[Note: I will be speaking with Kevin Ryan, a leading expert on the NIST cover-up, at the Peoria Public Library at 2 pm this Saturday, 10/20/07, 107 N.E. Monroe St., Peoria, IL 61602]

In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.

NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors.

But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.

Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon.

Compare this to a hypothetical case in which forensic evidence proves a victim was shot in the head three times at the foot of a cliff, but the body was found at the top of the cliff. The sheriff, who has the most to gain from the man's death, brings in NIST to explain how the man shot himself in the head three times and then fell upward 200 feet to land on the top of the cliff. NIST produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event. The 10,000-page report ignores all the forensic evidence that the man was murdered, offering endless pages of scientific gobbledygook distorting all the forensic evidence in such a way as to show how a suicide actually could manage to squeeze off three head-shots, and offering a scenario explaining how "upward-fall initiation" took place.

After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation" simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of falling-upward."

It is not surprising that NIST cannot explain a scenario that blatantly violates the basic laws of physics. What is surprising is that every newspaper in the world is not printing screaming front-page headlines reading NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Nearly (mathematically) perfect symmetrical collapse...

Can not be produced by asymmetrical (mathematically gross) damage and fire.

Trying to prove the inverse negative (a falsehood) simply can not be done. The best someone can try (as in pop-[S]cience gymnastics, antithetical to provable/repeatable science) is to dizzy the laymen with 10,000 pages of gobbledegook, such as The NIST Report.

This all reminds me a bit of Earnshaw's theorem of inverse-square law force... but applied to gobbledegook rhetoric. The harder one may try and prove their insistence that a steel ball can be balanced on the head of a pin by increasing the weight of the ball (like 10,000 pages of words)... only sharpens the pin.

We need a revolt of the scientists!

This is one of the most important articles I've read in a long time.

If you know any scientists, please print it off and give it to them.

You may be getting closer to the mark, Galileo.

For we do not live in a culture of science... we have found ourselves living in a world of anti-science, The Ivory Tower of Science.

As children these last many decades, we are instructed away from childhood honesty discoverable and repeatable on the playground, through half-books and truncated (incomplete) formula in the classroom. Through higher school, we are dazzled by the imperative that only through Collage will we be granted the Diploma of Authoritative Knowing. Continuing this ill-fated course, we prove our Authoritative Knowing by submission (guaranteed by great financial debt) to the faith in Letters, rather than the proof in weights and measures.

NIST has crafted it's own proof in undermining common needs of ALL in uniform weights and measures, by abusing false words and Letters as if positives. This is truly a sick moment for Science.

The hitch is that for a revolution in science, we are asking Scientists to reevaluate the vast majority of that which they have imbibed as Truth (and often still owe The Bank)... to see it merely as Faith... Belief, unknown, quite possibly false... shattering. Something so unwanted as to generate the strongest of cognitive dissonance... to be resisted... to be fought... to be denied... at great cost to all if need be.

A revolt in Science... at a networked time like this... would sweep the globe faster than light. That is, unless you still believe nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Or that tangentially asymmetric force can produce a perpendicular reply into an absurd string of symmetrical reactions. Hummmmm?

I think you'd need some mathematical TNT to get a formula like that to produce a tidy little pile.

Anyone else think it ironic Al Gore is warring Nobel Gold to bolster his loose calculus? It's the only thing that can so far.

Revolt of scientists

"The system is revolting, why aren't you?"

Watch this 10 minute video and share your thoughts on the notion of a scientific revolution.
Earth is growing

Great news and article. Wonder what John Gross would say.

"The important thing is to not stop questioning" - Einstein
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Einstein
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=realize, recognize, reconcile, educate, motivate, activate

uh that top clip is complete

uh that top clip is complete bullshit - where did the oceans of water come from ? Just materialize from nothingness? Seriously.

Read up on current theories of planet formation, you know the ones that don't leave out important details like explanation of the oceans.
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

From nothingness??? hardly

uhhh ... what's the primary constituent of solar wind?

What makes metallic rocks rust?

What's the predominant state of all known matter? (Hint: Not a solid, liquid, or gas.)

What do you have between an anode and a cathode?

Can a "positive" be measured between the differential of two "negatives"?

What's the best conductor in a near perfect vacuum?

As one location erodes, another location must _____?




Tell me this is all tongue in cheek. Please. Decades of geologic and astronomic knowledge are screaming in rebellion inside my head..

Continents DO NOT float whillie-nilly, any more than ocean currents are willy nilly.

"The lithosphere (from the Greek, lithos, stone) is the rigid outermost layer made of crust and uppermost mantle. The lithosphere is the "plate" of the plate tectonic theory. The asthenosphere (from the Greek, asthenos, devoid of force) is part of the mantle that flows, a characteristic called plastic behavior. It might seem strange that a solid material can flow. A good example of a solid that flows, or of plastic behavior, is the movement of toothpaste in a tube. The flow of the asthenosphere is part of mantle convection, which plays an important role in moving lithospheric plates."

GRRRR! ARRGH!!(more inarticulate outraged noises)

Are you sure that this advances 9/11 Truth?

Good clip on the John Gross evasion and outright lies.

I find it odd that you would consider the clip on fringe geology to be relevant to the discussion, and that you would consider it to have enough substance to warrant posting. Even if there is a case to be made (and I remain extraordinarily skeptical), it is at best tangential to the thread, and at worst gives yet another opportunity for the world at large to dismiss us as loons.

Those if us here in 9/11 study, "loons" for sure : )...

... we claim some advantage in understanding political science, because we lay claim to understanding in better depth that which our sElected Officials should know but for whatever possible reasons prove or pretend, they don't. They don't discuss false flag terror. They pretend that a discussion of physics makes a "Conspiracy Theory". They call questions "unpatriotic".

They tell us how bombs can deliver peace and prosperity. If we say that doesn't make sense, an Opposition Party tells us how they could use bombs better for even better peace. Economic Science tell us how 2 minus 3 equals 5. Medical Science through the FDA approves dangerous symptom suppression, while blocking near-harmless cures found in nutrients and natural compound. Ecological Science tells us how carbon dioxide will be the end of us. And a National Institute of Standards and Technology tried for all its might to tell us how symmetrical collapse can be produced from asymmetrical force, damage and fire.

Sure as hell if not... a revolution in science will come, or an outright revolt be imperative, if we don't want such "Science" to kill us.

But let's say we survive, I'm an optimist.... a rough road ahead I still wonder if one does not want to become familiar with the death throws of Red Shift's Expanding Universe theory, the bust up of Big Bang cosmology, the need of radically sliding scales for radiological decay dating, and dare I say it... dare I... gravity flux, z-pinch galaxy and celestial formations, perturbation-tolerant orbital tracks along flattened concentric planes (for gravity alone is not supposed to do this!!!).

... the implications of periodic 8 kilovolt per meter atmosphere spanning hundreds of square kilometers here in earth

... deep inside cold dark sunspots, WTF?!?

... multi million degree temperature inversions defying thermonuclear "understanding".

... where deceleration of coronal mass ejections "is known to be the only way possible", we empirically enjoy the thrill of witnessing continued acceleration as it passes all the planets ... and beyond. (again, gravity is not supposed to do that)

... THE 49 MOONS OF SATURN, damn it!!! (one of my favorites) I mean, now there are 52 GORGEOUS MOONS!!!!... and those are just the ones even NASA acknowledges as Officially named "to date".

... Godzilla-like monster lighting that can attain altitudes of at least 85 kilometers (dear Columbia was only 63 kilometers up when she burst into saddening flames)

"Was late Permian really 260 million years ago? Geologists consider this figure accurate, along with the "known" age of the Earth. And it's all backed by absolute radiometric dating techniques. Fifty years ago, they were equally confident of a different age, and another age fifty years before that. But this time they're sure they've got it right."

I may not be a real fan of the swelling earth model, but I'm not about to let fossil dating or erosion calculus stand in my way of looking at it.

"Two of the basic assumptions on which radiometric dating is based are that the Earth is an isolated body in space unaffected by interactions with other bodies and that the decay constant is a constant. No matter what, no matter where, the half-life of a particular radioactive isotope remains the same."

Like the first quote from an unmentionable source, the others here must also go unnamed... for distraction, delay, disruption of hard workers... is the "Order" of the day. I'm satisfied that enough clues and reminders have been presented here, that industrious and truth-seeking investigators will get a boost, as detractors will struggle as they should.

For example: "Plasma geology is a virgin field for curious and enterprising investigators. In this age of scientific conformity and consensus truth, are there any geologists left who have a sense of adventure?"

Seeking the truth behind 9/11, is NOT for the conformist, faint of heart, nor especially for Science as Science is today. "Loons" of the highest human character we are. If raising doubts across the board because 9/11 proves exception to the Rule... then our revolution in a great many things is well underway.

That geological

explanation you have listed above is utter BS.
If it were true which it isn't then how could we have Marine Fossils from an excess of 565 Million years ago?

In 24 years as a Marine biologist I have never heard such a thing which BTW my main subject of research is cyanobacteria (basically Algae) & Microcystins (toxins) which has been positively dated to have origins around 3.5 Billion years ago coming from the Archaean period coastline which means the alleged "hypothesis" above can not possibly be correct.
and what does this have to do with the original post anyway?

In the spirit of healthy discourse...

... my reply above, was also written to address your comment as well. (like you, I too have experience in live and dead cellular research.)

Why the low score...

Why the low score?? Why would someone vote this one down??

"911 was an Inside Job"

Good Question

cualcrees, your question speaks volumes and the sound of the down votes is deafening with silence. Perhaps it's a popularity vote without any regards to content. I agree this admission of omission from NIST is huge, why would it be voted down on a forum such as this one with 15 votes already turned it?

Read some of the comments below

And you'll understand why.

(although I didn't vote for this one at all)

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

The deafening silence

The silence from the corporate/alternative press is equally deafening in this case as it was when it was revealed the FBI had "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden with 9/11". Why is The Nation and The Progressive, etc, etc, not mentioning any of this?

The silence is so deafening from these outlets as to scream outright complicity. I feel like I'm in fucking 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (the '78 version).

Sorry TN

Sorry TN for echoing your excellent statement, after I read your post earlier went off line and was thinking about what to post, absently forgot how impressed I was with the creation of your phrase, thereby plagiarizing you ... my bad, your good, please accept apologies : )

I am not so sure that they are admitting anything implicitly.

Although I think that the evidence for controlled demolition is extremely strong, I have trouble seeing that NIST has implicitly admitted anything. Maybe my powers of spotting implicit messages are lacking, but my own view is that the headline is just way, way too optimistic. If this quote is correct: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.", attributed to NIST, it is important, but let's not over-interpret the evidence. They have given us an opening; maybe clever people in the Truth community can exploit it. There are very many openings that we have exploited over the years. The opposition itself is very clever, and powerful, and has managed to deflect many of our best thrusts.

Yes, a question of strategy

I also would tend to question re-interpreting their message and putting that out in headlines to the public. It's a tactical way to try to get people's attention, but it feels contrived, confrontational, and intentionally egging them on. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that confrontations will win this for us.

If I were a NIST employee who maybe knew some things but was on the fence, I'd probably be annoyed by this and pushed toward a defensive position. That's the only place left for them to go when we -- in their eyes -- twist their words around and put it in their faces.

Sometimes even just adding a single question mark in a headline can change the whole tone.

I think that's why the low votes

Someone above asked why anyone would vote the story down. While I didn't vote it down, the hyperbolic headline and analogies did bother me. It's not exactly scientific to conclude that controlled demolition brought the towers down (as strong as the evidence is) because NIST admits it can't prove its theory. It's a very Prison Planet way of spinning something.

Useing the word "implicitly", explicitly NOT "explicit".

But too close for comfort, so I gave it a 9 for as you say 'spinning the Prison Planet way'.

I agree...

... that this particular NIST statement falls way short of "implicit admission". Kevin is reaching here.

Frankly, I am concerned about the leaders of the movement who make unfounded sensationalist claims. Looks like Kevin has spent too much time around Fetzer.


headlines like this will hurt our movement and damage our credibility. NIST didn't "implicitly admit" anything! What they did say is very important and damaging, but if we sensationalize it and post headlines like this it will turn people off.

"I will not withdraw from this war even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -George W. Bush

Hold on, Kevin

I'm coming out of retirement just to say this :

Kevin Barrett is going way over the line here.
The NIST quote ' We are unable to provide a full explanation ' etc. clearly does not mean
" we tried, but just couldn't explain the collapses " . It means the collapses are too complex
for their computer models' to converge on a solution ' . You can read it in the letter.
To twist that into the ludicrous and logically fallacious claim that NIST ' implicitly admits ' that
controlled demolition is the explanation is unworthy of any serious participant in the debate.

I'm trying to stay as open-minded as I can about the whole issue of controlled demolition, but
if the movement's brightest people are coming up with this kind of rubbish, you are in trouble.
More proof, at least for me, that the controlled demolition issue is the 21st century's Grassy
Knoll Shooter : a brilliant diversion into a dead end street : you can't prove he was there and
they can't prove he wasn't. The End.

Move on to the real, provable crimes : Bush et al stole the elections, they used 9 11 for their own
agendas, they are hiding pertinent facts from the public, they are trashing the rights of Americans
and people of the world, they are war mongers, they are war profiteers, they are torturers,
they should be brought to justice and go to jail.
That is the real challenge, and although that's what you all want, internet discussions on thermate
are way off target and do not scare these people one tiny bit. In fact, it makes them feel safe, I bet.

I fully expect to be voted down for my criticism of Dr. Barrett , so go for it. It's easier than giving me
a decent reply.

When we twist people's words, we discredit ourselves.

NIST admitted nothing about demolition. They just said they stopped trying to explain it, because that's all they were either allowed, required, or asked to do.

Putting words in people's mouths is an obvious low grade ploy to drum up support. Many people will see right through this headline and say that we are untrustworthy spinmeisters who take advantage of every opportunity to be sensationalistic.

I would agree with them.

I don't see how this NIST letter has said anything new, that we didn't already know. They have no intention of investigating further, and are simply blowing off the people writing to them. They are "unable" and unwilling to investigate the causes of the total collapse, and don't feel they have to answer to the American public. It is the Bush regime that pays the bills over at NIST.

This may have limited value to highlight their unwillingness to explain their theories. It certainly is not an admission of controlled demolition.

That's why I voted it low.

Reality Check

NIST is required under the law to explain the collapse of the WTC. Given that there are 2 explanations floating around in the public discourse; fire or controlled demolition, the statement by NIST is an implicit endorsement of controlled demolition.

When you say 'implicit' you are NOT putting words in someone's mouth, and in fact are explicitly saying you are not doing that.

im·plic·it /ɪmˈplɪsɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-plis-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. implied, rather than expressly stated: implicit agreement.

You would have to deny that the controlled demolition theory exists to argue that Kevin has put words in anyone's mouth.

If you know a NIST scientist, I would send this article to them pronto.

Please don't post stuff with which I agree

I'm kidding, of course. Hey, if we can't laugh at ourselves and each other, who can we laugh at?

It's more than a bit of a stretch to take what NIST stated in their letter and morph it into an "implicit admission" of any kind, whether "of controlled demolition", or "that their report is a fraud".

And, Kevin's comments of "Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse..." is also incorrect.

Haven't they pretty much, if not exactly, always made the claim that they don't know what happened after "initiation of collapse" and that they never even looked into what happened after that and don't know what actually caused the full collapse?

So I think Kevin is going to have to retract this blog.

Hey, we all make mistakes. (not as many as johndoraemi, of course, but we all know that....... ---------- I'm kidding! — ;o) )

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

So what ever happened to that blog you were working on?

The one where you were going to prove that, although you admit the WTC collapses LOOK like Controlled Demolitions, you were going to take a couple of weeks to write a blog showing how they WEREN't Controlled Demolitions. LeftRight was giving you some pointers, remember? Wasn't that in the spring? What happened? Was looking forward to it, I was:

Since Barrett is a close associate of Tarpley and Fezter, you probably won't get voted down JUST for critizing him. No, any down votes you get will be because of your PAST here, sunbeam.

Long memories, we have...."fellow truther".

4:Know your History


Show "Love you too" by haverman

"The article is still in production."


SInce March? LMAO again!

And even though you think CD is "counter productive" and "divisive"--you're going ahead with an article that "proves" there was no CD at WTC 1 and 2? And you expect that WON'T be "counter productive"?

At least you're good for a laugh, "fellow truther"! ;-)

Show "what a bore" by haverman

YOU told us 2 weeks--back in MARCH!


ok, i'll ask again

i remember kids at school who worked really hard to get accepted into a clique and then, once finally accepted, turned with such exaggerated ferociousness against outsiders that they made the members of the clique embarrassed at their own cliqueiness. i really couldn't stand those kids.

jenny sparks please stop badgering people who present a different point of view on this forum. nothing in haverman's post indicated that he was trolling or trying to stir up trouble. your "interventions" often look more like trolling than the original posts they reply to. no one here appointed you to moderate the discussion on our behalf. we don't want to be reminded of the history of your superficial altercations with people who disagree with you. we're more than capable of making our own judgments.

i have no doubts myself that the WTC was brought down in a controlled demolition. but i also have no doubts that there are many sincere people out there (including many scientists and even engineers) who disagree. i find it fascinating and deeply disturbing that this could be the case. i want very much to know how it can be the case. if you and your ilk continue to bully every person who feels that way into silence, i'll never have the chance to understand. up to this point in the debate, nobody has managed to convince me that calculations based on the fundamental principles of physical science have the power to force "experts" to change sides in this debate. i find this just staggering. the simple fact that there are scientists on both sides of this fence astonishes me. it seems to me it has all sorts of deep implications that any philosopher of science worthy of the title ought to be deeply engaged in examining. what we need is for both sides of the debate to come to agreement on a practically feasible crucial experiment (or series of experiments) which will decide the matter one way or the other. and the only way to come to such an agreement is through open dialogue.

I've no idea what you're on about

This wanker dropped off the scene months ago because he couldn't get away with shite--then thought he could waltz back in unchallenged. Not going to happen.

And yeah, you do need to make up your own mind--that's why I posted a link of his history to HELP you--or anyone--with that.

Now I've said my piece--and linked it with proof--I don't feel the need to go on and on about it. Why do you? ;-)

I understand where you are coming from Joe

I agree with the first part of your post and allow me to answer the second part.

"nobody has managed to convince me that calculations based on the fundamental principles of physical science have the power to force "experts" to change sides in this debate. i find this just staggering. the simple fact that there are scientists on both sides of this fence astonishes me"

This seemingly impossible phenomena is really easily explainable. The so called "Scientist/Experts" pushing the ridiculous Official Conspiracy Theory are few and far between & have either been paid off or threatened or both and are LYING through their teeth because there is no possible way that a PhD'd physicist or Structural Engineer etc could look at all the evidence and come to any other conclusion than Controlled Demolition. (actually even a reasonably intelligent 8th grader would not be fooled either) The ones that keep quiet and say nothing are the ones that want to keep their jobs they worked all their life to obtain, remember we are living in a Fascist Police State with at least 1/3 of the general population that are insane and have been easily fooled into believing the official lie.

thank you Joe 90 We may (

thank you Joe 90
We may ( still ) disagree on CD and other matters, but we see eye to eye on the principle of debate.
I wish this site had more people with that attitude.
Unfortunately, the voting down reflex is all a lot of people here can bring themselves to do when
I dare post something. Let's pretend that post doesn't exist....
I used to wonder what could be wrong with Jenny Sparks and her pitbull antics, but must admit
I'm no longer interested in the answer.

I am preparing a more 9 11 related reply to your post
Expect it today

deteled double post

post for joe 90

having internet probs
I will post tomorrow

A reply to Joe 90

Joe 90, you say you find it fascinating and incomprehensible that someone would not accept the controlled demolition ( CD ) hypothesis regarding WTC 1 and 2.
I have a very similar sensation when I see and hear the sheer zeal with which many people on this forum defend the CD idea , which to me, appears improbable.
That means there is a great divide between myself and I guess just about everyone else here : I have yet to meet a 911 truther who is openly doubtful about CD for towers 1 and 2.
( I emphasise : I don’t speak of WTC 7 here. That one really does look like CD and I can assure you I have no theory for what happened to that building. ) I want to try to shed light on how I perceive the matter in hopes of making my position appear less alien to you.
I feel confident that you will give me a fair hearing at least, unlike some. .


My objections to the CD of 1 and 2 theory arise in two areas.

First, I object to the interpretation of the visual evidence of the collapses of the towers.
I believe people just aren’t looking right or that in some cases they just aren’t looking period.
I remember a reply I got earlier from someone whose name has been mentioned enough now : “ are you telling us we’re not seeing what we’re seeing ? ‘ “ I replied :” I’m saying that what you are perceiving is not what’s really happening “.

The list of characteristics that came about via Hoffman, Griffin and now Cage has been a
‘ how to interpret what you see ‘ guide for many 911 truthers. The supreme irony to me is that DRG points to the unique way in which the towers came down, listing a number of observable characteristics, as evidence that CD was at play, but that at the same time, there is no evidence available of any building that ever came down in that way before or since. In other words, they can only compare the collapses to footage of buildings that came down by CD, in ways that are completely different ! ( Again : I’m not talking about WTC 7 here. )
I can, for now at least, only conclude that the unique, top down destruction of the towers looks like it had everything to do with the strike / fire damage. That’s what I see. I don’t see beams being violently ejected sideways. I don’t believe ( parts of ) the towers could ever topple or fall over sideways whilst maintaining their structural integrity. They were never built to do that. I don’t see the towers coming down at freefall speed, and they simply do not.
In fact, the freefall idea is pivotal to the CD hypothesis, because it would prove there is no resistance below, etc. To me the huge plumes of debris , combined with simple time measurements, can lead to only one conclusion : there was resistance.
Otherwise the huge noise produced by the collapses would be caused mostly by explosives.
Is that what that sound is ? I don’t think so.

My reply below to Cattlerustler called ‘ as promised ‘ ( voted down by the usual suspects) outlines some of the problems I encounter with the DRG list. Did you read that
( long ) post ? I would be very interested in your observations.


The second kind of objection I have concerns the scenario of CD, in terms of who planned what, how and why ; a strikingly unpopular topic among the people here, by the way. Not meaning to be cynical or disrespectful to anyone, I feel someone in the 911 truth group should have done more work on this. My suspicion is that that no one has, because when you reason along on it, it’s hard to keep it probable, or even possible.
On a gut reaction level, I find the whole idea itself unbelievable. I realize that’s hardly scientific, so, suspending my disbelief as much as possible, I try to think through the scenario as it could have occurred, and I have trouble making it plausible.

How could the scenario go ? You may disagree with me, of course, and I would welcome your views.

Scenario-wise, I would have to imagine that in addition to ‘ the hijackers ‘ ( either really Muslim fundamentalist terrorists or some kind of US black ops agents, or some hybrid form of the two ), there is a Group X , made up of some alliance of black ops / renegade government faction and ‘ Larry Silverstein ‘ -type interests. What drives this motley crew together ? Why would they help each other ? Why would they need each other ? Their plan would be to either use a terrorist attack that they know will be happening as a cover for their real agenda, which is the destruction of the towers for the purposes of....solving an expensive asbestos problem ? Scamming the insurance ?
All while killing thousands of innocent men and women in the process ? How greedy can a person get ? Effectively triggering a 4 year recession ? Doing severe harm to the economy ? ...Hhhmmmm...

Or was the downing of the towers about completing the illusion of shock and horror, because, somehow, just the sight of the plane impacts and fires and poor people jumping to their deaths and others being burned alive and suffocating wasn’t effective enough ? If the attacks were a false flag operation, the total destruction of the Twin Towers would not have been necessary to create a scare effect on the US people of unprecedented proportions. So to me, that rules CD out as a motive for the so-called ‘ renegade CIA / NSA /false flag faction ‘

So who in ‘ Group X ‘ would need the collapses so bad ?
In the hope that the towers would be hit by the planes, they’d have to wire two of the largest buildings in the world with a huge number of explosives / incendiaries, with the people still inside, so that the buildings would be brought down fully, not just hit by planes. However, and this cannot be overstated, this complicated CD process must be carried out so as to make sure it didn’t look like controlled demolition, because the idea is to make it appear that the terrorist attack caused the collapses. Why ? If they wanted to blame terrorists for what they wanted to do, namely bring down the towers, why not do a repeat of 1993, ( this time successful ) and bring them down at night with minimal casualties ? Seems to me it would be possible to set up a ‘ terrorist ‘ patsy for that.

If the terrorists didn’t need the buildings to come fully down to achieve their goals, then by the same token, neither would the false flag / black ops people. So the only group with a vested interest in full demolition is....who ? Larry Silverstein ? N Y Port Authority ?
Would these people kill thousands to make more money ? Does anyone else share my sense of disbelief here ?

Please note I don’t rule out the possibility that 9 / 11 was a false flag operation just because I don’t believe in CD. It’s still possible that Atta and cronies were handled in such a way that in reality, their actions were used by others with a secret agenda to achieve very different goals. Also, I remain very puzzled by WTC 7, by the molten metal under the rubble, to name but a few things that I feel need to be answered. .

Anyway...I hope there’s enough material here and in my post below for you ( or anyone else so inclined ) to reply to in more detail. I would be very interested in finally discussing these topics instead of being simply voted down and labeled either crazy or a disinformation agent. I am neither.

Then you must be

blind as a bat and some how or another have managed to get past the FACT that the Laws of Physics were not suspended that day.

CD is a proven fact.

Who's blind here ? To you,

Who's blind here ?
To you, CD a ' proven fact' .
That does not make it so in the real world.

You , and many others here, have a choice to make :
you either have the guts to examine your own ideas
and beliefs critically, accepting that you may have to let go
of some of them. Or you continue to huddle close together with people who
have all sworn allegiance to the well-known 911 Thuths.

9 11 Truth shouldn't be about making blanket statements like " CD is a proven fact ' .
It isn't, no matter how much you want it to be.

So if you want to convince me of your views : prove me wrong, point by point.
Then we'd be getting somewhere, because you might be able to teach me
something. I want to learn the truth. What do you want to do ? .



@Haverman: Lets pretend

the wtc towers were hit by objects that could completely remove from existence the 6-10 floors of the impact zone. Now the upper intact portion of the building would begin to fall right away (no debates about fire, damage, time, fireproofing, structural steel, etc etc etc) The upper portion hits the lower portion. The points at where the two pieces meet/collide experience crushing and deforming, does the top portion then proceed thru the path of most resistance at the rate of freefall (ie the rate of falling thru air unobstructed) ?

Does the top portion mangle and wedge itself into the bottom portion and come to a stop?

Does the top portion mangle and wedge, and deform and begin to tip over?

Does the top portion, once having begun to tip, get carried by momentum past the point of no return, and fall to the street?

All of the above are possible scenarios if and only if controlled demolition WAS NOT present.

To say "I'm trying to stay as open-minded as I can about the whole issue of controlled demolition" is a false premise, and defies logic. I submit you dont/cant admit cd was present, and you ignore the laws of physics as to absolve yourself from critical thought, therefore sparing yourself the truth. I am sorry, I really am. I am not trying to fight with you, but you cant have it both ways. Either logic and physical laws exist or they dont.

Freefall trumps all
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Show "Cattlerustler, I have" by haverman

"I promise to reply in more detail tomorrow."

Why bother? I thought you said you were coming out of retirement JUST to say THIS:

Don't come rushing back on our account.

Now where can he be it's that late? Britain? France? India? Sun hasn't set anywhere Stateside...

as promised

CattleRustler, In response to your question :

( I will try to be as brief as possible, excuse the abbreviations. This is a quick write, and inaccuracies are possible, so please follow the main line of my argument I refer ONLY to WTC 1 and 2, NOT 7 )

I believe not enough attention is paid to the way in which the towers were designed and built.
It determines how they stood for many years and also how they were destroyed in 2001.
Everyone here is familiar with the list of characteristics DRG mentions that are meant to indicate that the towers’ collapse is such that only CD could have caused it. I believe Jim Hoffman and DRG and recently others like Cage, are interpreting the video and photo evidence incorrectly. This I feel is caused by their failure to take into account the way in which the towers were constructed, and as a consequence, the way in which they came down. What happened for me, as I looked again and again at the familiar collapse footage and stills taken from many different angles, with the list in hand so to speak, is that I began to realise that what is clearly visible in that material in fact does not fit the list very well at all.

The list, now heavily back in use by the architects, illustrates clearly how the collapses are perceived by DRG, Cage et. al.. The wording reflects a certain way of thinking about the towers as structures that leaves some crucial factors out. I will come to those.
In general, the towers are always referred to as ‘ steel frame buildings ‘, inferring that they posessed great internal strength. That’s why they speak of the towers or parts of the towers ‘ toppling over ‘ under certain conditions. The example Steven Jones cites of the top section falling straight to the ground vs. the top section falling through the remaining bottom section, is another illustration of that thinking : the bottom part would provide massive resistance, so it would not be possible for the top to fall through at such ‘ near freefall ‘ speeds. Something must be making that resistance go away instantly, and that something would have to be explosive charges, set off in sequence etc etc.

The reasoning here is : the freefall speed proves there is no resistance below, therefore explosives must be destroying the tower floor by floor very rapidly and in sequence. The masses of falling material and dust clouds are also explained by explosives, because what else could be causing them when there is no resistance ? In other words : Freefall proves no resistance proves CD.
I look at it quite differently : freefall does not occur precisely because there is ( dust-generating ) resistance. It takes around 18 seconds for the last piece of WTC 1 to hit the ground, ( not counting the 55 storey-high piece of central core that survives temporarily,tellingly ). Only falling perimeter columns make it to freefall speed : they hit the ground while the standing bottom part is still many storeys high.

I understand the perspective and the disbelief of Hoffman, DRG, Jones and Cage, because I see what is lacking from their understanding of the towers as structures. What is lacking is a good concept of the interplay between the three main elements of which the towers were made : the core columns, the perimeter columns and the floors. The main point is, although made of steel, these elements and the way the were connected to form the towers, was nothing like a steel frame or steel grid found in many other highrise buildings.

The three elements all had very different functions and are used in very different ways.
They were implemented in the way they were to achieve maximum height ( equals max number of floors ) plus maximum open, column-less floor space. To achieve that, the more classic steel grid design was for the first time abandoned in favour of a revolutionary shift of the columns, usually evenly spaced for optimal load bearing, towards both the centre of the building and the outside perimeter, leaving large uninterrupted open office space. The central core was most solidly and ruggedly constructed, like a steel grid building in fact, but supporting an actual building with a footprint much larger than its own. The perimeter columns were assembled in stacks of three ( or thereabouts ) , with spandrels providing cross support. They provided additional vertical support and load bearing, plus torsioned resistance to lateral wind forces. ( This is a very much simplified version of the function and construction of the columns, but for the purposes of this argument, please bear with me ).

Now comes element number three : the floors. Large pans of steel, supported at their underside by steel trusses, filled with a 4 inch layer of concrete. The floors were designed and assembled to perform , among other things , two functions : bear the load of the tenants and their office equipment etc. plus, and this is the important part : enable the perimeter and core columns to do their work by fixing them in place relative to each other. The columns are strong enough to support their own weight plus the floors, but don’t fall down only if they are fixed in place one directly above the other, following a straight vertical line. A 1400 ft tall column made up of 110 sections will have no hope of lasting unless relative lateral forces are kept to a strict minimum. That was the all-important function of the floors, without which the columns simply could not stand, inspite of their often referred-to massive strength. The floors themselves had no real structural role in keeping the building up other than to handle the relatively small lateral force of fixing the central columns to the perimeter columns, floor by floor. That’s why the connections of the floors to the columns were designed to perform that function. The floors hung on both sides on brackets strong enough to bear their own static ( non-moving ) load plus office equipment and people, and strong enough to help keep the columns in their vertical alignment, so the columns could do the job they were designed to, i.e. hold up each other and 110 floors with open office space. Obviously, there were redundancies built in, though none prepared the buildings for what happenened on 9 11 2001.

( This is another area that merits very careful description so here I hope to be accurate enough for the purposes of this reply ).
Proponents of the CD hypothesis always speak of ‘ how the towers / buildings fell ‘.
It is important to note here that these two towers came down in a way unlike anything ever seen in the world, then and now. Never before or since have you seen a building, large or small, end up in pieces on the ground in that way. The towers failed at the plane impact area and the ‘ top part ‘ , above the impact, fell down on the intact ‘ lower part ‘ . That’s the simplest way you can put it. Strangely, the towers remained firmly standing until the very last floor fell. They were being destroyed from the top down, floor by floor, down from the impact zone to the ground. So the towers didn’t ‘ fall ‘ in any way any tower has ever fallen.
I think that is the case because of the unique way these buldings were damaged, and because of the unique way in which they were designed and constructed. .

Once the destruction begins,( yes I’m not explaining initiation ) I see the tops falling onto / through the intact parts somewhere at the impact zone. But instead of pushing down the entire structure floor by floor, I notice in the billowing smoke, columns surviving the initial ‘ demolition wave ‘ rushing by. These all appear to be ( sections of ) perimeter columns, that can be seen to slowly fall outward, pivoting on what must be parts of the perimeter still standing directly below. The taller these falling stacks of column are, the further away from the footprint they land. They are not violently blown sideways by some explosive force : they fall slowly outward like long poles, some then breaking up as they tumble down, trailing dust in their wake.
Nowhere do I see pieces of floor still attached to the columns. They are all sheared clean off.
Where are the floors ? They are all far below, collapsing onto eachother at high downward speed, while the columns buckle and fall without the floors there fixing them to the central core. The central core is a steel grid structure itself, so survives longer than the perimeter columns, but ultimately falls.

Meanwhile the central core exhibits the same shearing off of the floors. WTC 2 had a massive amount of core columns still standing after the floors and perimeter columns had fallen away. There is video and photo evidence that shows it clearly : not a trace of the floors is visible, only central core columns. WTC 1’s central core partially survives the massive forces of destruction, because as with WTC 2, the floors moved downward with great speed, ripping off the floors below instantly. The floors are gone from view. They are never visible anywhere during the collapses. They are collapsing inside, before the columns fall away and down, seconds later. They end up slamming into the basement, compressed in layers ( see photo of ‘ meteorites ‘ ) compacted by huge downward pressure. Nowhere is there any part of floor still attached to a column.
This is supported by the video from below just as the collapse starts.
You can see the result of the floors falling ( dusty air being blown out, windows breaking simultaneously per floor ) while the perimeter columns are still intact 5 or 6 storeys up : the downward velocity is high enough for the floors to be ripped clean off their brackets / clips and be pushed down, hitting each new floor with a short sharp blow many, many times beyond their design limits.

What you can see falling down in the widening plume of dust is not the floors, but only columns, mostly perimeter. The central core columns are falling in or close to the footprint. Strikingly, both towers have sections of perimeter at ground level still standing ! The highest parts of those also reveal no part of any floor ( truss ) still attached. They are all sheared off, and some photos show the bent clips.

The towers came down in a way that is consistent with the way they were built and with the specific functions each one of their three constituent structural elements had. Each element fell in its own way, and consistent with the way it functioned in the structural interplay of elements.
The floors fell on top of each other, while the columns still maintained their vertical position.. The clips / brackets holding the floors in place break off while the columns, central core as well as perimeter, remain standing until the tremendous vibrations and shocks of the destruction below produce just enough lateral movement for however many are still standing, to fall.

From my point of view, the symmetry of the collapse is now logical, and not strange as DRG claims. The socalled totality of destruction is equally logical once you see how the collapses occur consistent with the way the towers were built and what structural elements they contained.
As for explosiveness, I see nothing being blown forcefully sideways, as Hoffman and DRG claim.
I have explained why some perimeter columns ended up far away from the original footprint.
Nothing to do with explosives.

The fact that both towers were destroyed in the same way is to me a strong indication not that they were both wired with explosives and blown up, but that they were both designed and built in uniquely similar ways, failed in their own uniquely similar ways after both being damaged in uniquely similar ways.

When trying to contruct a plausible scenario for the CD hypothesis, involving the hijackers and
‘ Group X ‘ ,who are blowing the buildings up in such a way that it doesn’t look like CD but really is, I have serious trouble twisting any kind of believeble scenario around that storyline. I notice by the way that this is an area all proponents of CD avoid. I believe that is because it quickly becomes highly improbable. I notice, in all this time, none of the movements brightest minds have dared tread in that mire. Coincidence ?

Finally : all of this doesn’t mean I can explain exactly when the collapses started or
I can’t even say for sure that no thermate or explosives were used to initiate collapse, although I can argue a strong case purely on logical grounds. In addition, the stream of metal falling from the South Tower is in the wrong corner to initiate collapse. The thermate evidence seems circumstantial.
Where was even a trace of demolition equipment ( of which it is claimed there was a lot ) in the pile ?
( I am still however mystified by the molten metal under the buildings, and the extreme heat.
I have yet to see a good link between that heat , especially weeks afterwards, and CD. )

The videos and photos of the collapse simply do not show CD at work. All the ‘ telltale ‘ signs of CD supposedly visible in the videos are for me adequately explained by the reasoning outlined above.
I wonder who would agree with me ?

( Again, this was very fast writing, based on a work in progress. Please follow the main line. Thanks. )

Three Elements:

After reading your entire post, I must still return to your open and stop you cold at your wanting description of the towers construction and inherent strength.

The core, perimeter and floors. The core is total vertical load barring with a redundancy factor no less than three. >THREE! The perimeter serves as shear planes through tension and compression in all directions. The parimeter tied to the core through the top hat and thus hammerable by a hundred hear hurricane from any direction. The floors do almost nothing structurally but hold up butts and paper.

The towers were the strength and structural equivalent of a grain silo, with the absurd added benefit of a compression barring center tower equal to that of forty Abrams tank main guns... now in your mind's eye, scale such a structure back up to that of the WTC.

These were not some kind of rickety twigs nor pixie sticks just waiting for a plane to knock them over nor burn to the ground with even a million gallons of jet fuel... they were blasted the fuck down! Intentionally, most probably with focused demolition charges needed to CUT the steel in seconds. Fire melting, or even "heat-softened sagging" would have been a drama for the whole day well into the next of 9/12.

Please, stop pretending to yourself that tin darts and lamp oil can cause such a steel structure to fall directly into itself. Please, in the name of God if need be. Please.

Show "Achilles' Heel" by haverman

well it is clear

that you have deluded yourself to believe something that is utterly impossible and no amount of explanation will make any difference whatsoever.
This is the same phenomena one experiences with such brain trust as Young Earth Creationist and there is nothing no matter how irrefutable & overwhelming that will ever sway these lunatics from their insane belief, only thing that can be done is just /ignore.

The buildings came down by controlled demolition ALL the evidence and the laws of physics prove this without any doubt and CD is THE ONLY real hard and irrefutable evidence we have without CD we may as well pack up and go home.

Oh and BTW show me how these houses of cards that were so weak that they could barely hold themselves up somehow managed to BLOW beams and columns weighing several tons across West 57th street some 400-600' away? DOH! LOL
Also how did some 1150 bodies completely vaporise without a trace and approx 1700 others wind up BLOWN into tiny little bits most of which was collected in over 20,000 TEST TUBES!
along with 760 tiny bone fragments BLOWN across the street some 400-500' away.

" the case of 7, they

" the case of 7, they freely admitted it stumps them.
Why would they not also admit they can't explain WTC 1 and 2 ?"

They have. Whatever one thinks about the rest of their methods and analysis, the fact that they could only speak to the point where the buildings were "poised for collapse" is tacit admission that they couldn't explain the damning, identical nature of the collapses from distinctly different damage profiles. I'm not sure what video evidence you believe matches the official story (are you privvy to GWB's private videographer? ;-) ), but even the well-paid shills on the major networks called it as they saw it that day.

Also, if a "fire collapse theory" were valid, building codes would be rewritten and extant buildings would be required to beef up. But those things haven't happened.

As to the insurance fraud issue: insurance companies and financiers MADE money both from what happened in NY and the subsequent War on Everything. The conduits and profits at the highest levels of the insurance industry are very complex; they aren't above paying off scammers and criminals now and again when dodgy incidents become the hands that feed the bigger machine. As well, we have no way of knowing what pressures were brought to bear.

Your "3 Elements"

are absolutely impossible. These towers in 1976 were the strongest most well built sky scrapers on Earth (16X stronger than other buildings built the old way) and won awards for their construction, in fact structural engineers were so impressed that future sky scrapers used the same methods and design.

There is not even the tiniest shred of evidence of anything you wrote here in this diatribe.

All 3 buildings came down by Controlled Demolition there is overwhelming evidence of this.

Apples and Oranges

re: haverman :

I agree with your assessment, except for the part about "moving on to the real, provable crimes".

You are confusing (what do you want to call it?) the "Impeach Cheney and Bush Movement" with the "9/11 Truth and Justice Movement".

The problems you state with Bush and what should be done about them is part of the former, issues about CD of the towers and other 9/11 Truth issues are in the realm of the latter. (and success in the latter would be yet another item to the list of "provable crimes" of the former once we get that far)

There is some overlap and such, but you are trying to make them the same thing and they are not.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Controlled Demolition

Is THE most provable thing we have, even more so than election fraud which is virtually 100% positive.
CD is literally the ONLY way those 3 buildings could have collapsed according to the laws of physics.

That is as proof positive as it gets.

Sorry, but...

NIST didn't "implicitly admit" anything about Controlled Demolition.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks



Pardon me, but I think you are confusing ''implicit' with 'explicit'. NIST did not explicitly admit the Towers were taken down by controlled demolition, nor did Kevin explicitly say that NIST explicitly admitted it either.

Kevin said that NIST IMPLICITLY admitted the towers came down from controlled demolition, which is a true statement and a message that needs to be broadcasted to as many scientists as possible, as scientists will be best able to understand the logic.

Please allow me to explain the logic:

There are two serious theories regarding collapse, fire and controlled demolition.

NIST has just admitted that after 6 years they are not even attempting to explain the total collapse from fire.

They have not even presented any evidence in their reports that the global collapse was caused by fire.

But if the towers did not totally collapse from fire, then the only other serious theory is controlled demolition.

Correct Galileo

and NIST certainly DID "implicitly" admit it.

From their response...

"In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapses of the towers."

They did not admit to the buildings being Controlled Demolition. Implicitly or explicitly.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks