wanted us to be. Good for them.

I'd like to see a survey of what changed minds...

and brought them into the movement.

You are correct that there is a MASSIVE amount of information.

"massive amount more that doesn't sound crazy"

CD may sound crazy...until you see WTC7 and some of the closeup video of the twins.

The it becomes so obvious that a child can see it

Most people say...

It was "Loose Change." That doesn't apply to me.

Personally it was WTC 7 that made me suspicious

but after getting into it I also looked at many of the peripheral supporting issues, like the change in the hijacking protocol in 2001, Norman Mineta's testimony about Dick Cheney's role in the PEOC, Marvin Bush's involvement with Securacom, etc. Although none of these things prove anything in and of themselves when woven together they provide a mozaic of a possible conspiracy. However, when combined with the controlled demolition hypothesis and the destruction of evidence by Giuliani and co. the full package provides powerful evidence of conspiracy.

I think part of your problem Jon is that you didn't fully appreciate the evidence for controlled demolition. You actually said to me at St. Joseph's college a few years ago, when I had come up to meet Dr. Steven Jones, that endosing the CD hypothesis was like giving a mugger a gun. I had to wonder if you understood that you were talking to a mature and grounded 51 year old mechanical engineer. I didn't exactly jump right into believing those buildings were controlled demolitions without looking at the evidence for it and giving it all some serious thought. I would bet the same can be said of the vast majority of other scholars who have come to realize the three building collapses were the result of illicit and covert controlled demolitions, to shock and awe the American public into supporting the use of their military for clandestine resource wars, with the aircraft impacts being causal ruses used to blame outsiders.

My studies resulted in several papers about the building collapses. One which I co-wrote with Dr. MacQueen is discussed by David Chandler here in this video Chandler and MacQueen are serious and bright scholars and they do not jump to conclusions.

I have to tell you that when I explain these issues to my colleagues they invariably understand that there are serious problems with the current official reports and start to have doubts of their own. Dr. Zdenek Bazant's work is pure nonsense as he provably exaggerates the energy of the upper section by over 8 times to gain an energy advantage. Unfortunately, his papers are allowed to be published with little review.

I have resisted confronting you on your jaded view of the CD argument but finally thought I needed to address it here.

Having said all that, I don't think the controlled demolition of the three high-rises should be all that is looked at and exposed and there are plenty of issues to be studied. However, I do think you are protesting too much about it Jon and it sounds like you now believe that an emphasis on CD might have hurt the movement. You should realize that the only reason you haven't been dismissed as a myopic crank is that you have done good work in other areas of research on the 911 plot, which shows that those who do appreciate the accuracy and reality of the controlled demolition hypothesis are not myopic and also appreciate your contributions.

There is plenty of room for the type of work you are doing, it is not at odds with the controlled demolition hypothesis, is also in need of exposure, and makes the overall case stronger. You really should take a chill pill, and continue to work in the area you feel comfortable in without deluding yourself that the controlled demolition hypothesis is not believable and could be causing the movement harm, just because it isn't your cup of tea. The reality is that the 911 plot had to be a tentacled operation and it all should be exposed. However, that isn't a job for one person and it would seem a tentacled investigation is needed to expose the tentacled criminal operation.

I believe it would be divided up many ways

Loose Change is a big one
In Plane Sight (the first full film I saw after Fahrenheit 911)
DR Griffin on C-Span, The New Pearl Harbor
911 Mysteries
Confronting the Evidence (Jimmy Walters)
Press for Truth
The Jersey Girls
Guns and Butter -Bonnie Faulkner
Michael Ruppert (Crossing the Rubicon)
Core of Corruption
Fahrenheit 911
Richard Gage and AE911Truth
Jesse Ventura
The Liberty Movement
Steven Jones
William Rodriguez
Truth Action
Jane Standley and the BBC "jump the SMOKING gun Cock-up"
David Shayler
David Icke
Republic Broadcasting

to name a few.

I know a few of these are beyond questionable but they did indeed bring people in.

The presentations of the evidence just gets better all the time.

Graeme McQueen and Kevin Ryan come to mind.

What did I forget? add to the list.

The part in LC2e

where the collapse of one of the twin towers has a timer next to it.
That shattered my paradigm!


It is amazing to me that Controlled Demolitions sound crazy to you Jon!

Why do you think you know what everyone is doing? You say:

"the "movement" is ignoring a massive amount of information."

...but this is 6 comments into a thread that you have not even read or watched the post!!!

No offense but stop talking like you know what the movement is doing as a whole or me as an individual.

Yes, really

The questions you asked are old-hat, as the facts which answer them have long been available for anyone who cared to look. My "newfound interest" comment was in regard to you apparently just finally coming around to pondering those questions, and again I hope you do take the time to watch MacQueen's presentation, as he does an excellent job of recounting the answers.

CD doesn't do it?

If the WTC7 CD footage wouldn't exist, I believe you would have lost a significant part of the 911 truth movement. I have watched your startup kit which is indeed very good. But you have to realize that many members of the 911 truth movement would not have gotten involved because of that particular information. I also think you have to accept that someone like Matt Taibbi might not find your material compelling enough to be "turned over".

It is undeniable that WTC7 is and has attracted many people to the movement. And as the "building what?" campaign seems to demonstrate, there is still many more people out there who will be more accepting to the 911 movement once exposed to WTC7. We should capitalize on that.

"But you have to realize that

"But you have to realize that many members of the 911 truth movement would not have gotten involved because of that particular information. "

Hogwash! I got into 9/11 truth because of information like that. Basic facts, long before Jim Hoffman started doing his excellent WTC7 research. It has helped in some ways. The main prob that Jon and many feel is that keeping this the first thing you talk about or the only thing you talk about is an ineffective way to reach the most people and also point out direct guilt. Why? Because like Jules pointed out recently, even if you prove CD, you don't get specific answers as to who did. Or even who has the answers to do it. If you on the other hand bring CD after or during discussions of basic facts of the day, you can reach out to WAY more people. It's that simple. It doesn't have to be All Cd or No Cd. The basic facts though are hard and direct. They give us specific people (ie Cheney, Zelikow) and specific groups (ie NORAD) to go after. These are fundamental and MUST be included in ANY 9/11 presentations to the public. It would be most beneficial even to those who are opening minds to CD.


I completely agree that the non-CD material is an essential component in any strategy to get more people involved and accepting of the 911 movement. Sure many gets into 911 because of non-CD information. But it is simultaneously true that many people would *not* have gotten involved if the WTC7 footage would not have been around. These two statements are not logically contradictory. Personally I would never have been sure if it were not for WTC7 collapse footage. I remember watching "loose change" and other documentaries with skeptical amusement. It was mostly entertainment to me, just like watching a documentary about area 52. And then came the moment when I saw building 7. That changed everything. And the flaws of "loose change" and other documentaries quickly became irrelevant. It was building 7 than changed my whole perspective and I started taking the other material seriously.

"If you on the other hand bring CD after or during discussions of basic facts of the day, you can reach out to WAY more people."

You have to demonstrate the accuracy of this claim. On what do you base this conclusion? I think it is clear that Richard Gauge's presentations and the "building what?" campaign demonstrates that focusing on CD and building 7 can be very effective. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to saying that they have had a negative effect on the growth of the 911 movement by not "hiding" WTC7 and evidence of CD. Perhaps you are right here, but you need to support this claim with something.

"Correct me if I'm wrong but

"Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to saying that they have had a negative effect on the growth of the 911 movement by not "hiding" WTC7 and evidence of CD."

You need to stop playing games with claiming what I 'seem to be' saying and read my words again. Maybe I have just spoken to more people on the street than you have. I doesn't matter. I don't even know if you are reading my posts. It is simply illogical to argue that we should ONLY focus on WTC7. No matter how strong it is. I'm not telling you to ONLY focus on military stand down. There are a number of facts which are critical to address along with CD discussions in public forums if we want to be taken seriously. A presentation with more hard facts about 9/11 in addition to CD will only help open peoples minds to Cd theories. Read that last sentence again.

Did I miss something?

'It is simply illogical to argue that we should ONLY focus on WTC7.'

I did not see the prior comment (nor anyone in this thread, for that matter) as making that argument at all.

Over the top


If you spent less time on 911Blogger complaining, and more time stuying the CD evidence, you would see that any doubt that controlled demolition was used is resolved and beyond question. To suggest otherwise suggests wilful ignorance.

I don't complain about you working on the other type of material, which you do expertly, and don't see why you should complain about some of us working with CD evidence, when we are working in our fields of expertise. I value your work and refer to it when appropriate.

You followed me on Facebook to place a snide remark about my attention to physical evidence. I thought that was over the top.

Resistance To CD Evidence By Some Seems Less Than Genuine

At times it almost seems as though some who shall remain nameless, purposely assume a "devil's advocate" position regarding their resistance to the evidence of demolition for reasons known only to them. This usually comes in the form of repeatedly denying the obvious to the point of seeming absurd.


Than Genuine? Even though I have had the same position for as long as I can remember, and evidence of this position is everywhere? Another accusation/insinuation Aidan? How many times have you cried for this cause Aidan?

This article came out today. Maybe you like being able to be written off just because someone doesn't agree with one issue. I do NOT.

Thanks for the link

I added some comments there. Can't stop that from happening, no matter what the particular focus is.

BTW, the "that's nuts!" type of resistance to new information has happened while trying to discuss many aspects of 9/11 truth with my friends. There's an overarching "it can't happen here" mentality which needs to be appreciated and then brought into the light to show what a defense mechanism and filter for new information it is. Then people might wonder why we were still working with Bin Laden up to and including on 9/11, for instance.


You will be written off with or without Gage. You are challenging dogma and by default you get written off. This is the nature of the game. Just like Taibbi writes you off even though you tried your best and present the material you find the most compelling and take out "crazy" ones like CD.

The only thing we can do is to stick together and support each other.

That article is retarded to

That article is retarded to be politically incorrect.

Is that the stuff that influences you Jon?

Because that article isn't $%^% compared to the benefits of Tony Szamboti (of AE9/11Truth) on FOX with Geraldo, I suggest you lay off the negatives and find some positives.

I did what on facebook?

As far as I know, I never posted on your wall or messaged you. What exactly was the "snide remark?"

Edit: I messaged you, "Hi Frank. Tired of the Pentagon yet?" to be funny. It was not intended to be "snide." I was saying hello to you. You didn't respond. That is the area you focus the most on... have written several papers on... I have been "tired" of the "what hit the Pentagon" argument since forever. I was asking to see if you were as well. Nothing "snide" about it.

I have to say

that if Frank had posted: "Hi Jon. Tired of Sibel Edmonds yet?", you probably wouldn't have found it amusing either.

Sorry, but I don't believe you were just saying hello. Just like I don't believe Tony just so happens to mention 'Mockingbird' so close to your name. In both cases, it needlessly escalates tensions. Perhaps nobody is interested in mending the ongoing dispute between these two 'camps' for lack of a better description, but it's going to take efforts from both sides.

I'll gladly accept excoriation by both sides if that's the price for speaking my mind. Jon et al. are right about too much focus on CD, and the other side is right about the lack of substantive scientific critique, such as Ray/Femr2's graphs.

Personally, I stand with information which is factually correct, and I don't care how 'crazy' anyone thinks that sounds. It also means that if I come across factually correct information that challenges CD, I will not willfully ignore it.

Heed the warning though: never forget to hedge your bets when it comes to 9/11 research and activism, be skeptical, not gullible, and demand the utmost and highest standards.

In regard to that comment

about 'tired of the pentagon yet.' It seems pretty obvious to me that this was a statement NOT AT ALL meant to belittle Frank's efforts and research. More like a, 'aren't you tired of having to spend your valuable time and research on this?' I can see the sarcasm and Frank that is all that was meant there. Sarcasm in texts and posts always has trouble coming across, but guys, that's what happened here. Jon's comment got mis-understood by Frank. Jon is way more mature than that yall.

Yes SnowCrash...

I was just saying hello. I have no reason to be "tired" of Sibel Edmonds if he did say it. She hasn't been used against us. She has only helped us. Whereas...


I've read you express sentiments along the lines of: "Just stop studying the Pentagon, it's a waste of time" before.... and what I thought was: "We're trying to clean up the mess here, and deal with the misinfo" ...--- I would think it helps you if nonsense Pentagon theories were countered forcefully, and people will move on to more fruitful lines of inquiry, such as the families' unanswered questions.

So there we have Frank Legge, doing his darndest to deal with unscientific jibber-jabber that harms the movement, and I hope he gets praise for that. If that was how you meant it, great. Compare it to backoffice work, such as tech support, hrm and facility management, none of which contribute directly to productivity, yet are indispensable if an organization is to survive. I really believe my vision in this matter: it benefits the movement if we say a plane hit the Pentagon, because that's what the evidence shows. Most important of all: it demonstrates we're capable of being rational, sensible, and that we're willing to follow the facts and the evidence, and that we differ from 'debunkers' for exactly those reasons.

The nanothermite paper doesn't have any charitable explanation, what am I supposed to do? I'm not going to say the paper makes us look stupid, I think the paper contributes to the understanding of an extremely important 9/11 event: the demise of two iconic skyscrapers and tangentially, a third, whose collapse represents a 'black swan event', like 9/11 itself.

I hope you still think there's value in studying WTC 7's fall? Value in papers like these? Maybe you just don't want people to express the amount of certainty about this issue they're expressing? Because you know if they're ever conclusively proved wrong, it would be disastrous?

May I point out to all reading here that we don't have video of floors 7-14, and that this lacuna of video evidence is crucial?

Jon, my apologies

I see that you were just saying hello. Hello Jon. Yes, effort on the Pentagon has been tiring, but I am not about to give up on it as I believe the disputation is damaging to the cause.

As well as being tiring, it has landed me in a great deal of controversy and abuse from people in the 9/11 truth movement. I do not see why it should attract abuse because all I try to do is draw attention to the evidence and examine it to see what can be deduced from it. What I think I have conclusively shown is that it cannot be proved that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Why that should be a problem for some people I do not know.

SnowCrash urges us to go further and say that the evidence is overwhelming that a large plane hit the Pentagon. He suggests we should stop beating about the bush and plainly assert that it did hit.

It happens that there will soon be some more evidence presented on this subject. It will be interesting to see who is persuaded by it and who is not.

new evidence


Interesting indeed

Jon: "If they tried to save WTC5, which was clearly more damaged than WTC7, and not WTC7, I would find that to be interesting."

Sitting-Bull has linked to images showing just that - an already damaged WTC5 being doused.

Dr. MacQueen's analysis is incisive and penetrating as always.

I've often wondered why anyone who knew WTC7 was to be brought down would be so foolish as to prematurely announce it had fallen. This presentation suggests an answer. In order to to normalise the extraordinary event before if occurred., the message had to be seeded in the media that the building was "about to / on the point of / poised to" collapse. Consequently, the collapse became an "inevitability" and its exact timing a mere matter of detail. Only in this context could journalists find themselves talking about a high rise building that "is either collapsed or is collapsing" (CNN) or that is collapsed before it has collapsed (BBC), as if describing a mysterious subatomic particle.


See the fire suppress working on WTC 5:

At 9:00 minutes into this

At 9:00 minutes into this recently uploaded video you can see some clear fire suppression on WTC #5 well after it had been burnt completely.

One other thing

(See also my comment above.) Graeme demonstrates very well how NIST's explanation in their final report (which differs from previous official hypotheses and is not based on normal disaster investigation, as the research material was destroyed before investigation, which alone should ring some massive bells) is totally incompatible with any kind of evidence-based foreknowledge of the building's demise people around the building could have had.

Again, I look forward to your comments on the presentation after the weekend.

It's an excellent lecture

MacQueen's presentation answers all your questions in far more detail than anyone could rightly be expected to recount here, I highly recommend watching it.

Graeme makes solid point

Graeme makes solid point after point in this talk on how it could not have been the fog of war.

Arron Brown turning around to see just what he is supposed to be reporting and seeing is an ace bit of analysis by Macqueen.

You do not predict

a 47-story steel skyscraper to completely collapse (let alone the way it did), when it has some local damage and fires on a few floors. There's no reason whatsoever to have expected that, because it takes a lot more damage and fires and even then one would expect only some kind of partial collapse. I wonder about all the firemen who were told this, what were they thinking when they heard this information? Surely they must've been thinking "No f..king way it's going to collapse". Or maybe not, because they didn't think WTC2 was gonna (totally) collapse, but it did anyway. Were any of the firefighters that were interviewed afterwards ever asked if they thought WTC7 was going to collapse completely, were they asked how they thought it was going to collapse, after hearing it's structural integrity was in doubt? Were they told that WTC7 was going to be "brought down", indicating human interference? Surely there wasn't ONE fireman who watched it collapse and thought afterwards "Wow, that was some natural collapse from fires".

These specific questions have not been asked to my knowledge, to any firefighter or firechief, maybe it would be a good idea to do so after all. Ask them about what they were thinking themselves when they were told (by this apparent "mystery engineer") that 7 was going down.

shock doctrine

people were more susceptible to accepting the absurd as they were in a childlike state of acceptance and seeking comfort/instruction from authority following the trauma of the twin towers' destruction

Thank you for posting this!

This is excellent quality. See below for other videos of the recent Hartford event, featuring Richard Gage, and many others. Very important presentations by Graeme MacQueen, Kevin Ryan, and Tony Szamboti.

The conference was "Investigate Building 7: A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time," held March 26, 2011, at the University of Hartford, CT. Speakers included architect Richard Gage, family members Manny Badillo and Bob McIlvaine; attorney Dr. William Pepper; professor Dr. Graeme McQueen; engineers Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti; filmmaker John Kirby; and journalists Mark Crispin Miller, Leslie Griffith, Craig Unger, and Dick Russell.

Superb presentation

It's always a great pleasure to view Graeme MacQueen's presentation.

The question is: how could we make someone who has the power to act on the evidence to watch them?

"Superb presentation" is right on.

MacQueen's presentation was excellent.

Ok… I watched it…

These are the notes I jotted down...

I liked his emphasis on the importance of the building.

I never heard of a "tremor" before it collapsed. Can someone show this to me?

The BBC mentioned the Marriott building falling also because of the damage caused by the collapse of the towers. Again, is it possible that people thought, because of the other buildings that fell, that WTC7 also would fall… I would love to know the sources for these news reports of its collapse.

The BBC said "It was just an error and nothing more…" they had to have gotten the information from somewhere… where?

Regarding "foreknowledge" for the entirety of the event, it springs to mind that Philip Zelikow says… and this isn't related to WTC7…

"We didn't find any of those stories about people with foreknowledge of the attack was true."

I wonder how people deal with Daniel Nigro… who was put in charge of the area around WTC7… who is adamant it wasn't a Controlled Demolition.

Has anyone contacted Larry Silverstein's insurance company… the one he supposedly called to see if they would cover a CD?

Is it possible that the "collapse" people were talking about was a partial collapse? As far as I know… there isn't a quote from someone talking about a complete collapse. Am I wrong?

So NIST says what I said… that because of the collapse of the towers, people were concerned about the possible collapse of WTC7. On its face, it makes sense. When you compare it to the idea that this is the first time its ever happened before, it doesn't.

What was the name of the engineer that was giving advice about the buildings?

I do think it's interesting that the damage in the corner, the diesel fuel tanker in the basement (excuses for the collapse we used to hear), weren't mentioned in the final report as a cause of collapse.

It seems as though the way it's being presented… the firefighters waiting around for hours for it to collapse, the firefighter on MSNBC talking about "taking it down" etc… that they were somehow involved with the collapse of the building, or at the very least, aware of those working to bring it down. In the past, we have heard stories of firefighters being afraid of losing their pensions for speaking out. Do we have video of multiple firefighters saying this?

Has anyone ever asked FDNY about the option of taking down a building in the event it can't be saved, and whether or not they are capable of wiring a building themselves? Is this part of their "procedures?" From what I understand (someone told me once), that used to be something firefighters would do so as to prevent the spread of fires. In the event they couldn't save a particular building. I don't know if it's still practiced.

As I have mentioned before, being the owner of the WTC is enough reason to have brought Larry Silverstein forward to testify.

Didn't Barry Jennings… on either the documentary made by the BBC or National Geographic… I don't remember, clarify his remarks? How was that dealt with?

This was an excellent talk Dr. MacQueen, and while I think there are still some questions… I will share it.


"I never heard of a "tremor" before it collapsed. Can someone show this to me?"

This is from the final report on WTC 7's collapse by NIST (p. 42-43):

"A seismic signal approximately 10 s prior to the onset of collapse.”


You. Did they by chance mention how much of a seismic disturbance it was... capable of bringing down a building? Though, it would be odd for them to admit something like that if the idea of a Controlled Demolition is not what they're arguing for.

Edit: Here is what is said...

"Analysis of a video shot prior to and during the collapse showed an east-west vibration of the building prior to its collapse (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5 and Appendix C). The horizontal motion (± 2 in.) began 6 s before the east penthouse began to move downward. The horizontal building motion started at nearly the same time as the cascading floor failures started in the LS-DYNA analysis (-6.5 s), which preceded the buckling failure of Column 79. A seismic signal approximately 10 s prior to the onset of collapse was likely due to the falling of debris from the collapse (NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Appendix B). It is consistent that the falling debris (on the east side of the building) imparted some momentum in the east west direction as it descended."

No... they don't say how powerful the "seismic signal" was that I can see, but they do give a possible reason for it. Though, which "falling debris" are they talking about? Debris from WTC7? It doesn't make sense that a "seismic signal" that took place 10 seconds "prior to the onset of collapse" could be caused by debris falling from WTC7. Maybe I'm reading that wrong.


As it stands, NIST's comment is, of course, unclear and verges on the absurb. Falling debris from the collapse preceded the collapse. What they mean is that debris from the internal collapse (hidden from our sight) caused the seismic signal and preceded (visible) outward collapse of the building.

Bear in mind that there's not a shred of empirical evidence to support the assertion of internal collapse caused by thermal expansion, etc., etc.

What we have is a seismic signal followed by visible, measurable collapse.

On page 49...

They say, "Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse."

Aside from witness statements like that of Barry Jennings and Craig Bartmer, is there any evidence of explosive noises prior to WTC7's collapse on video, and is this video legitimate or not?

Edit: The "downvoters" strike again. And people wonder why no one wants to associate with us. You can't even ask a question without being criticized.

additional topics

Kevin Ryan, Tony Szamboti and Richard Gage all gave excellent presentations on WTC 7 and its collapse at this gathering in West Hartford, so we should probably watch them all (I expect them to be posted soon) before discussing these additional aspects of the collapse. My talk focused on foreknowledge--and a bit of witness evidence.

and DRG

I should also mention that these topics are discussed in David Griffin's excellent book, "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," which anyone interested in this collapse will read carefully.

Hey RadicalPragmatist!

Can you please post the presentations by Kevin Ryan, Tony Szamboti and Richard Gage in one piece as you did with
this one with Graeme McQueen?

Find those videos here.

"people wonder why no one wants to associate with us"

What's this "us", have you got a mouse in your pocket?

Regardless, I doubt you'd be getting downvoted if you were an outsider or even newcomer to the movement. The problem is that we all know you aren't either by any stretch, yet you continue asking questions which have been resolved years ago, as you are apparently intent on ignoring anything which debunks the fanciful notion that the buildings weren't intentionally demolished. So, when faced with a choice between beating one's head on your brick wall of denial or just downvoting you and moving on, it seems those doing the latter are making the prudent choice.

Then post...

The answers to my questions. How do people deal with Daniel Nigro? What was the name of the engineer that was advising people about the buildings? Who planted the explosives? Is there any video evidence of the sound of explosions besides what I posted above, and is that video legitimate? What is the source of the news reports cited by people like Aaron Brown, etc...? Since they've already been resolved years ago... There are more questions above.

Daniel Nigro is really not an issue here

and would have simply been put in the position of doing his duty as a fire commander by creating a safety perimeter to keep everyone away from the building, after he was told it was going to collapse.

Shyam Sunder mentioned this mystery engineer in his debate with Dr. MacQueen but did not divulge his identity. NIST should be asked the question directly if they haven't been. Many of us would like to know who he is and have many more questions for him. I wouldn't be surprised that if/when this mystery guy is identified he will have been connected to Rudy Giuliani or his office somehow. After all it was Rudy's office that made the prescient comment that "building 7 is lost" at about 1:00 PM.

As for who planted the demolition devices an investigation into just who had access would be a start at answering that question. I can speculate that it was a major reason that Rudy Giuliani insisted on building his OEM bunker in WTC 7, against the wishes of the NYPD and FDNY, as this gave unfettered access to the entire building to set up the redundant power supply and life systems.

Reporters who were given information about WTC 7's imminent collapse that day should be asked under oath where they got that information and the trail should be followed back to its source. A new investigation is needed to do that and that is why it is being asked for. Sounds like you should be supporting the demand for a new investigation here too. Are you?

The questions which are resolved pertain to whether or not WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The freefall acceleration alone answers that question in the affirmative and there are other indicators like the symmetry of collapse across the full cross section of the building and the interior going a split second before the exterior. There is no possible natural failure mechanism which could cause these observable features of the actual collapse. As for the slew of other questions, pertaining to who and how, that is why a new investigation is needed.

Personally, I think an honest investigation would find that all roads would eventually lead to Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his office concerning how access was achieved to plant the demolition devices, the manipulation of the press and the fire department on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001 by proclaiming the building was going to collapse to keep firefighters from extinguishing the fires and providing a seemingly plausible natural excuse for the coming illegal demolition, and the subsequent destruction of the forensic evidence before an investigation could be done.


When considering Giuliani and his Office of Emergency Management, and where they were located contrary to the advise of the NYPD, also remember the person of Jerome Hauer, who headed the OEM, and also had a position with the firm in charge of security at the World Trade Center (not Securacom, but rather the one that hired Securacom to install a new security system). The OEM was to take part in a counterterrorism drill (one envisioning a chemical or biological attack, I believe) conveniently scheduled to take place the following day, September 12, for which an offsite headquarters--where Hauer and his staff were readily able to relocate --had already been prepared.

I can't believe you actually wrote something like that, Jon.

"Then post... The answers to my questions. [...] Who planted the explosives?"

Well, that's what all of us want to find out, don't we?

That sentence makes you sound like one of those defenders of the official story who expect us to have all the answers before we are to be taken seriously.

For what it's worth, I don't think a massive skyscraper can be wired for demolition during a couple of chaotic and logistically impossible hours.

And you think...

The statement that all of the questions have been resolved is ok? Alrighty then.

Lapse in ethics and morality?

Lapse in ethics and morality?

These are strong words towards someone who has one of the strongest senses of ethics and morality I have seen on this blog. Whatever you think about CD, this is out of line.

If only this had something to do with jealousy Tony!

I share Jon's concerns about the 9/11 justice movement being painted as the 'controlled demolition' movement. The media is now quite willing to talk about CD theories all day while ignoring the basic hard questions about 9/11, like military stand-down, specific prior knowledge etc. The media's attempts to frame 9/11 truth around CD and pentagon, and openly discuss these topics should tell you something about why we can't JUST focus on WTC7. People here seem to still be missing the point that the MAJORITY of people have heard about CD theories. The problem is they are so thick and detailed and filled with debunking papers which one must read then read the most thoughtful responses to, then read the responses to those etc. It's just NOT SIMPLE. Not only that, but proving CD doesn't tell us EXACTLY who to go after. This is not meant to downplay the thoughtful research by people like Frank Legge and David Chandler. But since the MAJORITY of people have the idea that 9/11 truth=cd conspiracy theories and 'we know who did it', EVERYONE when discussing this subject in public should be taking time to start with the basic facts about 9/11 and reference them. Launching into detailed research about CD and just talking about this specific topic will only re-enforce stereotypes (as much as we know they are not true) about those seeking 9/11 justice.


If you deplore the spot light that CD has gained you should try to do better with non-CD information. We only ask you not to stifle the momentum that is building up. The building what campaign made Rivera state publicly that he is more accepting to 911 truth. Good news indeed! People here would be very pleased if you in the future could generate similar achievements with non-CD information.


This has nothing to do with me deploring spotlights Haze. Why the frame games? Who is this weird 'we' group you are speaking for? You are trying to frame things as though I am against your CD momentum? Are you just not reading my comments? My point is that if people don't spread the fundamentals along with your Cd arguments we lose in the public eye, because most people don't know about the fundamental facts of the day. Your trying to force 9/11 truth into an either all CD or no CD framework. I am opposed to this black and white perspective. Life doesn't work this way and neither do effective ways for getting 9/11 Justice. We aren't playing LIHOP/MIHOP games here and I resent the divisive attitudes at play. There are many facts about 9/11 truth. Try and do better with non-cd information? What are you talking about? You act as though CD is the only thing around. I've reached out to hundreds of people on the street without a mention of CD. I've talked about building seven with many others to.

You are also responding to a post where I called out Tony for throwing out weird, baseless accusations questioning Jon Gold's integrity. Do you stand by Tony's statements? Tony was telling people to IGNORE Jon Gold. I found this offensive and divisive. Do you disagree?

I'm not telling you to ignore people or the subjects you care about. Your attempts at dividing and framing into debates when I'm only encouraging a broader perspective personify the attitudes which pushed away some of 9/11 truths most valuable researchers (like Nafeez Ahmed, Michael Ruppert, John Judge).

WARNING to commenters re accusations, insinuations, insults

Two comments just got removed for infracting on the rules, and more may be. If you want your comments to stay up, and keep your commenting privileges, don't accuse or insinuate users are trolling or infiltrating.

If you don't like what someone has to say, you can present your views and information, preferably with links, or ignore them or downvote them.

Pointing out false statements and logical fallacies and abusive behavior may be "useful information and commentary." Speculating on someone's motives and implying they're disruptors is not, and crosses the line.

"Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent will not be tolerated. If you believe someone is lying post the facts and let the readers decide for themselves.
Keep your comments relevant to the blog entry. Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults."

SECOND WARNING to commenters

A bunch more comments just got removed; ones that were off-topic as they're irrelevant to the OP, and further violated the rules by questioning the motives and integrity of other commenters, rather than addressing and refuting the arguments and evidence presented by them, with reasoned arguments and credible evidence - and links.

More comments may be removed; some that remain definitely don't reach the level of "useful information and commentary."

People may be instructed to refrain from responding to each other at 911blogger. People may have their accounts placed in moderation; once in moderation, comments generally must be of exceptional value to be approved.


"feigning that you are concerned that a spotlight on controlled demolition plays into the hands of the perpetrators?"




June 2008

July 2008

I suppose I was "feigning" then to Tony? I suppose as I watched articles like this declaring that the "final mystery" of 9/11 has been solved, and created a movie to counter that notion...

I was "feigning" concern? I suppose when articles like this one...

Or this one...

Come out, I "feign" concern about being able to be brushed aside on one issue, when there are SO MANY MORE?

When every single hit piece ever written, and debunking documentary or book focuses on this issue, it greatly concerns me, and I'm not feigning anything.

I mention the work of the CD advocates in my facts piece. I saved it for near to last because I WASN'T feigning concern. I mention the work of CD advocates... do you know I asked someone on Kevin Ryan's wall on facebook who Philip Zelikow is, this person being a member of the movement, and they said that he was the man to replace Henry Kissinger. I think that's sad.

Enjoy your cult.

If you aren't feigning then you are just wrong

and far too overly concerned that any emphasis on CD will drive people away. There will always be ignorant people who are dismissive and write stupid pieces like the recent one in Wausau,WI. But they won't be able to continue to do so. As the issue becomes better understood they will find they have no audience for their nonsense. Did you notice the guy did not get into the details and just used a bunch of ad hominem. He was taken to task for it in the comments, with one guy mentioning your information along with the CD evidence that Richard Gage presented.

If you are genuine you will study the CD evidence harder so you understand it and can express it coherently, along with your other information, although I don't understand why you haven't got a good grip on it by this point.

Just looking at the logic of it, to even think that all of the peripheral occurrences behind 911, like the change in hijacking protocol etc., were planned, but that the major part of the program (the collapses of the buildings) were accidents, is naive to the point of the extreme. Amazingly, that is what it seems you would have others believe.

When the above logic is coupled with scientific evidence for controlled demolition the reality is irrefutable, but you stubbornly continue to at least question it. That does not do much for your credibility. If I am wrong about your actual intent I apologize, but I would still say you are incorrect in your thinking about the evidence of controlled demolition.

The illicit demolition of WTC 7 was a tangible crime, which can certainly lead to indictments and prosecution. This is much different than the peripheral issues you tend to use in your arguments like

•Excessive "put options" purchased on American and United days before 9/11.
•A $100,000 wire transfer from the Pakistani ISI to Mohammad Atta.
•The absence of our military.
•The Secret Service not doing their job in regards to the President.
•Warnings from 14 different countries about the impending attacks.
•The August 6th, PDB.
•Whistleblowers like Coleen Rawley, Robert Wright, and Sibel Edmonds.

which, while supportive of the fact that 911 was a domestic conspiracy, don't have much of a chance of leading to a new investigation, indictments, and prosecutions.

The reason the hit pieces focus on the controlled demolition aspect is that it is the most dangerous to the perpetrators and certainly needs the most attention to keep it suppressed in the public mind as a fringe notion. The way to fight that is to continue explaining it, not to run from it and hope the job can be done differently.

It would seem to me that you could learn something from the Japanese senator who presented this information to his colleagues where he included the anomalous collapse of WTC 7 as well as some of the troubling issues like the put options.

Support The Credentialed Experts And Scientists

Regarding the overwhelming evidence for controlled demolition, all the non-experts should defer to the experts who speak authoritatively to the forensic evidence.

Only they can capably interpret all the scientific facts. People Like Tony Szamboti, Richard Gage, and Neils Harrit have to be allowed to lead in the science of 9/11 and not

be engaged by people without sufficient training which can lead to a false impression that the questioning is legitimate.

Better for the CD doubters to find a credentialed expert who is willing to ask questions. Until then support the scientists.

Common sense suffices quite far...

The destruction of WTC 7 matches a skilled controlled demolition, and its investigation was preceded by a rapid destruction of the material to be investigated.

These facts, combined with the obvious distortions in the NIST report and its admission but non-explanation of a freefall of ~8 stories of a building whose surface area is that of a football field and that had 81 support columns, is strong evidence that should not be brushed aside.

Jon, others support your important findings. You in turn should stop saying that the findings of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth should be downplayed.


From my understanding of this circle we love to keep walking in so much, Jon tends to focus on things like criminal negligence and obstruction of justice. As far as I know, these things are crimes, not "peripheral issues".

I disagree with your analysis of why the media tends to focus on CD. It almost sounds like you think there are rogue journalists bucking the trend and writing hit pieces on the movement, focusing on CD, all in an effort to clandestinely get the truth out to the people. If that's true, then I wonder why the hit pieces have never been viewed by just ONE expert in CD that has brought down skyscrapers. You'd think all those hit pieces about CD would lure one out of the woodwork to pull for our cause. Alas.

I dont expect Jon to learn about CD and preach it to the masses. Jon is not a scientist or building professional. He's a guy who cares about the truth and gets lumped in with the black t-shirt crowd. He has first hand experience of what turns people off to 9/11 truth, and he goes with what works in his experience. Ever since 9/11 truth became synonymous with Controlled Demolition, Jons been understandably bitter, considering that the CD brush is used to paint us all as unhinged. Isn't that neat? Something Jon doesnt even advocate gets him labeled as a conspiracy nut. Would that rub you the wrong way maybe?

I really do hope we get some mileage out of our version of "back and to the left". I don't expect we will, but you never know.

The public showing of the Zapruder film 12 years later,

after it had been purchased the day after the assassination and suppressed from the public by Time/Life Inc., is what caused the second investigation of the Kennedy assassination by the House Select Committee on Assassinations to occur. It was also probably responsible for the 1975 Church Committee which exposed a number of nefarious issues.

I would also say the only reason the film was ever seen by the public as a motion picture was due to it being the subject of a subpoena by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for the 1969 court trial of Clay Shaw concerning a conspiracy involved in the assassination. Life fought that subpoena all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but they had no basis to refuse it. Garrison subsequently left the tape on his desk and copies were made. Geraldo Rivera showed images from one of these copies on his late night show in March of 1975. There was no legitimate explanation for the back and to the left head movement being due to a shot from the right rear, which is where the Warren Commission said all of the shots came from, and public outrage forced the second investigation.

A subsequent Acoustic analysis of the Dallas Police Dictabelt tape from a motorcycle microphone and testing in Dealey Plaza showed there was at least four shots with at least one coming from in front of the limousine.

By the way, the current official position of the U.S. government is that "the Kennedy assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy" per the HSCA, but it was stopped there by the Reagan administration's Justice Dept.

The controlled demolition hypothesis is far from a crazy concept and can be shown to be the only explanation in a physical way which anyone can understand. There is nothing hard about understanding the fact that freefall acceleration for over 100 feet is not possible in a natural collapse of a building of this type of construction.

I would agree that not all journalists who bash the controlled demolition hypothesis are necessarily actively involved in a cover-up, but I would say these types are ignorant. However, it is also possible that those who do are on somebody's payroll, besides the newspaper or media organization they work for. The exposure of Operation Mockingbird showed us how that worked.

Jon Gold sounds like the man who doth protest too much. There is little basis for his complaints about the controlled demolition hypotheis and if he is genuinely trying to expose the reality of what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 he should take the approach used by Japanese senator Yukihisa Fujita, who includes the extremely anomalous collapse of WTC 7 along with other troubling issues like the extraordinarily high number of put options on United and American airlines stocks in the two weeks preceding Sept. 11, 2001, when he discusses the problems with the current official story and why a new investigation is needed.

I'm glad as can be you are with us Tony.


You might

be irritated with Jon's questions, or with his disposition towards CD. You have done a lot yourself, for 9/11 Truth... but I simply do not understand why so many of these, sometimes heated, debates and discussions have to culminate in one person, however slightly, suggesting that the other might be actively subverting the truth movement.

What could possibly be gained from that? Is that always the only explanation for why personalities collide, or differences of opinion arise? You end a sentence with Mockingbird, then in the next, you name Jon Gold. It's very subtle, but it gets the point across, doesn't it?

I don't understand why this is necessary, and I never have.

I agree

Tony, you continue to question whether Jon is genuine? Or his morals? Seriously? Are you discouraging people from protesting to Tony? Earlier you suggested people IGNORE Jon. Read Jon's comment below and tell me you are still questioning his intentions.


Jacketing again. Read the link below before questioning Jon's motives. There is no undermining of credibility going on here. Only people who refuse to be specific and want to claim that all the mysteries have been cleared up!

There was no intent to lump Jon Gold in as

being a participant in Operation Mockingbird and I don't see how you could have taken it that way.

My purpose in mentioning Operation Mockingbird was in response to Zombie Bill Hicks disagreeing with my earlier comment that journalistic hit pieces were most often written about the controlled demolition hypothesis because it is the most dangerous to the perpetrators and needs the most attention to keep it suppressed in the public mind as a fringe notion.

Zombie Bill Hicks thought it was impossible for random journalists around the country to be involved in such a scheme. My pointing out Operation Mockingbird was intended to show that it was certainly possible and that in fact there is precedent for it.

As for kdub's comments above, on my questioning of Jon Gold's genuineness, all I have to say is that it was Jon who started the loud complaining about what others like Architects & Engineers were doing with the controlled demolition hypothesis, and I don't think he has a legitimate basis for his complaints. It is he who is causing trouble where there does not need to be any. Nobody complained about what Jon was researching, exposing, or writing about, and would only ask that it be factual. If Jon is genuine then this situation seems to fit the mold of "the man doth protest too much" and he really needs to stifle the non-sensical complaints.

"As for kdub's comments

"As for kdub's comments above, on my questioning of Jon Gold's genuineness, all I have to say is that it was Jon who started the loud complaining about what others like Architects & Engineers were doing with the controlled demolition hypothesis, and I don't think he has a legitimate basis for his complaints. It is he who is causing trouble where there does not need to be any. Nobody complained about what Jon was researching, exposing, or writing about, and would only ask that it be factual. If Jon is genuine then this situation seems to fit the mold of "the man doth protest too much" and he really needs to stifle the non-sensical complaints."


Jon read that comment again. You keep acting like Jon is trying to fight architects and engineers when he took actions to support them. On top of this, belittling protest and street out reach is an utterly backwards approach. What specifically is "non-sensical" about Jon's complaints Tony? You still in this comment again questioned whether Jon is genuine. This is getting audacious. Re-read that link I just posted again.

"Nobody complained about what Jon was researching, exposing, or writing about, and would only ask that it be factual"

You indeed complained about what Jon was exposing referring to fundamental 9/11 truth facts as "peripheral issues" and just where, where, where was Jon not being factual???

I think frankly, you should apologize.


I do not know why this divide and reign. I merge all the best infos for my blog, and this means, all kinds of stuff Jon Gold has brought up together with the CD hypothesis and evidence. Why shouldn't I?

You can't get a CD without knowing that someone in the US knew all along, even lead the terrorists, via guys like Ali Mohammed or Khalid Sheik Mohammed....




9/11: Press For Truth, followed by In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families were shown on NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX during prime time, then you would get the reaction you want. However, that will NEVER happen in 2011. Which is why when we DO get "Television time," we should be activists, and not theorists or authors (like has been the case in almost every single instance someone managed to get on the television). I used to BEG people to mention the families, the 9/11 Commission, the unanswered questions, and what did we get? NEW WORLD ORDER, THE HIJACKERS ARE ALIVE, DICK CHENEY ORDERED A STAND DOWN, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, blah... blah... blah... when we do get "Television time," we should put it to the best use.

In today's world, the media is a very different animal than it was in the 1970's. You had things like the "Fairness Doctrine" which allowed people to have "equal time" to make a point. You had more news that wasn't controlled by 6 or 7 companies. You had a DIFFERENT Congress with more people willing to speak out against wrongdoing. Today's America is a very different America than it was in the 1970's.

You think that "Controlled Demolition" has gotten the most time because it's the most incriminating piece of evidence we have. I would think the most incriminating piece of evidence we have, wouldn't be able to be debated about for hours on end. I would think the most incriminating piece of evidence we have, wouldn't be pranced around on the BBC, on National Geographic, in Popular Mechanics book, and every single "hit piece" ever written etc... and so on, risking that someone who actually has an idea of how to bring a skyscraper down, would see it. I would think the most incriminating piece of evidence we have, wouldn't be ABLE to be jumped on by every single debunker until the cows come home. I would think the most incriminating piece of evidence we have, wouldn't be able to be used so easily by people like Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, and so on to make us all look like idiots.

The reason "Controlled Demolition" was jumped on (and it WAS jumped on. Steven Jones came out on a Friday, and on that Monday he was on Tucker Carlson, so Tucker Carlson could make him look like a fool... at a time when we were BEGGING for the media to cover things like the 9/11 Congressional Briefing, the Emergency Truth Convergence, etc...) was because it was so easy to make us look like fools. As Tucker Carlson, and so many after him showed us.

You act as though I have never supported "Controlled Demolition" or include it in my "message." As I've pointed out too many times to count, I have an archive on Steven Jones on my site. I list the September Eleventh Advocates letter about WTC7 in my post about their letters over the years. It is #45 in my article. When NIST's WTC7 report came out, I wrote this.

Frank Legge mentioned above that if I "spent less time on 911Blogger complaining..."

You know… he says that on a site I co-founded, and still have more posts than anyone (and a LARGE majority of them good for this cause) even though I haven't posted here regularly in years. He says that on a site I held the very first fund-raiser for the 9/11 First Responders. Did you know Frank and Tony that I started an archive on the affliction of the responders the day James Zadroga died, and have updated it daily ever since (except for the last few months). I also received the award of "Honorary Director" of the FealGood Foundation for my work for the responders.

Oh, and I've done my damn best over the years, to make sure the families seeking justice were heard. I shelled out $5k so that 9/11: Press For Truth could be finished. I posted every single letter the September Eleventh Advocates ever wrote (to multiple sites on numerous occasions just to get the word out). I pushed the most to get those 15,000 signatures the September Eleventh Advocates needed to go to D.C. to get some classified 9/11 info declassified. I've mentioned the families seeking justice in every talk I've ever given. I have written several articles over the years for the families when the media wasn't giving them the attention they justly deserve. I send them emails every 9/11 telling them that I'm sorry for their loss.

Let's not forget the bridges I've helped to build with people like Cindy Sheehan, or the sites I helped to launch with my content like, or This is only a fraction of what I've done for this cause.

I'll tell you what I've never done. I've never pushed bullshit theories, and have advocated against them at every opportunity. I've never been bigoted towards any religion. In every interview I've managed to get, I haven't forgotten to mention the families (with one possible exception that I know of, and it was my first interview ever). I've never caused groups to split up. I've never acted as though I know what happened on 9/11, or presented a theory as fact. I don't know what happened on 9/11, and neither do you Tony. I don't know who was ultimately responsible, and neither do you.

The most incriminating piece of evidence we have is the cover-up in its entirety. Every indication that our Government has something to hide. Every statement that turned out not to be true. Every "investigation" that was compromised.

You want to snitchjacket me because I have a difference of opinion as to what should be our "Global message?" Fine. Do your worst.

I am done here.

What I do know with certainty

is that the three high-rise building collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 were caused by unnatural means, that this reality is being covered up, and that we want these collapses investigated properly from both criminal and engineering perspectives.

What shouldn't be lost here is the fact that it is you who are complaining about those who are working on and exposing this reality, with nothing but your opinion to back up your complaints.

In contrast, nobody that I know of has complained about what you were doing, and I believe most actually enjoyed seeing your articles and research on the other issues, that is until you started disparaging others with your loud complaints and opinions as to what you thought should be the global message from those seeking to expose the fraud of 911. As far as I am concerned all aspects which were fraudalent on the day of Sept. 11, 2001, in the run up to it, and cover-up afterward, need to be exposed, and ultimately investigated with indictments and prosecutions following.

What I do know...

Is that this isn't a game, and people are dying. What is also clear to me, is that you are more concerned about being right, then you are about getting justice. Maybe it comes from the fact that debunkers, and the media have focused on CD to make us all look like fools, and you feel like you have to prove to them that you're right. You accused me earlier, and said "shame on you." I say shame on YOU.

Can you show me something that has gotten more praise than this? Every single review is a good one.

Buzzflash Reviews 9/11: Press For Truth Reviews 9/11: Press For Truth

Letter To The Editor: 9/11 Press For Truth

Good Video Hunting: "9/11: Press For Truth"

Pressing For Truth: A Review Of 9/11: Press For Truth

Reprehensor Reviews 9/11: Press For Truth

DVDTalk Reviews 9/11: Press For Truth

Scoop Independent News Reviews 9/11: Press For Truth

Carol Brouillet Reports On The Premiere Of 9/11: Press For Truth

The Hub Weekly Reviews: 9/11: Press For Truth

AMNY Review: 9/11 Press For Truth

Catherine Austin Fitts Gives A Brief Review Of 9/11: Press For Truth's Brief Review Of 9/11: Press For Truth

Random Review Of 9/11: Press For Truth

It's not rocket science to know what works.

What's also clear to me is that a difference of opinion is enough reason for you to snitch jacket. That is abhorrent behavior, and quite frankly, you owe me an apology, but I won't expect one from you.

For those accusing me of "self-promotion" after I just listed several things I have done to "promote" the plight of the 9/11 First Responders, and the families over the years, and mentioned the archives of people like Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, and even Kevin Barrett on my site... how about I include all of those whistleblowers I've helped to "promote" over the years... or Paul Thompson's Timeline which I have endlessly "promoted"... or Michael Wolsey's show that I helped to "promote"... I could go on and on and on about other people I've "promoted." How many times would you like me to say that I'm tired of getting burned by idiots promoting faulty information, and that with the exception of very few, I don't trust anyone's work, which greatly results in me promoting my own?

I seem to remember that I invited people to join me at the White House. I can't help it if no one had the nerve to stand with me, with the exception of Erik Larson, and someone else I don't know the name of.

You should really stop the snitch jacketing.

Tony and Aiden: I agree 100%

Tony and Aiden: I agree 100%

Tony Szamboti and Aidan Monaghan present work that is empirical and dispassionate.

As can be shown, Jon Gold holds self-promotion to be of great importance. Unfortunately, Jon Gold's disparaging and insulting remarks of David Ray Griffin and the video of his actual arrest have, for me at least, stigmatized his efforts.

Utterly ridiculous ad-hominem comments from you and Aidan

and amazing that you post it right below

this comment. Exactly what self promotion are you talking about??? Jon's not asking for money or fame or anything. Just justice. And he's doing it in a far less divisive way than I see those who continue to call into question people's integrity just for calling a theory a theory regardless of it being the mostly likely or highly likely scenario.

And now to see you and Tony belittling Jon's street outreach is downright upsetting. For the record street out reach, especially through the truth action campaign does leaps and bounds for the truth outing. And just like Gareth remarked, loads of people you will talk to will have their eyes glaze over and turn of when you bring up CD. I'm just warning you, and so are Gareth and Jon. Maybe it's cause we have gone out on the street before. Maybe it's cause we are a little more sociable than you. Maybe you all should start doing street outreach more often. Try the 11th of the month with a group in your city. It will give you some perspective on what the average American is thinking. It has certainly changed my approach over the years and helped me get to far more people.


Individuals such as yourself like to snitch jacket as often as you do, can you blame someone for attempting to defend themselves?

Hey Aidan

Personally i think Jon Gold is an extremely honourable and dedicated researcher and activist - his record speaks for itself. I actually share Jon's concerns about the apparent focus on CD and i thank him, despite the adversity, for having the courage to raise them. Over the course of 100+ street actions, i've seen more than enough members of the public lose interest once CD is raised to have such doubts. I believe it is the body of evidence, as documented in Press For Truth, that our strength lies.

I am however open to alternative viewpoints.

Since you've been regularly casting doubt on Jon's integrity, i'm curious... what's with your statement of support on CIT's website? Have you retracted it but they've ignored you or what? Could you clarify as their 'work' and methods have been so thoroughly discredited?

Did you have a laptop showing WTC7?

"i've seen more than enough members of the public lose interest once CD is raised to have such doubts."

Makes all the difference in the world.

"North Of Citgo" Statement

My CIT comment refers to the "north of Citgo" accounts only. After some extended civil debate with some who oppose the "north of Citgo" evidence, I am still not convinced that the "north of Citgo" accounts are false. I am more lately of the view that AA 77 possibly hit the Pentagon via a "north of Citgo" trajectory, despite official allegations to the contrary and I've never endorsed any "fly-over" allegations. When the "north of Citgo" accounts are proven false, I will retract any expressed interest in the matter.

That's a pitiful excuse

You've given your name to promote the worst of the worst. I don't think you have any room to question the motives of others.

Couldn't agree more.

Couldn't agree more.

I support

legal action against those who defame Pentagon victims and witnesses, including Lloyd England. Enough is enough.

When In A Science Lecture....

It is okay to ask the professor some polite questions. Otherwise it is best to keep quiet and learn.

In lectures there is nothing worse than an amateur wasting everyones time by demonstrating ignorance and lack of respect.

The experts who give enormous credibility to the truth movement should be given the respect reserved for an esteemed professor. Anything else is insulting.

I think

you're overstating it.

It's important to ask good questions and not bad ones, but one shouldn't have to wallow in reverence for authority. That's a state of mind reserved for government apologists, we should be different.


I never said such a thing.

Not what I said

I said all the questions in your "I'm curious" post have been resolved, not all the questions in general.


Macqueen addressed Jon's question at length in the talk: Given the firefighter testimony and their detailed foreknowledge it is hard to believe that this was just a concern they had about building 7.

Since James Watt...

I think "thermal expansion" has been well understood since James Watt improved the steam engine. NIST said it was a "new phenomena", though it was hardly so. This statement alone shows the contempt towards knowledge that NIST had shown in its report.

@Jon the government version

the government version is physically impossible.

It's Controlled Demolition, Stupid!

The evidence for controlled demolition of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 is overwhelming. Controlled demolition forms the foundation of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Power resides in simple arguments. Simple arguments make the case for controlled demolition.

Graeme MacQueen has delivered one of the most important 9/11 presentations yet. His succinct narrative is jaw-dropping in its power and simplicity. The 9/11 Truth Movement is becoming a massive cultural reality, and yet we pause at the brink of social transformation. There will be great sadness as we lose our shame and admit that we have failed ourselves and our children, that we have allowed our leaders to lie and kill. And magnificent strength as we choose to stop living in a land of make believe.

I recently raised the subject of 9/11

when a small group of us were together
2 of the group were friends who think I'm onto something about 9/11 and they have another friend who they let me loose on
The other friend is educated in science and is very intelligent.
We were telling him that on 9/11 there was freefall motion in the destruction of WTC7
His initial reaction was along the lines of Judge Lehner.
When he mentioned planes, we mentioned that no plane impacted WTC7.
I explained that the building's roofline falls in the same way as an object dropped from the same height through air.
I also explained that if 2 objects are dropped from the same height- one through air and one through an obstacle then they can not take the same time to fall.
My analogy was to hold 2 empty glasses at the same height- one just above a bottle of water and the other above air.
I asked whether the 2 glasses would take the same time to hit the table when simultaneously released.
I also said that some people get this and it just clicks with them.
Anyway, it didn't click.
Before it was too late I have switched tack.
We have separate tools at our disposal.
I switched to an amazingly credible researcher who doesn't mention physical evidence or CD.
Now he's got a copy of Crossing the Rubicon to read.
Wish me luck !
The good thing is he wants to engage in debate amongst friends.
My initial reaction to CD claims was soon after 9/11 when a colleague said the terrorists couldn't nave brought the towers down.
I was in the west vs middle east paradigm caused in the minds of many by 9/11 and my thought was "Well you would say that, wouldn't you?"
See- he was saying something that I perceived as anti american, and I perceived the US Govt as being on the side of right (stop ROFLing you lot!) and he was a muslim therefore I assumed his position was pro- the enemy.
It ended there.
I didn't even stop to think that if one believed the official story then the implication of his words were actually an affront to the terrorists as they imply that the terrorists were duped and manipulated by their own enemies and to the global betterment of the US empire.
Despite my scientific education I knocked down his statement of truth based not on scientific reasoning but on the group opinion I had from the media and hearsay.
A few years later when I had forgotten about that conversation I was drinking (a lot) with a relative who showed me LC2e and said the towers shouldn't have fallen like they did.
In my room spinning round me state I just thought "You idiot, just because you dropped out of the architect degree course!", picked my nose, saw him see me do it , and went to sleep on the couch. Gross - sorry.
The next day I was still drunk ( I've been TT a few years now - don't start worrying!!), but over the next day or 2 since seeing my relative I remembered what he had showed me and what he had said.
You know what- still absolutely 100% sure of myself I was intrigued by something.
I thought that whatever he had seen on the internet must have been some kind of phenomenon.
For a scam/internet hoax to reach so many people so successfully would take absolute genius.
Though I deplored the thing for reasons of thoughts of disrespect for those who had lost loved ones, I also had a kind of amazement at the sheer genius of the phenomena that had so successfully convinced my relative.
I saw it as elaborate and intriguing- perhaps like watching The Sting.
Anyway I googled and googled and found LC2e.
I watched it thinking "Rubbish!" "Rubbish!" "Rubbish!" then came the part where one of the twin towers is coming down with a stopwatch next to it and its registering a time that would be typical of a free faling object.
WHOA! With a shock I awoke!

Anyway I understand people not getting CD as I was the same twice.
If it hadn't been for concern about my relative (perhaps about his state of mind or general easy-to-dupe-ness) I might have dismissed it outright a secnd time.

So I'm very glad that we have an array of approaches available to us.

I expect that the friend in question will get 9/11 after reading MCR, as he is intelligent, then will get CD.

Perhaps CD is counter intuitive to those who have believed a lie.

thinking about it

I had believed that the towers fell because of the weakening by the planes/impacts/fires.
If I had been presented with WTC7 earlier, maybe I would have awoken sooner as one cannot explain so easily the nature of the collapse.
WTC7 is an intelligent choice to go with, but still if that doesn't work for some people, we have the non physical evidence/CD approach.

Thank you...

... very much for relating your own "awakening".

WTC 7 was included in LC2E... after the twin towers.

If my

muslim colleague back in 2001/2002 had shown me WTC7 then perhaps I might have woken earlier , but only perhaps. I was so believing the official lies.
I think it was the fact that finally a family member reached out to me that made me take notice , and only then out of concern that he had been hoaxed by the TM.

The outing of the fact that the buildings were brought down

via Controlled Demolition is without a doubt the most dangerous problem for the real perpetrators of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

The fact that those three buildings were intentionally demolished is now irrefutable, and it seems the only reason the crimes committed in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 by insiders are not being investigated is political control.

It also seems that there is a covert multi-faceted effort to keep the public confused and wondering if the buildings actually were intentionally demolished, to minimize the pressure for a new investigation that might not be controllable by the perpetrators.

The real perpetrators of the Kennedy assassination temporarily lost control of that investigation when an honest district attorney from New Orleans named Jim Garrison got involved in it and they had one hell of a time regaining control. Jim Garrison is on record saying the kinds of things that were done to subvert his legitimate investigation and that the real killers of John Kennedy would do anything to keep the reality from coming to light. His book "On the Trail of the Assassins" tells the story. Had the Internet been around during Jim Garrison's investigation things might have turned out different and the real perpetrators prosecuted.

The Remember Building 7 campaign is intended to raise public awareness and build pressure for an honest investigation. It would be interesting to see if everyone who has posted on this thread supports the Remember Building 7 campaign and if they don't why.

What happened at the moment of death

of the majority of people killed in the twin towers? is an important question.
I think we all want to show the truth about what happened that day and I think the moment of death - i e the manner in which people were killed is relevant

tiny body parts were sprayed out like buckshot over the rooftop of a nearby building- for this there is evidence

I think that rather than being crushed to death most were blown to pieces before those pieces were crushed straight afterwards by debris

as one very important aspect of that day was the mass murder we need to confront what happened at the moment(s) of these murders

as the people were in buildings i think it relevant to get building professionals ie architects and engineers to give their opinions

can everybody take a chill pill by the way?- PEACE!


a lot more to 9/11 as well, of course but this is a relevant area to study

thankyou jon for including ae info in your info pages, btw

that said, I'd rather stand up in court holding a copy of Crossing the Rubicon (no physical evidence and no collapse analysis) than trying to show folks youtube clips

and THAT said, I think CD is the ultimate magnet for folk towards solid material like Crossing the Rubicon- that's how it happened for me so I thank all sides


Am going to post a paragraph from "Round 3" of the correspondence I had with Matt Taibbi. I promised that the entirety of the post would not be posted, but this doesn't hurt anyone.

"As I pointed out earlier, you don't know who I am. I am not a huge advocate for "Controlled Demolition," and have never been. I have fought against making 9/11 Truth equating Controlled Demolition for years, and have failed miserably. I do support the question of how those buildings came down as long as the family members do, and guess what? They DO. It was a crime scene after all. It was where their loved ones were murdered after all. A commercial is going to be played soon on the Television that "stars" family members asking for WTC7 to be re-investigated. If they question it, I support them, and ONLY because it's family members doing so."

There are many supposed "scientific" critiques that exist. That is part of the problem. Some people's "science" over the years has helped to make us a laughing stock. Critique that comes from people that aren't scientists is extremely valid since it's the regular every-day people we are trying to reach.

This is my last post for a while other than to say there's no need for you to follow me around on this site just so you can make accusations, insinuations, and "snitch-jacket." There should be a rule against that kind of thing.

It sounds like according to some of your logic

we shouldn't be teaching things that some people might not understand quickly and might initially think was crazy. I am sure I shouldn't have to remind you of the problems which befell Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei due to the lack of desire by many to think about and grasp their ultimately correct concept.

I am wondering if you know the answer to the below question.
If you have a cubic foot of dry air and a cubic foot of water vapor at the same pressure and temperature which one is heavier and why?

If you search the Internet for the answer then be honest and admit you had to do that. Most people don't know the answer to this question or why outside of the engineering and scientific communities, even though it has a lot to do with the everyday life of all of us.

Check it out

" Most people don't know the answer to this question or why outside of the engineering and scientific communities"

This solidifies the point that if you are going out in public, getting into detailed things, speaking to laymen who know little about 9/11 at all, its really important to include fundamentals of what the victims families originally asked. Tony don't think about what it "sounds like" Jon is saying but what he IS saying. If you don't bring up cover-up, contradicting stories of peoples locations on the day, warnings, etc, you aren't speaking to THE MAJORITY of people we need to reach. I don't see this as telling anyone to stop doing the research they are doing and presenting facts in a theory free way. What I am suggesting is a way to further open people up to the possibility that there is thoughtful valid research being done into CD. You have to give people facts which that don't just imply guilt, and arouse suspicion, but also point to specific culprits. I wish that over the years people were simply willing to touch on the basic, easily referenced and provable facts every time 9/11 truth was brought up in public. The truth would be closer to outing. CD alone only proves that there were SOME people with foreknowledge but WHICH PEOPLE? All of our time is limited in public outreach, discussions with friends etc. We have to get the biggest bang for our buck. Like it or not, CD has been painted as crazy and debunked to many people. They haven't had time to look up the responses to all the debunking and study the science. If you are going to correct this stereotype you have to get back to the basics along with your great research into CD. I know we all want to reach the most people get the truth out. The debunkers and the media run and hide if you bring up fundamental provable facts which imply specific guilt. ALWAYS. So, let's all go 88 miles per hour and get Back to the Basics!

If you listen to Dr. William Pepper

from the Investigate Building 7 conference here you will see that he brought up areas of interest and specific individuals for an investigation which should be done regarding the known illegalities and strange behaviors surrounding the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7.

The building's collapse was obviously caused by controlled demolition which wasn't done with city permission, the NIST report on it can be shown to be non-explanatory, and there are identifiable people who should be investigated concerning foreknowledge of and the destruction of evidence from this illicit demolition. The starting point would be mayor Rudy Giuliani and his dept. of design and construction.

Unsupported Allegations

"Like it or not, CD has been painted as crazy and debunked."


How Has CD Been Debunked?

I look forward to the answer.

Please read the comment before posting

I said it has been PAINTED AS crazy and debunked. RIGHT? It's how a lot of people in the world see it. I even remarked how this is a stereotype pushed by debunkers. No need to keep playing games with my words.

CD Debunked? Crazy?

You seem to agree with comments you attribute to others. Why?

Regarding CD:

"it has been PAINTED AS crazy and debunked. RIGHT? It's how a lot of people in the world see it."


He said...

PAINTED AS crazy and debunked. It IS how a lot of people in the world see it. What does Dom Giordano say in this video?

Something like, "If I hear about WTC7 one more time..."

As I posted on Facebook, I have "suggested not leading with Controlled Demolition as our message because it is hard to believe for a lot of people. As I have learned from being on facebook, it is also hard for a lot of 9/11 First Responders to believe. People who were there. I have also mentioned several times the amount of hit pieces that have been written over the years using the "hard to believe" point of Controlled Demolition AGAINST us. I have also mentioned that production companies like the BBC and National Geographic have also focused on the "hard to believe" point of Controlled Demolition in an effort to "debunk" us. I have also pointed out that our job is to reach people, and that as a movement, our message shouldn't be something "hard to believe" or something hard to digest for the masses. It should be easy to understand, and people should WANT to participate. I have also pointed out that I am not qualified one way or the other to tell you who is right, and who is wrong. I have also pointed out that people believe what the TV tells them, and that the TV has told them that we are a group of people who think that "explosives were planted in the buildings," that "a missile hit the Pentagon," that we are "anti-semitic holocaust denying murdering psycho terrorist sympathizers who drink kool aid," and that it might be in our best interest to act DIFFERENTLY than what the TV tells people."

So everything that kdub said about how we and CD have been painted is 100% accurate. I honestly can't believe you didn't know that.

Hey Aidan... I've made a few movies recently...

And this one...

I've also purchased several C-SPAN videos that everyone should see. They're available on my youtube channel.

Edit: That video I posted of Dom Giordano doesn't have that clip, but it was in the interview Betsy and I did with him.

Dom Giordano? Dom Giordano?

Well ... OK.

In the meantime ... I'm sure that the "Remember Building 7" effort and "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" can expect your continued support, right?

In the meantime...

I hope you learn to read the really big paragraph in the comment above that gives examples of EVERY criticism, and not just Dom Giordano whose radio show at the time reached 37 states. In the meantime, I hope you learn to become a little more honest. In the meantime, I'm going to continue doing my best for this cause.

Do You Support "Remember Building 7" & "AE for 9/11 Truth"?

It's a simple question and will clarify your position for the reader.

Yes or no for the record.


Litmus test? I support justice and accountability, and ending the "Post-9/11 World." My allegiance is to that. Not to any individual or group. I already stated my position several times. Once was in response to you, in this thread, that started with a blurb about my "Round 3" with Matt Taibbi.

I hate to break it to you Aidan, but believing in the Controlled Demolition of those buildings, no matter how "clear" it might be to some, is not a prerequisite for being a participant in this cause. No more than believing a missile hit the Pentagon. Or that Flight 93 was shot down. Or that there was a "Stand Down Order." Or that the Saudi Royals, Pakistani ISI, and Israeli Mossad were involved.

You just have to want real justice and accountability for what happened. Because we have been denied it, and because the families and the people of the world both require and deserve it.

Ending the Post-911 World is what it is about

as it is based on a massive multi-faceted fraud and I have no problem with you doing it your way. The problem starts when you want to scream and holler that "this isn't the Controlled Demolition movement". Who says it is?

However, the scientific data proving that those three buildings were brought down via controlled demolition is in another league from

"believing a missile hit the Pentagon. Or that Flight 93 was shot down. Or that there was a "Stand Down Order." Or that the Saudi Royals, Pakistani ISI, and Israeli Mossad were involved."

and trying to lump them together is not correct.

I can personally say that it has been the viewing of the collapse of WTC 7 that has caused people I have spoken to about 911 being a fraud to realize there was something to what I was saying. It is your choice if you don't want to use this reality if you don't think it works for you, but you have no right to tell others not to use it, as it is real and it is not hard to understand that a symmetric freefall of the full length and width of the building for over 100 feet is not possible in a natural collapse. Once that is realized the next question needs to be asked as far as when there would have been a chance to set the charges.

If you can't bring yourself to say anything good about the use of data which shows that those buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition, to enlighten people that 911 was indeed a fraud, then you shouldn't say anything at all about it, because your arguments against it have no basis scientifically, and the experience of the majority of those attempting to expose this fraud is in direct opposition to your claim that it doesn't work in getting people to see the fraudalent nature of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Dom Giordano used a device 'if I hear about building 7 one more time!" to get out of having to discuss it, because he can't refute it. I listened to you and Betsy on the air with him, and while I thought you made a lot of sense, your arguments didn't make a difference with him either. The guy is a right wing idealogue who I don't believe would ever admit to 911 being a fraud publicly, even if he thought it was privately. So you shouldn't use someone like him as a test of your theory.

Whose science...

Judy Wood (who David Ray Griffin apparently supports)... the nano-thermite paper that was peer reviewed by a guy that said the passengers were alive and well and living on a tropical island, and co-written by someone that publicly questioned whether or not the Haiti Earthquake was man-made? Snowcrash seems to be aware of science that says otherwise. Like someone from France that couldn't get the nano-thermite to ignite, and other things. Since non-scientists are the majority we are trying to reach, criticism from them is extremely important. And to say that the CD evidence is in "another league" than that against Saudi Royals, the ISI, etc... is absurd. The families were trying to sue Saudi Arabia if you remember, and the Obama Administration made sure they couldn't. I could go on, but I've been in so many "my theory is better than your theory" debates, I refuse to get into another. This is about what reaches the majority. Keep it simple.

I give up though. It's apparent that nothing is going to change. I will keep doing my thing, but I give up. You guys do what you want. If someone attempts to use CD against my efforts (like has been done so many times in the past), I'm going to tell it like it is. Like I always do. You win. Congratulations to Lisa, Victor, Steven Jones, Morgan Reynolds, the debunkers, the media, those cultists who act as though you MUST BELIEVE or you are a this or a that, and so many others over the years that have made this the CD movement.


So now you are stooping to an obviously fraudalent attempt at discreditation of controlled demolition researchers by associating them with a widely discredited person like Judy Wood.

There were several papers written several years ago that showed what she was saying was nonsense. I was the author of one of them which can be seen here along with the others at the Journal of 911 Studies.

The reality is that those buildings were taken down via controlled demolition and it has been proven. To resort to the types of fallacious arguments you have here, to try and discount it, shows you can't do it. You sound just like the anonymous clowns at the JREF Forum.

You have no evidence whatsoever that any emphasis on controlled demolition has harmed this movement and in reality your silly claims have about as much basis as those of Judy Wood.

If people don't realize that you are the problem by now they aren't paying attention.

It's not me doing it...

It's David Ray Griffin that is "associating them with a widely discredited person like Judy Wood." Not me. And incidentally, the cult-like behavior I spoke of has NEVER been addressed by the main CD advocates. Not once. Did they condone it all these years I wonder?

Nothing I said is inaccurate. Not a damn thing. Sorry you don't like honesty.

How's Ron Wieck doing Tony? Give him the time of day lately? He's always done such wonders for this cause.

Tony... good luck in your endeavors. They are different than mine apparently. I hope that one day you prove yourself right.

It is obvious you have a problem with the

proof for controlled demolition, although many of us aren't exactly sure why. Unfortunately for you, you can't disprove it and you are left with nothing but fallacious arguments, which are amazingly similar to those found on the JREF Forum.

As for Ron Wieck, he tried to tell me in an e-mail several months ago (not long after the Geraldo Rivera show that Bob McIlvaine and I appeared on about WTC 7) that the freefall acceleration of WTC 7 didn't matter. At that point I said his comments proved why he should be ignored, and I really do have to say the same for you.


Be a good little cultist Tony... make sure to accuse those who don't agree with you. It certainly helps to get people to want to participate.

Edit: Incidentally, I posted the news of your interview on CT NPR with Manny today on Facebook. Fuck that shit. I'm taking it down. I am never promoting anything associated with you again.

Uh, don't you think you are going a little too far

calling a 54 year old mechanical engineer a "good little cultist"?

If this doesn't show you to be a problematic person I don't know what does.


Bring down a skyscraper in a Controlled Demoltiion Tony? No? How much experience do you have in that area Tony? None?

Sorry... instead of cultist... should I refer to you as a "snitch-jacketer?" Would that be more appropriate?

Good bye Tony Szamboti.

These words sound precisely like

those we have all seen written by the NYC tour guide and self proclaimed 911 debunker Mark Roberts.

I have to wonder where you people get the nerve to question the credibility of technical people on technical issues without discussing details.

Again, your arguments sound amazingly similar to those of the clownish anonymous 911 debunkers found on the JREF Forum. Maybe you should go there and make your arguments. You could start a whole thread about me and Aidan Monaghan and all of the other technical people who say those building collapses were a result of controlled demolition and provide your fallacious arguments as to why you think we are wrong in a more forgiving atmosphere.

LAST WARNING: Jon G, Tony S, Aidan M, nmollo

Jon and Tony; do not respond to each others comments and do not talk about each other in this thread; both of you have repeatedly violated the commenting rule requiring civility.

Aidan, your comments since last time I checked this thread didn't seem to violate the rules, but you should heed this instruction, too.

nmollo, you're on the edge; you and those named above would do well to heed the following, in this thread, and every other thread at 911blogger:

"Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent will not be tolerated. If you believe someone is lying post the facts and let the readers decide for themselves.

"Do not make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time.

"Keep your comments relevant to the blog entry. Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults."

I'm emailing you all directly as well; if there's a new nasty comment next time I check this thread, your account will be placed in moderation.

Might as well

link to the thread if you mention me, nothing I said there I wouldn't say here...

Have I mentioned how awful I think it is that Tony, Aidan and you are going at each other?

I'm not assigning blame and I'm not picking sides (although I will say I strongly disapprove of snitchjacketing) but I do wish this would stop.

Judy Wood, btw, is the polar opposite of the Jones group. This is Greg Jenkins, associated with the Journal of 9/11 Studies, demonstrating that Judy Wood' s claims do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, simply by calmly interviewing her.

That interview...

is priceless. And so are the facial expressions of Greg! Always cheers me up! :)

Not A Test, Just A Question

Countless people support the efforts of the "Remember Building 7" and "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" organizations and recognize that they are possibly on the verge of generating new investigations of 9/11.

Do you also support their efforts?

If they manage to get a new investigation...

I will be the first to congratulate them. Hey, I made a new video.

That's Great News!

Regarding the efforts of "Remember Building 7" and "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" to obtain new 9/11 investigations:

"I will be the first to congratulate them."

I suppose you would agree then that regularly referring to scientifically supported demolition evidence as "crazy" might undermine their efforts and that it would be best to refrain from doing so in the future.

Whose science?

Judy Wood? That is some bat-shit crazy stuff (incidentally... David Ray Griffin supports her apparently). And when I say "crazy" regarding CD, I'm referring to how it's perceived by a great many people. Cause it is. You don't like honesty Aidan? I think a truth movement should be able to be honest.

I never once questioned how those buildings came down after 9/11. The idea that the planes caused their collapse, was good enough for me, a layman. It wasn't until I was introduced to Eric Hufschmid, as far as I know, the first person to write about the idea of a "Controlled Demolition," that I heard of that idea. It made me cringe. If it had that affect on me, someone who believed in criminality with regards to 9/11, imagine how it reaches other "laymans."

This movement ALSO used to "cringe" at the idea because of how it was perceived, and because of how it sounded. Go look at the 9/11 CitizensWatch press conferences, or the 9/11 Omission Hearings, or the 9/11 Congressional Briefing. Go look at the citizens complaint delivered to then Atty Gen. Eliot Spitzer. Nada. Nothing about CD.

Look at us today. Look at today. It's literally like night and day. Anyway... I'm going to keep on truckin' Aidan. Hopefully having to deal with less snitch-jacketing.

In His Own Words...

As can be shown, Jon Gold's highly emotional rhetoric and insulting language smacks of desperation.

As can be shown, Jon Gold has been completely discredited by his own words.

As Tony Szamboti has stated

"If people don't realize that you (Jon Gold) are the problem by now they aren't paying attention."

Control Demolition is a part of numerous parts that make up the mounting evidence against the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. By it's nature, Control Demolition cannot be mutually exclusive.

A "layman" can see Control Demolition by simply watching some videos. Willie Nelson is a layman, as am I.

Please do not claim you represent or understand the "layman" because you don't.

Interesting Points. Well Said.


"A "layman" can see Control Demolition by simply watching some videos ... Please do not claim you represent or understand the "layman" because you don't."

This statement would seem to contradict the view (that is not backed by credible polling data), that the WTC demolition evidence is deemed as "crazy" by the general public. The available evidence in fact strongly suggests the opposite. In fact, the CD evidence as presented by "Remember Building 7" and "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" apparently converted TV's Geraldo Rivera from adversary to ally and not the government "failures" arguments proposed by some.

Dear Jon:

While the 9/11 Truth community appreciates your interest in saving us from ourselves, as you can see ... your concerns about the public's view of the CD evidence and the direction of the movement are unfounded.

This any layman can see stuff is a fallacy

It is a logical fallacy of appealing to an unqualified authority. There has to be more proof. Comments like this belittle the hard science and research being done on CD frankly. Trying to simplify a very complex theory which you all advocate for. Where do the contradictions end? Aidan you keep trying to put words into peoples mouth, like claiming Jon and I said people who look into CD are crazy. All we have said is that CD has been made to look to the general public as crazy. We are talking about public perception and maturity here! Even though you have been corrected on this several times you keep playing games trying to put words in peoples mouths. The anger and fighting is not necessary on both sides and I KNOW it's frustrating to read. Trying to act as though the idea of being careful what we say in public is unfounded :
Aidan: "your concerns about the public's view of the CD evidence and the direction of the movement are unfounded."
Is completely false. You are ignoring public perception. You are ignoring what has been done to attack 9/11 truth for years. The crazy theories are why we have lost credibility. If you state theory as fact, you even sound crazy even if you have a lot of proof to your theory, you cannot lose touch with the fact that it's a theory or you weaken or lose your credibility to the public. Quick, overly bold blunt statements like "any layman can see" actually discredit us, because a real skeptic can't just see a video and go 'ok, this PROVES IT.' They can say, oh this is interesting but there would have to be a lot of research done to prove it, and I would have to see some response to all the debunking I have heard over the years. But it's not as simple as 'just watch the video' and it's easy and over. This is a sad simplification of a complex subject. I will repeat that this simplified view actually belittles the efforts of the very scientists you, Aidan and others are claiming to support. Also if people in the public question you and you repeat this well any layman can see why can't you mantra, it's frankly insulting to those who are skeptical of coming to conclusions based on watching one video. Also the fact that you all have launched into tell people to ignore Jon or saying HE is the problem is really sad ad-hominem, mean stuff. It is not only false but doesn't help you prove your point at all. Jon's done so much for 9/11 truth over the years that you have to be more specific and logical in your criticisms or you will be the ones appearing problematic.

If you are going to ignore public perception, you are NOT HELPING spread the truth. Is there anyone who disagrees with this? Please speak up!

Your not even helping spread the theory of CD in a thoughtful way. Reaching out to the public and getting justice for the victims of the attacks and removing the main defense the war mongers use is the cause here. If you think it's just proving one theory about how the buildings came down, or just proving that YOU are right, you are selfishly simplifying a more complex subject and actually belittling the victims of the attack who were some of the main founders of the truth and justice movement. And of course I think most people here don't feel this way.

This is about doing what's right for the victims of the attacks and the wars!

This any layman can see stuff is a fallacy

double post

Whose science?

Obviously the science presented by Harrit, Szamboti, Jones, Legge, Farrer, etc...

Jon, those vid's are really

Jon, those vid's are really great. Hearing how it became a buzz phrase for our gov't to say 'this was not about placing blame.' Kristen's testimony is so important for everyone who cares about justice to see. Everyone who has taken well over a half hour to post on this thread should watch her half hour speech.

"If you don't bring up

"If you don't bring up cover-up, contradicting stories of peoples locations on the day, warnings, etc, you aren't speaking to THE MAJORITY of people we need to reach."

I think very few people would neglect these things intentionally. "Press for truth" is one of the very best documentaries out there. I will not forget to refer people to Gold's start-up kit.

"What I am suggesting is a way to further open people up to the possibility that there is thoughtful valid research being done into CD."

A simple way of doing that is just to show a presentation of Harrit, Szamboti, Macqueen, Gage, Jones, etc... If AE911truth keeps on going they will slowly but surely show that there are indeed experts and sane people here. These three presentations were all good and solid. This is why it is important to support and stand behind them. Infighting drains energy and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

While I do understand the necessity to confront fake phone-calls and CIT, I'm rather puzzled by the current infighting as I do not understand the purpose of it. (Please do not take this as me insinuating anything about anybody.) AE911truth is already doing a masterful job of showing people that CD is not crazy. It's levelheaded with simple understandable facts and solid research to back it with. Because of seminars by Szamboti, Harrit, Macqueen we are all given very good tools in this fight. It is all good and there is no reason to feel as if we are "cranky" when talking about CD.

Haze wrote above: "If you

Haze wrote above:

"If you deplore the spot light that CD has gained you should try to do better with non-CD information. We only ask you not to stifle the momentum that is building up.

" People here would be very pleased if you in the future could generate similar achievements with non-CD information."

These are divisive comments brother. You other ones were removed cause they were out of control.

"I think very few people would neglect these things intentionally. "

Exactly. And no one here is saying they are. This is why I and Jon and others are warning you NOT to neglect the fundamental, easily provable FACTS of the day in all public outreach. Like Jon was saying above, this has to be a movement people feel welcome to. The shouldn't be made to feel as if they have to accept a particular theory of how the buildings came down in order to join the fight for justice. CD wasn't something that many of us even considered till YEARS after getting involved in the fight for 9/11 justice.

Frank Legge makes perfect

Frank Legge makes perfect sense to me.

"...I will not say much, just two points:

1. Members of the public differ in their interests and knowledge hence they respond to different things. A great many have responded to the fact that WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition, so the CD case is effective. A great many have responded to the fact that the air defence system failed that day, so the case for contrived system failure is also effective. These types of arguments should not be seen as in competition with one another - they are both valuable, and hence more members of the public will be persuaded if they are both used.

2. Any attack of supporters of one type of approach against supporters of the other type hurts the movement. We should each get on with doing whichever we do best.

That seems so glaringly obvious that it is painfull to feel the need to state it.

Perhaps there is a third point that we need to keep in mind regarding the CD theory: it is not the CD itself that is the powerful issue, it is the in-depth coverup generated by NIST. It is this which confirms the hand of American authority figures in 9/11. It is easy to show the NIST report is fatally flawed. This fact links the CD case with the "contrived system failure" case. They are just two parts of the same case that a new, honest investigation is required."

The two quotes you provided from my comments are not divisive. They are invitations for you to add to the momentum with complementary information and not to work against as infighting is draining of energy. That's their explicit message. Again, please don't take this as me insinuating anything of anybody. Perhaps I could have been more careful with wording. I don't know.

There is a difference

between 1) advocating for information and approaches to exposing the official 9/11 lies that do not include CD, and 2) disparaging CD as harmful to the movement. I think that a review of this thread will show is that 2) is what occurred here, and but for that, it might not have turned into a mile-long thread.

'CD wasn't something that many of us even considered till YEARS after getting involved in the fight for 9/11 justice.'

I know. I was one of those who dismissed it without consideration when I first heard about it; then slowly began opening my mind to it; until ultimately, I became convinced that CD was 'the only reasonable theory available' (as Griffin put it once). Far from seeing it as something the movement should shy away from, I instead felt like a fool for having taken so long to open up to it.

Word to the wise: 'shouldn't shy away from or be embarassed about' does not equal 'only thing we need to talk about.' Though I don't think I've actually seen anyone in this thread advocating the latter.


Professor MacQueen, your idea of making a DVD of the Building 7 talks, is crucial. You, Tony, and Kevin complement each other. I think such a DVD could have an enormous impact.

I've watched your talk three times through. Very strong, and even stronger along with the two other speakers.

Your speaking style is effective, and the video testimony in the presentation is also very effective.

Thanks, Thanks, and Thanks.

We will do something similar

here for the german speaking part with the videos of Dr. Harrit, Elias Davidsson and my appearance in Frankfurt, a dvd that highlights the main points we have. Hopefully it will be ready in mid-june.

So I welcome any effort for an english approach- it's overtime.


for a compelling presentation, Graeme.

Anybody else

have trouble reading these long threads because the dialog boxes progressively shorten until I'm reading one word at a time in tall columns?

above comments...

Reading through the above comments, I just wanted to share my experience talking with different people about 9/11. I noticed very quickly, when it comes to talking to people, especially first responders, different people are receptive to different information. Some will totally shut down to any talk of CD, but will be open to other issues such as foreknowledge and financing.

One guy was totally against CD and thought it was stupid to think that "Bush blew up the towers", but when I showed him two excellent write ups from jimd3100 it was a totally different story!!!

Why I support the "Official Story"

9/11---Public record proves cover up!

Maybe an architect or engineer would be more receptive to demolition information, whereas a military person may be open to information concerning the lack of air defense and the different NORAD time lines. Maybe a financial professional wouldn't think anything of the NORAD time lines, but would be interested in hearing about the suspect trading, etc...

Lately I have been spending time looking into the intelligence "failure" .... I mean "warning fatigue" which is a huge part of this operation,,, maybe even one of the most important issues trumping CD when it comes to getting any justice and accountability for the events of September 11, 2001.

Personally, after learning about all the different issues over the past while, I think it is all important and together very important.

It would be nice to see a program about 9/11 on television that included the information from Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed or the Jersey Girls instead of David Ray Griffin or April Gallop.

In the end, as I see it, without any subpoena power, a direct witness with info to any issue speaking up or access to classified information, none of us have any conclusive evidence of anything no matter what anyone believes ;)


Jeff, It is good to see a balanced response but

I am surprised at one of your remarks. You say: "none of us have any conclusive evidence of anything".

The beauty of the CD theory, as I see it, is that we, the public, have the evidence for it in our hands, and it cannot be taken away. The perpetrators did their darndest to remove evidence, removing the steel, hiding the flight data, hiding the serial numbers etc., but they cannot take away the videos of collapse and they cannot take away the dust in our possesion.

The rate of collapse of WTC7 is proof that all columns were simultaneously severed. The verticality is further proof. In the case of the twin towers the collapse rate is a little slower so it is not so simple, but David Chandler shows how a little simple application of Newton's laws makes it indisputable that fire was not the cause. The microspheres in the dust are absolute proof that temperature far higher than fires can produce were involved. The red chips provide proof of what caused the high temperatures.

You may need a subpoena to find out what Cheney was doing in the PEOC that morning but you don't need one to prove CD.

Calling all chemistry professors

Frank, concerning the "Active Thermitic..." paper, I'm wondering what might result if you gathered all the individuals with chemistry PhD's who are convinced of the authenticity of the paper's conclusions, had them become signatories to its authenticity, and then sent the paper with their accompanying signatures of recommendation, to other chemistry professors at colleges and universities?

Maybe its acceptance could snowball into something much larger?

POLL about importance of CD

I think the glaring problem with the CD vs non-CD debate is the absence of objective data. Some people like Jon claim (as far as I understand) that focusing on CD has and is damaging for the movement while others claim the opposite. If we are to get beyond mere subjective opinions we have to provide some kind of objective data. There are probably many ways of doing that but here is a poll question that will help us gauge the factual basis for either claim.
Did the evidence of CD (WTC7 footage, measurement of free-fall acceleration, nanothermite study, iron spheres, sulfidation, motlen iron,...) HELP you or HINDER you to come to the conclusion that there are problems with the official version of 911?
You answer this question NOT by replying but by voting me up or down:


If you were neutral to the CD evidence then don't vote.

"CD vs non-CD" is an over simplification of a more complex event

"If we are to get beyond mere subjective opinions we have to provide some kind of objective data. There are probably many ways of doing that but here is a poll question that will help us gauge the factual basis for either claim."

Your poll is an OPINION poll which will not provide factual basis for either claim. Let's be clear about what you are after here. Also I think you are simplifying Jon's point which, it seems to me, is that focusing solely on CD in our public outreach is often harmful to our credibility.

Focusing ONLY on CD in public outreach situations has been harmful to 9/11 truth in the past. To many times in 9/11 truth's strongest and widest public outreach forums we have been framed as a 1 theory group. There are ways around this trap and it has to be done with a focus on public relations and perception. The truth is not about CD vs Non-CD (a divisive simplification of a more complex issue.) Making CD or any alternative theory the ONLY issue you talk about in regard to why people should look into 9/11 can most certainly be damaging and often is. Even if it is correct if it is the only thing brought up all it takes is one breaking down of it (even if it's a debunker reference which was later discredited) to discredit the 1 theory on TV and other public forums. If we are made to look as though we only have one thing that proves we need a new investigation we are easily made to look like small minded theorists to the average skeptic. People don't know basic facts about the day like the complete lack of air defense response, lies about peoples whereabouts etc. The general public perception is, "I have heard all those crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11." Try calling a radio talk show host and you will hear this over and over again. If you want to break down this bias towards us, you have to take a more mature, multi-faceted, factually based approach. 9/11 truth has been horribly stereotyped. I want to break this down and get folks justice and I know all here do to.

Nobody is arguing that CD

Nobody is arguing that CD should be the only issue. You are arguing against a position nobody holds.

A poll is a poll. Do with it as you wish. But if it inspires you to do better than my amateur poll and come up with hard data to support your claims, all the better. It is important to get beyond mere opinions here. With the solidification of the CD information and wealth of good serious talks it becomes easier and easier to convince people with it. There is no longer any need to cringe as it stands on solid ground.

What is clear from the success of the building what campaign and ae911truth, is that the CD info is breaking more and more into the mainstream. So at least some people resond positively here! This is very good news. Just look at the recent array of success posted here on 911blogger. Rather than arguing against positions nobody holds, it would be very appreciated by all (and this is meant sincerely) if you and Jon think creatively how you can add to this momentum and complement the CD information with valuable non-CD info. Everybody agrees with you and Jon that the non CD info needs to get out there as it only strengthens the whole picture.

So exploit this opening created by the CD proponents to get your info out there! It's a golden opportunity and should not be missed.


Although the vote up/down does not show the total number of votes I monitored it and I counted

2 down votes
7 up votes.

of a total of 9 people voting. This means that for roughly 78% of the people voting the CD info helped them. As kdub is correctly pointing out this poll should not be taken seriously. Firstly the statistics is bad (only 9 votes) and secondly it is not clear to what extent the people who voted would be representative of ordinary people. But it does go some way in explaining some reactions (and down voting) in this thread: for the 78% of the voters the CD info was just positive.