Bush's Odd Behavior on 9/11


This must-see 16 minute excerpt from Barrie Zwicker's video "The Great Conspiracy" shows that George W. Bush was acting very strangely on the morning of 9/11. It also touches on the "guilty demeanor" of Bush and Cheney in connection with the 9/11 Commission cover-up.

Digg it

Yeh this is a good look at

Yeh this is a good look at Bush's odd behavoir on 9/11, the whole film is a good critique of the official account, they look at previous lies used as a pre text for war, for example when Bush 1 lied about saddam having his troops throw babies from incubators which garned great support for the gulf war 1, they even had a girl take the stand and fake a story about seeing the babies being thrown from incubators.It's sickening, and just shows how low they are prepared to stoop, it also shows that they know how hard it is to convince Americans that war is a good idea, i guess they relized unless the problem is right on the doorstep Americans won't consent to war, on 9/11 they got there consent for war from the American people and like the babies and incubators story, it was a massive lie.


The Bush family is scum, every last one of them including their filth loving Christian hating wives.

Grasping at Straws

This is a little flaky if you ask me. Seems like something is missing... oh yeah... it's the truth. Come on folks. He is the president. Not the devil.

BOY, I guess love is blind!

BOY, I guess love is blind!

I like to watch Bill

I like to watch Bill O'Reilley s odd behavior when he talks about 9/11. He mentions the 40 people from his neighborhood that died that day..... He just squirms in his seat.... I think the last time I saw him act that way was right before he professed that he wanted to take a hand Grenade to all the bloggers.

He may be on the inside.... but I just think he's a quivering, scared little girl.

Be sure to use his full name when you post about him so he can google himself and realize how many grenades he needs to arm himself with when he storms "Blogger Castle"

liars avoid lying

It's the old story that "liars avoid lying": When Bush announced on 9/11 that the whole thing would be an "attack on freedom itself", he carefully avoided lying because he and his cabal were by all means now going after our freedoms, Patriot Act, clamp downs etc. And in fact when one tries to find a lie, you'll have a hard time to find an outright lie such as the famous "Saddam has W.M.D." claim. Even recently Bush didn't say "Osama did 9/11" when he signed the "secret tribunals" bill, but instead sait it would be used against those that "our intelligence agencies believe are responsible for 9/11" - very clever ducking the lie again, because if he himself is actually responsible, his statement remains valid because the CIA didn't think so.

Orwellian Double Speak

Your right Greg. I call it Orwellian double speak. Bush is a master at it. Just this morning he was giving a speech on TV. He was talking about the enemies of freedom and our way of life ect. Actually he was talking about himself and his gang of thug backers. Both my wife and I caught it but I wonder if the average American caught it? Probably not.

no coincidence

It's just found too frequently in their speeches to be a coincidence. Just last week someone posted Rumsfeld's speech on 9/10/2001 and he was talking about "attacking the Pentagon in front of his people". Then Bush with his "freedom" speak - strange, really strange, but it won't help them much not to have perjured themselves when the truth comes back to them.

if you don't know how to

if you don't know how to 'digg' something yet it is really simple:
1) go to digg.com
2) register a new account with digg.com
3) click the 'Digg it' link at the bottom of this post
4) click on 'digg!' on the corresponding digg page.

our highest traffic (even above the 9/11 anniversaries) comes from being 'dugg', so take the time to figure it out if you havent yet!

Blame Canada!

Yes, Barrie rocks.

It should be stressed that Canadians were/are the most sceptical of the official story out of EVERY OTHER GROUP, except, naturally, Muslims.

It's a natural and predictable product of living to the north of you savages ;)

Canadians love Americans, but we hate the American government.

So do I!


We don't ignore you...

Everyone I know loves Canada and half of us have dreams of moving there - lovely people, beautiful countryside, and so much space:-)

I don't know anyone who want to move to the States though:-) My brother was seconded to Florida for a year and said it was his personal vision of hell - dumb people who don't really care what's happening, everyone chasing the $ and work work work mentality.

Go Canada!

Quiet Canadians ? It's called humble.

Hey americans,
Just because we are not loud and obnoxious does not mean we have nothing to say. If you talk all the time what the fuck can you learn,that you don't already know ?
And please stay in america, do not move to Canada and bring the "american" diseases of death to consciousness,compassion,etc.
Thank you for not interrupting,it's called polite,not wimpy.Oh and when you decide to invade CANADA all Canadians will be resistance fighters ,not terrorists.

jesus, for a Canadian, you

jesus, for a Canadian, you sure are loud and obnoxious. way to use that broad brush there to paint us all. whos polite?

Best chances for being "dugg" is for an "original" story

Keep in mind, that the best chances for being "dugg" is for a story that carries original content.

It is considered a "bad behaviour" by diggers to write a blog comment about some original story, and then submit the blog for diggs instead of the story. Such attempts rarely go beyond a few dozen (or less) diggs.

To get on a digg frontpage one needs a few hundred (or even more than a thousand) diggs. Original content has the highest chances to get that.

What about starting a series of in-depth reviews on 911blogger? Topics could be choosen from 9/11 movies + books....

Such reviews could help educate newcomers about info that is already well established, but often overlooked when you first arrive at 9/11 truth movement, and sometimes even forgotten by some oldies. It could also go as "original content".

Barrie Zwicker is very good in this one.

I also agree with his analysis, that Bush feigns normality.

Bill Maher on Scarborough

Bill Maher talked about this on Scarborough County tonight. Maher said Bush should be impeached for sitting there for 7 minutes and not doing anything. They actually talked about the issue for a while...

Sorry but I'm going further

I think there are a large number of Americans who are incredibly fucking stupid. : )

I agree with you.

I know how many they are. 30% of the population. Bush never goes under 30 % in the polls.
They are called evangelicals or christian fundamentalists.

They stand behind him and keep eating his lies whatever happens...


No, you're wrong. It's not that they keep "eating his lies whatever happens

They either don't care, or they aren't paying attention and believe in the traditional republican ideals (OK, there are probably a few that are just doing it for money/power). Either way, they are actually lying to themselves that the government isn't lying to them.

I hope that reading a truth flyer or even watching Loose Change

is enough to undo all the brainwashing that 5+ years of relentless mainstream media disinfo has done!

(I noticed that when 9/11 truth made some progress around the time of the fifth anniversary, CNN went absolutely berserk with non-stop 9/11 propaganda for about 2 weeks thereafter!)

Take a good look at Bush's

Take a good look at Bush's face right after Card tells him about the second hit. Either I am an overly imaginative wild eyed conspiracy theorist, or Bush mimicks a completely phony look of seething rage. It's like he is thinking to himself - "Why that no good Osama! I know him and his band of evil terrorists are behinnd this! As soon as this reading session with the kids is over, I will meet with all my top military and national security advisers and we will put together a plan to bring all those evil-doers to justice. I better not get up and walk out right now, because that would frighten these precious little ones." He started acting out his role of righteous avenger of evil Muslim terrorists on the spot. He is clearly acting for the camera. It couldn't get any more obvious or bizarre than this. Mind blowing.

After being told by Card....

...Bush looks right, then down and suppresses a small smile.....my interpretation?: ....he thinks, "It's working..."

(Thanks, KJ)


on or after 9/11 was Bush's face. It said it all, and I almost (almost) didn't need to know more. He was like "ahh, so it's been done, holy shit, and now my time has come.... What the FUCK DO I DO?" Or something like that? I really think he's largely just the shithead dumbass puppet figurehead for the whole cabal thingy. The guy can't speak a sentence, let alone think strategically in one.

Bush's smirk

To me, after Card whispers whatever it is he whispers (and it doesn't seem like it's a long enough moment for Card to have whispered what they claim) Bush looks both scared and guilty.

I'd say the major emotional response on his face is one of guilt. Fear is second.

He's afraid he will fry for this.

Really? You saw rage in his

Really? You saw rage in his face? Cause to me it looked like he was crapping his pants, realizing the warning form the Clintion adminstration were correct. Wouldn't he jump up if he was trying to convince us that he was surprised by the attack? Nothing in this video can't be explained by this:

George Bush is incompetent and wanted to cover up his incompetence.


These people wanted to go to war with both Afghanistan and Iraq, and wanted to take control of all three branches of Government, and wanted to take away our civil liberties, and wanted to increase military spending to ridiculous proportions, and wanted to make money for their already very rich friends, and managed to do ALL OF THIS, I think it's safe to say the cover-up behind 9/11 has NOTHING to do with incompetence. These are NOT incompetent people.


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Bush is such a liar

Watching the video, when he is talking on that show of how he "saw" the first plane hit "live" on tv that morning..... when he feigned he didn't know a thing in the school classroom earlier in the morning when he already knew everything that was going on.... him being so proud of himself and acting in such an arrogant manner... it really is disgusting. I don't envy his terrible karma.

Cheers and keep up the good work everyone,

I don't envy his terrible karma.

I was thinking the same thing. One thing I have learned in all my 64 years is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. What goes around ALWAYS comes around. The law of retribution (karma) is absolute. That is why I always say................................."Every Dog Has His Day"................................Our day will come and so will Bush's. Just be grateful your not in his shoes.

9/11 commission

They said their goal was not to place blame. That's an understatement. So often with the Bush crime family the same cast of characters keep resurfacing. I just rewatched {JFK II, the Bush connection} This shady type of behavior is common amongst the Bushes

Bush was in on It

In the case of the 9/11 attacks the intentional complicity certainly goes all the way up to Bush, Jr. Bush obviously knew that he was in no danger during the photo op at Booker Elementary School, even though he knew that the first jet crash into the WTC was an intentional attack and had been told that before the photo op even began [see Note A below], i.e., long before Andy Card wispered in his ear supposedly concerning the second jet crash into the WTC. Keep in mind that this photo op was widely publicized in the news, so if the attacks had been by terrorists not under the control of the U.S. government then Bush would have been putting himself and a whole bunch of elementary school children in mortal danger by staying there. But of course, he knew that he was never in any danger by staying there.

As WhatReallyHappened.com commented:


Fahrenheit 9/11 turns up the heat http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/A...
Now that George W. Bush is disappointed to learn that the rah-rah Ronald Reagan funeral coverage won't be extended until the November election -- or the capture of Osama bin Laden, whichever comes first -- it is time to look back at his least Reaganesque moment...If you want to see the video of that moment, you have to go to alternative Web sites, or see Moore's film.

If you cannot wait for Moor's film, that video fo Bush just sitting there while the US is under attack is HERE. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/schoolvideo.html But contrary to Antonia's view, this video reveals more than just an immobile Bush. After Andy Card informs Bush of that second plane impact, Andy just turns and leaves, PROVING THAT ANDY CARD ALREADY KNEW BUSH WAS NOT GOING TO SAY OR DO ANYTHING AT THAT MOMENT. - M. R.

That is, Andy Card, after wispering in Bush's ear about the second jet crash into the WTC (as we're told), doesn't even wait to see if Bush was going to say anything back to him. And of course, Bush doesn't say or do anything concerning the attacks, but simply continues on with the photo op. So the whole wispering in the ear thing was scripted beforehand (meaning they knew a second strike on the WTC was coming).

Now in the case of Bush, Jr., it would have been a matter of only telling him enough to so that he could play his role. The ruling elite (which includes Bush, Jr.'s father) had to know that the President would be onboard for this plan, because if the President wasn't onboard with the plan then obviously he could cause quite a bit of trouble for the elites, even though the U.S. Presidency is mostly a figurehead position nowadays.

So Bush, Jr. wouldn't likely have been told the minute details of the plan, nor would he likely want to know said details (since the more he knows, the less that so-called "plausible deniability" works). But he would have been told enough for him to play his role.

And just what was Bush, Jr.'s role for that day? Like so manly events for that day, he was playing an archetype psychological role intended for the masses to eat up.

This psychological role runs as follows:

Oh, look at Bush reading books with the little children! You see, he can't be involved with an event so horrible, because we can all plainly see that he's as innocent as a choirboy helping out the cute little children!

We can clearly see that Bush isn't directing any of the terrorist events on this day, for as you can see, he's here reading books with these precious little children!

This is what can be termed an "emotional alibi." That is, an event presented to demonstrate the innocence of a person on an emotional basis (and hence, with Bush, Jr. being the "head of state," thereby so also demonstrating the innocence of the U.S. government itself), but which breaks down if viewed logically.

They could have just about as well had Bush, Jr. on camera that day helping old ladies across the street. In other words, present him in a role that tugs on people's "lovey-dovey," "cutesy" heartstrings while the terrorist event is taking place, thereby subconsciously implanting in people's minds his (and by extension, the U.S. government's) innocent nature.


Note A to the above:


George Bush Jr.'s response illustrated a similar indifference. The New York Press continues to note that meanwhile, in Florida, "just as President Bush was about to leave his hotel he was told about the attack on the first WTC tower. He was asked by a reporter if he knew what was going on in New York." ABC News has confirmed this. John Cochran, who was covering the President's trip, informed Peter Jennings on ABC TV:

"He [the President] got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it [i.e. a statement] later."[353]

As the Press reports, "He said he did, and then went to an elementary school in Sarasota to read to children."[354] Another statement from Vice-President Cheney provides further insight into this: "The Secret Service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was ..." Cheney never finished his sentence, but it is obvious that he had meant to say something along the lines of "hit."[355]


Notes to the above:

309. Szamuely, George, 'Nothing Urgent,' New York Press, Vol. 15, No. 2, www.nypress.com/15/2/taki/bunker.cfm
353. Special Report, 'Planes Crash into World Trade Center,' ABC News, 11 September 2001, 8:53 AM ET.
354. Szamuely, George, 'Nothing Urgent,' op. cit.
355. NBC, 'Meet the Press,' 16 September 2001.

["ABC News Special Report: 'Planes crash into World Trade Center,'" ABC News, coverage begins 8:53 AM Eastern Time, September 11, 2001 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/abcnews091101.html .]


The above is an excerpt from page 166 of the below book:

The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11th, 2001 by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, foreword and afterword by John Leonard (Tree of Life Publications; June 2002), ISBN: 0-930852-40-0 (0930852400), 400 pages:



"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006 http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

re Bush was in on it

Help me out here. Bush knew before going into the school that a plane had hit the WTC, but where is it indicated that Bush "knew that the first jet crash into the WTC was an intentional attack"?

Love Barrie Zwicker

One of the most important people in this movment. I think he's underrated, but he even admits his role is not to pretend like he has all the answers. His objectivity and honest tone appeal one's social sentiments which in the world of raging accusations and conspiratorial tone, is truly welcome.

this has been dugg (#2 on

this has been dugg (#2 on political news section). go post some comments;

Show "LOL" by Anonymous (not verified)


Barry Zwicker is actually a Canadian, but U.S. folks are asleep and need to be awoken...what a shame.

You sir, are a terrorist.

You sir, are a terrorist.

cool point

yes because any debate or other skepticism on anything that a given government does (especially one which is controlled in both the house, senate, and executive branch no matter the party) should never be questioned, should always be correct even though a democracy REQUIRES compromise and debate which has not happened since republicans were in control, and should be followed as if we were sheep. I sincerely hope that all other control in the house and senate go to the democrats. although Bush will vetoe many many numerous bills brought forth at least there will be some open dissent of the president like Russ Fiengold from Wisconsin did around 1 year ago when he brought forth a motion to censure the president.

More misrepresentations - open your eyes

It's very interesting how the commentator at 8:15 or so in the video clip mentions that "George Bush is very clear he saw the first plane STRIKE the world trade center" when in fact what the president said (at 5:52 in the clip) was "...I was sittin' outside the classroom waiting to go in and I saw an plane HIT the tower..."

Now why would the commentator change "hit" to "strike?" I wonder if it is because "hit" can be interpreted two ways: 1) "hitting the tower" or 2) "had hit the tower", while "strike" unambiguously means the former vs. the latter - implying George Bush said that he actually saw video of the plane crashing into the tower, vs. that he saw evidence that a plane had crashed into the tower.

Now, what if we were to reexamine all the presenter's "evidence", using the other meaning, #2 from above. His whole argument completely falls apart. That is the nature of conspiracy theories.

That morning, everyone thought the plane that hit the tower must have been a small private craft. The only thing you can find President Bush guilty of is not putting together the evidence that the FAA knew about the hijackings - so therefore he knew (that might not be the case) - and the evidence of the first trade tower crash - and that he should have concluded that the crash was caused by one of the hijacked planes.

Further, the commentator goes on to suggest, based on the weak assumption #1 from above, that if the president saw a video of the first crash happening, he must have watched it on some sort of closed circuit feed - turning this from a simple matter of miscommunication/misinterpretation into a devious matter of a planned attack on our country by our president.

Certainly if the commentator were really seeking the truth about something so serious, it would not hinge on a single interpretation of the ambiguously used word "hit". To continue with this nonsense would be an absolute travesty. I wonder what the commentator's real motivation is, because it is clearly not to seek the truth.

first WTC7, then Bush on 9/11

You have to realize FIRST that 9/11 was full of "hanky panky" that implied everything else but some "flying circus" hijackers attacking us. Like the third WTC building collapsing and the NIST has found no answer why to this day, when a blind guy can see it was blown up - inside job being the logical consequence.
And THEN you look at Bush on 9/11 and wonder if *he* knew about the plot, if he was among the conspirators, or maybe just Cheney running the show? - Once you look at the classroom video in that context, and the statement about the first plane, that he never corrected despite all the questions raised on the web, this suspicious silence about it, then you have to conclude "he KNEW".

Show "Please don't use the world" by Anonymous (not verified)

You're the one that needs more school

Ok Mr. Civil Engineer, please tell us why the portion of the building above the impact/fire zone took the path of MOST resistance after the steel structure failed. Any engineer should easily understand that if the fire and impact damage caused a catostrophic failure of the steel structure around the impact/fire zone, there was still a large portion of the steel structure under the impact zone that was undamaged by the airplanes or the fire. This undamaged portion of the steel structure would resist the collapse of the upper portion of the building, and if the laws of physics were to hold true, the upper portion of the building MAY take out a floor or two on its way down, but more likely it would hit the undamaged portion of the steel structure and fall or bounce off to the side, you know, where it only has to fall through air (ie. the path of LEAST resistance) instead of completely destroying an intact, undamaged steel structure that had held up a massive building for about 25 years. This is even more likely do to the fact that the fires and damage were asymetrical.

Is that thinking critical enough for you?

Where did you get your engineering degree again?

I forgot...

Most of the intelligent engineering students go into electrical and chemical engineering, where the subject matter is a bit more intellectually challenging (not to mention a more rewarding salary upon graduation). Those that want to take 4 years of classes that all cover variations of easily undertandable Newtonian physics go into civil engineering.

Ahh, that brings back

Ahh, that brings back memories of Freshman year. Thanks for the stroll down memory lane.

As a matter of fact I

As a matter of fact I graduated from the #1 civil engineering program in the United States (by most rankings, and I've never seen it lower than top 5 on any others). Not only that, but I graduated literally as the #1 engineering student in the school. Not just civil, but all engineering. I'm sure saying this is actually doing me a disservice, as it undoubtedly sounds like hyperbole, but I swear upon the life of my mother that I am looking at the diploma and award certificates that verify these two facts at this very moment.

The collapse is a classic example of catastrophic failure, where very small scale failures create a domino effect that can destroy and entire structure. How does an entire dam rapidly collapse due to a small fissure? How does a bridge rip itself apart from wind vibrations? How does a three story catwalk completely fall to the ground due to a row of weak bolts? Because a very small failure creates another and another and another.

In the case of the WTC, in fairly layman terms and relying on your metaphor, here's what happened. The floors that were weaked due to fire lost their ability to bear the load above them. Now you've got the 45,000 tons+ of material above it, which had been held in static equilibruim, now becomes dynamic and falls 10 or 20 feet. That is an enormous amount of energy and momentum. What's left of the most intact floor below the fire has to absorb that energy. Not the entire building mind you (which is how it works when nothing is not in motion), but that first dozen feet of steel needs to stop that astronomical amount of energy, which is far beyond its design criteria. So that floor collapses and the whole moving mass now falls another 10-20 feet AND picks up more material. The next floor has an even less chance of stopping it. Once the first intact floor gave, it was inevitable that the entire building would collapse.

What you are suggesting with your metaphor is that the first intact floor has enough strength to deflect that 45,000 ton moving mass 90 degrees. Imagine 45,000 tons of mostly solid matter moving toward a very thick wall. The wall would have to possess enough strength to absorb all of the kinetic energy and momentum directed at it and deflect it sideways. Unless it's a mountain, that 45,000 moving mass is going through your wall. In other words, the "path of least resistance" is actually through the wall rather than 90 degrees to either side.

One may wonder what prevents all of this from happening at any given moment to any building. An intact building is designed such that the mass of the building is carried along the entire structure, distributing the weight carefully along the structural columns all the way to the foundation. When those top floors collapsed, that situation ceased to exist. The top-most intact floor had to suddenly absorb all of the energy from the moving mass above it, which is far, far more than it was ever designed to hold in a static building. The first row of columns buckle, the bolts rip, the welds break, and 10 feet later you have same thing happen all over again.

Perhaps you shouldn't disparage what you don't understand. But then, if you did that you wouldn't be hanging out here then would you?


The building exploded

"which is how it works when nothing is not in motion"??

Does that equal that the building is at rest?

In other words, where did the energy come from to pulverize the entire building and disintegrates the human bodies entirely - into particulate matter?

The building fell faster than free fall.

It's obvious from the photographs the top of the building exploded.

Kerosine does not melt steel.

What you describe is a building made of cards:

The top-most intact floor had to suddenly absorb all of the energy from the moving mass above it, which is far, far more than it was ever designed to hold in a static building.

There all of a sudden more material above?

So which is it? Was the building static or moving?

What triggered it to move with enough force to dematerialize everything in the building and leave a burnt out crater as remains?

Especially at the very top. Why did material spew straight up out of the top of the building. What caused the very top to disintegrate? Nothing was above it to crash down.

Why does the top of the building turn to dust? With material expelled out horozontally and vertically?

The first row of columns buckle, the bolts rip, the welds break, and 10 feet later you have same thing happen all over again.

Is that why none of the floors put up any resistence? That the building fell in less time it would take for it to fall through thin air?

Please scan your engineering degree(s) if you have them. Are they made out under the name "anonymous"?

Think again Mr. #1 Engineer

Don't you think it is just a little odd that YOU are trying to explain the sequence of the towers collapse since the OFFICIAL investigation by NIST only considered models "up to the point initiating collapse" and never took into account the particular kind of collapse that occured? Isn't that pathetic?

How does your collapse theory explain the pulverisation of concrete and the ensuing pyroclastic flow? These are identifiers of controlled demolition.

If you were truly interested and had the courage you would realise that there is a multitude of lies in the official investigation, and that the truth is being covered up.

BS, but well-articulated BS....

....I look forward to your pithy, condescending explanation of WTC7.....

....which is (inadvertently, I'm sure) conspicuous by it's absence in your essay....

And what happened to the 47 central columns again? Exactly?

Keep asking people to disbelieve their "lying" eyes......nevermind 7, the towers didn't "fall", they "exploded", in exeactly the same way, in their footprint, at way too fast a rate.....and it's easy to see that....

There is another energy source, other than gravity, that dissolved those buildings....what it is, remains to be revealed.

Wow, #1 student at the #1

Wow, #1 student at the #1 civil engineering program in the US? We are in the presence of greatness, people.

You say this was a "classic example" of a collapse that creates a "domino effect that can destroy the entire structure". Could you please name some other "classic examples" of such a catostrophic collapse? In fact, has any such thing ever occurred?

Your examples of a dam and a bridge are clearly distinguishable from the twin towers' collapse, and you know it, so there's no reason to go into it in detail. Suffice it to say, the forces involved are all quite different.

To get to the meat of your post, why would only the first intact floor have to absorb all of the energy of the upper section of the building? After all, the entire steel structure is interconnected, and the load distributes throughout the entire structure, even the "dynamic" loads you talk about. Is wind not a "dynamic" force? This structure was well designed to absorb and distribute dynamic forces, so please drop that ridiculous line of argument. In fact, a building that tall fighting the wind is probably NEVER in a static condition.

You say the collapsing mass picks up more material as it falls, yet this is totally contradicted by the video evidence, showing material being ejected OUTWARDS away from the building. If anything, the collapsing section is losing mass as it falls if you look at the videos of the collapse.

With regards to moving the mass "90 degrees", when one of the towers started to collapse, it tilted as much as 23 degrees before starting to fall straight down. Conservation of angular momentum alone should dictate that the upper section should continue to rotate and fall off to the side. This is especially true when it impacted the lower floors at an angle. It should definitely have bounced off to the side. Aside from this fact, it would still take less energy to rotate that mass to the side AGAIN, THROUGH THE AIR, than allow it to fall all the way through the building's lower structure. If you cannot understand this simple fact, I can't imagine you honestly went through a top engineering program.

You act like the lower structure would offer little to zero resistance to the collapse of the upper floors, which is simply a wrong assumption. Whoever ranked your engineering program at #1 really needs to rethink their ranking criteria.

Oh, and one last thing

How does your "catastrophic collapse" theory explain the pools of superhigh temperature molten metal at the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7?

Again, something that is not even looked upon in the NIST report, but for which we have to be satisfied with YOUR explanation.... isn't that really pathetic? Shouldn't the OFFICIAL investigation have looked into this? Is this not something highly relevant?


Civil Engineer

“I have a civil engineering degree and I have done experiments on the effects of temperature on the strength of steel: that much jet fuel and other combustible material within the building was more then enough to weaken (melting is not necessary in the least here) it enough to cause catastrophic failure.”


You need to do some real research. Look at the photos and videos, the fires were almost out just before the buildings collapsed. Where do you get the temperature to weaken steel when all the videos and photos show is dark smoke, a sign the fires were dying.

I don’t have an “Engineering” degree but I know that metals are very good conductors of heat. That means the temperature from the fires were dispersed through the metal beams, reducing the overall temperature to the steel beams. Also, a kerosene fire would not be hot enough to weaken steel in such a short time span. You really have to be serious if you want to weaken steel, I mean you need some oxygen or something to help to bring the temperature up. How can you make a statement like that? It’s so obviously not true! Who are you trying to kid? Do frying pans weaken when you cook your supper? If you cook a steak in a broiler does the oven melt? The color of the fires give an idea of the temperature and what the videos show is dark smoke just before the collapses, which is an obvious sign the temperature wasn’t very high. This is just from someone who’s only taken a physics 101 class in college, but you don’t even need that to tell what happened to those buildings. The videos show everything.

One more thing - the world isn't logical, especially now.

You're just lying

Occasion 2:
President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California
[whitehouse.gov, January 5, 2002]

"I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on..." [whitehouse.gov]


- i bet you are a lawyer, aren't you? this type of word-twisting lies are sounding familiar

Lots of data points here

Certainly if the commentator were really seeking the truth about something so serious, it would not hinge on a single interpretation of the ambiguously used word "hit".

If you looked closer you'll find our analysis does not depend on any single data point.

Show "I can not believe you" by Flippy (not verified)

I cannot believe you

I cannot believe you don't understand how to correctly use an apostrophe.

Show "Fuck off " by Anonymous (not verified)

Especially on the word....


Show "You Hippie Liberals just" by Flippy (not verified)


Your assumption that we are "Liberals" and your reflex to lash out at us for that reason betray your own ignorance.

Great president? What

Great president? What fukking country have you been living in for the last 6 years?


This is the definition of irony: "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result"

The normal or expected result of this person's statement is that we are all retards. However, the improper use of the word retard in its possessive sense makes the person that made the statement a retard. Thus, the incongruity between the actual and expected result.

Typical, "blind faith",

Typical, "blind faith", American response to anything the corporate media machine disagrees with.

John Cochran's report from the Zwicker video...

'ABC News' Special Report:
Tuesday 11 September 2001


JENNINGS: ...Want to check in very quickly with the president of the United States. John Cochran with the president in Florida. John:

JOHN COCHRAN reporting:

Peter, as you know, the president's down in Florida talking about education. He got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later. His first event is about half an hour at an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida.

JENNINGS: Thanks, John. John Cochran with the president...


ABC Transcript:

Video - forward to 7:05 into ABC's Live 9/11 coverage:

More information about Bush on the morning of 9/11 here:


Show "This is moronic..." by J.R. (not verified)

"Bush" did not do it, but "they" did it

the old incometence argument might all be true, but fact is that three (not just 2) monumental buildings in NYC fell like a house of cards on 9/11, with explosions being witnessed by hundreds. Then no word of this appears in any "investiation" report, and we're fed the story that they fell from the fires - as if we were talking a wooden barn burning down, and not the biggest skyscraper NYC has ever seen, with sprinkler systems, with structural experts involved at every stage of construction, that even considered a plane-into-building scenario and made sure the towers would stand.

Even if Bush believed the

Even if Bush believed the first impact was an accident, it makes no sense that he would casually proceed with the little grammar school photo op. He had been briefed in August 2001 on an impending terrorist attack by Al CIAda, uhm, I mean Al Qaeda. It is impossible for me to believe that neither Bush nor anyone else in his entourage put 2 and 2 together until the second impact on the south tower. I just can't buy it. And even if it was purely an accident due to pilot error, it is still an event of enormous import, and if the story is kosher, then Bush would have realized the seriousness of the moment and said "My god, there are thousands of people in the World Trade Center on a weekday morning. I'll have to delay this little photo op until I get all the information about what's going on up there in New York." But we are expected to believe that he assumed it was just a little single engine plane piloted by a bad pilot. Sure. Live images of the huge north tower gash were being broadcast nationwide, but the President and his secret service detail are strangely unaware of the magnitude of what happened. It stinks, and anyone who buys it is in severe denial.pavbax

I'm a conspiracy theorist on

I'm a conspiracy theorist on many things and don't close my mind, but the evidence in this commentary is really, really weak. C'mon people, you are basing it all on how somebody reacts to hearing news to which they don't really know the true gravity and you are basing it on what they remember about it days later. A few questions:

1) Can you accurately describe to me the actions you went through yesterday as you were getting ready to go somewhere? Please remember the exact details with the exact sequence. Now, what if you are asked to remember this again the next day while trying to speak to a large crowd and since the event happened you were flown across the country and barraged with information from every possible source while trying to make sense of it all.

2) Exactly how did people want the President of the United States to react when he'd heard the news? Jump up and down screaming. The guy is (very obviously) a normal human being, but also a human being who has been trained to maintain composure. The guy looks a little bewildered and maybe a little scared. He also gets a really glazed over expression. He's probably got a million scenarios running through his mind trying to discern what might have happened and he's a little flipped out that he is going to have to deal with the situation. Meanwhile, he's staring out at a bunch of little kids and has cameras pointed at him.

Bush has issues no doubt, but c'mon do you honestly expect that the guy has some sort of superhuman memory that perfectly records and recalls memories?

the question is how the

the question is how the secret service DIDNT react, and this is just one small clip from one small movie that is actually 2+ years old.

do some research into the wargames on 9/11 and see if that sparks your interest.

Your points do not hold up

Your points do not hold up to any ration thought process.

1) It doesn't matter what I did in reaction to 9/11.

2) The president was told "America is under attack". He had no idea what type of attack. He had no idea that anything besides the "plane" accident had occured. He wasn't told "Gee a second plane hit the second WTC tower". No he knew two things. 1) there was a plane that hit the towers, that by his own admission he thought was "a horrible accident" and 2) America was under attack. How did GWB know that what Andy Card was talking about wasn't some other event? Like perhaps a freaking nuclear missles from North Korea, or nuclear exposion in Washington, or a major biochemical attack?

No, I'm sorry. If your the president and you've been informed that America is under attack you move your butt (or the Secret Services does it for you!!).

So the fact remains that he did nothing, which endangered not only himself and the kids, but the entire country.

Unless of course he KNEW that he didn't need to do anything.......

location, location, location!

It was no accident that bush was in Florida [returning to the scene of his 1st crime] where jeb could control the ebb and flow of events around him. Find out who was in charge of the State Police detail that morning, and how they got assigned.

Show "Liberals are just" by Anonymous (not verified)

thats funny, because roughly

thats funny, because roughly half the people on this website are conservative. dumbass.

Show "Just Keep Talking" by IncPen (not verified)

There are more people on the Right....

....that have awoken to 9/11 Truth than people on the Left.....I'm sorry to say....

....the left is still stuck on "Bush lies about everything else, but tells the truth about 9/11..."

They are incapable of thinking anyone (and, IMO, Bush was just the front man for 9/11) could be that evil or craven in their motives....

9/11 Truth is filled with people who consider themselves true conservatives who see the gap between those ideals and what Bush practices (huge government spending, huge deficits, entitlement expansion, initiating optional & elective wars of aggression and imperialism).

Of course, there are notable liberals in the movement who are contributing mightily to making this a government of the people again, but they are in the minority at the moment.

i gotta disagree. maybe more

i gotta disagree. maybe more of the so called leaders of the 9/11 movement are conservative, but to say that more conservatives have woken up to 9/11 truth than liberals is probably wrong in my opinion. republicans have all the power right now, and sadly, most people have a stronger tie to their respective parties than they do to their country and the truth. based on this fact alone, i would guess it would be tougher for conservative voters to swallow 9/11 being an inside job than it would liberals. and i know im gonna get a lot of shit for this comment, but i find that liberals tend to be a lot more open minded than conservatives. conservatives tend to be more rigid and less likely to follow the info wherever it takes them, at least in my experience.

The many conservative Truthers...

....are really beneficial to the movement, because they can't be dismissed as "Bush-hating" liberals....and they are trying to label us that to marginalize us to the unaware, even tagging people like Alex Jones with that who espouses many conservative principles (although he shouldn't be pidgeonholed as a conservative either, he prefers "Constitutionalist", as many of you know).

In my experience, many liberals (who tend to be open-minded on many issues, I agree) are closeminded on the 9/11 issue, they just can't comprehend that level of venality.

I also agree with you that a vast many Americans "pick their team" and then stop thinking about it...but, I also see a lot of conservatives that have experienced a great deal of cognitive dissonance over their beliefs and Bush's policies. And, when they encounter 9/11 Truth and it "explains" everything that the Neo-Cons have imposed on our country (and the world) since, they "get it".....

A few articles about this...

Why Didn't The Secret Service Protect The President On 9/11?

Why Didn't The President Receive "Air Cover" On 9/11?

Here is something I recommend EVERYONE read. Written by Paul Thompson, and Allan Wood...

An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

The Great Conspiracy - Barrie Zwicker

No doubt Bush is an idiot as our most of his "comrades" but to suggest that the consipracy includes knowing the targets and had camera's set up to video the planes hitting the building is ludicrous. As interesting as certain parts of this story was, as soon as it was suggested the highest powers not only knew exactly what was going to happen but also videotaped it, Barrie lost ALL CREDIBILITY. There may very well be many coverups involved in this but to say something so utterly stupid and totally subjective is National Enquirer stuff and not something one takes seriously.

Snuff Films

But it happened with the JFK assassination....

Check out "The Great Zapruder Hoax" edited by James Fetzer.

It's taken 40 years to figure it out but it looks like the perps like to film their own acts. H.L. Hunt paid for his own copy o the Z film.

George Washington

I heard a stoy about George Washington in the 1770's. An aid went up to him and told him that Britain was forming an armada to attack the revolutionary forces. Washington jumped out of his chair and yelled for all his key people and immediately started working on the problem.


They made a wasteland and called it peace. ~ Tacitus

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~ Stephen Roberts

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I saw a human skull the other day. There was an inscription below it: ‘Look long and hard at me, for I was once as you are and you will soon be as I am.’ ~ Unknown

I recently found a very

I recently found a very interesting website:
There you can purchase ad space for your Blog etc.

Complete Hogwash!

Bush is an ass agreed but he is neither crazy nor stupid enough to think that he could pull a gig as big as 9/11 and walk away with it!

Rest is cheap hair-splitting and oppositions' lousy propaganda. Actually, blaming bush for 9/11 is like virtually giving a clean chit to Islamic maniacs who must be laughing in their sleeves.

Wake up! Don't let jokers like Barrie Zwicker make an ass of you. By the way what was there in this video? Nothing. Only cock and bull stories told by a paid agent!