All you folks claiming there was a free fall collapse. There was no free fall collapse.
All available science show it was 2/3 of a free fall collapse.
Exactly, what you would expect from a pancake collapse. The WTC did not contain
that much concrete. So it was natural for not much to be left in that type of collapse.

I have been over at the James Randi forum and seen the light!

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds are constructing a site about the anomalies of the intact WTC "bathtub" or slurry walls. They suggest that some unknown weapon was used to pulverize the 2 towers so that their full weight did not fall on the slurry walls and damge them. The pulverization of the towers and the strange heat damage to cars are very mysterious, and I think nuclear devices (even pure fusion ones) can be ruled out because of the lack of affects of intense neutron radiation, and the modest 2.1 seismic shock. See http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

Important NEWS!

I know DZ will not DARE to copy this to the front page. u2r2h not be credited with pointing this hugely important new finding out to everyone... Could it be that 'truthers' are tired of new revelations? That would be a pity!

Ask yourself:

What steel was shipped to China?

Hugely interesting read!!

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html

I want to exclaim victory for myself against Paul the Architect. Paul was bragging he was an Architect and could prove the pancake theory held up under scrunity. After 2 exchanges. Paul has cut and run. Another one bites the dust.

I have to hand it to Paul. It is the most serious debate that I have ever, ever, been able to get an official story supporter to go in their argument. Most of the time they stoop to name calling and saying you are a "nut job" and that's their defense.

Paul attempted to use logic to win his point. Obviously, the argument is to weak to stand up to even a mild debate.

If anyone is interested. Here is the debate.
http://911blogger.com/node/3655

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy, tampering with evidence is a felony, you of all people should know this.

By Stallion4
October 8, 2006

Thunderous "booms" can be heard coming from the North Tower seconds before it falls down in this recently discovered 9/11 interview with BBC correspondent Stephen Evans:

YouTube Video Link
Video Download

(I recommend wearing headphones while watching and listening to this video clip. If you do not have headphones, try turning up the volume on your computer speakers to pick up the sound of explosions and the reactions from bystanders)

While the "booms" are occurring, bystanders begin pointing and looking in the direction of the North Tower. One bystander can be heard saying "Oh my God!". A few seconds after that another explosion can be heard, and the person being interviewed, Stephen Evans, covers his ears in a fright and turns around to see the North Tower begin to fall. (Continued...)

Media Watch is, as the name suggests, a media watchdog program on our Australia wide public (non commercial) television broadcaster. I received a reply within moments. Automated response of course. Hopefully that is not the only response. Hopefully my essay will help other readers who might still have difficulties believing that 911 is not satisfactorily or even competently explained by the officially sanctioned reports to find out for themselves.

Dear Media Watch,

If part of the purpose of your program is to criticise and bring to the viewer's attention serious shortcomings in media behaviour, then I believe it is imperative you mention, though I believe it deserves a whole program or more, the almost complete lack of coverage of what may prove to be the most crucial issues in modern political history.

I am deeply concerned by what appears to be deliberate censorship of what may prove to be the most critical news out of the United States of America ever. There are growing, in numbers and in sophistication, individuals and groups around the world, but importantly in the US, who are extremely critical of the officially sanctioned reports, and who are putting forward alternative theories to the official reports for several of the events of September 11, 2001, and for events leading up to that day, and since.

A person who goes by the name of "einsteen" over on Loose Change's message boards has translated and posted a much more detailed and extended version of a recent interview conducted with Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko, in which he confirms that Building 7 was indeed brought down via controlled demolition.

Excerpts from this unedited raw footage first appeared on a Dutch television news program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories (2006).

PART 1 of 3

PART 2 of 3

At recent community events that our group has passing out information. We have had a number of people using the Popular Mechanics article has support for their view. Being the outstanding backer of real science you know. I found this old article. Some of you might not have seen. I had not.

THE HIDDEN HAND OF THE CIA - 9/11 and Popular Mechanics

Posted By: ChristopherBollyn <Send E-Mail>

Date: Thursday, 17 March 2005, 8:29
p.m.

THE HIDDEN HAND OF THE C.I.A.

AND THE 9/11 PROPAGANDA

OF POPULAR MECHANICS

A brutal purge of the senior staff at Popular Mechanics preceded the publication of last month's scandalous propaganda piece about 9/11. Pulling the strings is the grand dame of Hearst Magazines and behind the scene is her obscure husband a veteran propaganda expert and former special assistant to the director of the C.I.A.

In case you missed it, Gangster blogged this story a few days ago and I'm blogging about it again today, because I don't think it's garnered the attention it deserves. We now have structural experts on public record saying that "WTC-7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts."

Here's the link to Gangster's original blog for more information about this story:

http://911blogger.com/node/2925

(Attention 911blogger staff:

Originally when I created this blog, I requested that the story be posted on the front page. And a short time later I saw that it had been. SO I then removed my request (since it had been added to the front page), but for some reason after editing my blog, it caused the story to disappear from the front page. SO I'm guessing that if someone edits their blog after it's been posted on the front page, it will automatically return back to "Blog" status and not news?

Anyway, thanks for trying. If y'all try again, please remove my comments about this, because they don't relate to the story)

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

Sept. 12, 2006 -- According to sources who worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at Ground Zero on and after 911, residents of southern Manhattan and rescue and clean-up workers involved in the recovery operations at the site of the former World Trade Center are experiencing an unusually high rate of non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- a cancer that is common among individuals who have been exposed to extremely high levels of ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear blasts and major nuclear reactor leaks. In addition to the respiratory problems among rescue workers at Ground Zero who breathed toxic "pulverized" concrete and other debris into their lungs, the radiation cancer is of extreme interest to researchers who suspect that the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 were brought down with the help of high energy releases. WMR spoke to a number of individuals who were at Ground Zero on 911 who are now experiencing symptoms resulting from severe damage to their immune systems -- a condition that is common among those exposed to high levels of radiation.

Sources close to FEMA in New York confirmed to WMR that the lymphoma cases are believed to be the result of a release of extremely high levels of radiation from a series of nuclear events on the morning of 911. They believe that explains the reason for the "pulverization" of concrete, molten metals, pyroclastic surges and fallout, and other anomalies resulting from the catastrophe. It was also pointed out that some vehicles parked on the west side of the World Trade Center were "fused" on the sides facing the towers -- the doors being melted into the body frames. Other cars parked nearby were not similarly affected. There is also evidence of explosions and fires on top of the Woolworth Building, three blocks away from the World Trade Center, during the attack on the towers.

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

For video, click below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

The vido clip above is an excerpt from a Dutch television program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories. It can be watched in its entirety at this link:
http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060911.asf

Here's some background information about Danny Jowenko's statments in Zembla investigates 9/11 theories:

Posted by dz on 911Blogger.com (9/12/06) under "Grab Bag of News Submissions":
One of the more interesting moments in this documentary (about 46:25 minutes into it) is when they ask demolition expert Danny Jowenko (who has his own demolition firm and reportedly has been active in this business for 27 years) to comment on videos of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.His response to the WTC 7 video: "This is controlled demolition".

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ
A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
by Jim Hoffman

Introduction

On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them. NIST should be commended for at least addressing a number of the serious questions that have been raised with regard to its investigation. However, NIST's new FAQ avoids answering the central charges of its most visible critique, Building a Better Mirage.

* That NIST fails to support it's key assertion that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse".

* That NIST uses the diversionary tactic of describing some events -- such as the airliner crashes -- in great detail, while almost completely avoiding the core question of what brought the Towers down.

* That NIST's report is internally inconsistent, supposing that steel columns were heated to temperatures hundreds of degrees in excess of the maximum temperatures indicated by its steel samples.

* That NIST fails to substantiate it's implied claim that its computer models predicted "collapse initiation".

* That NIST fails to even address most of the features of the Towers' destruction that are apparently unique to controlled demolitions.

[SNIP]

Continued at link.